Why has India never had a Muslim Prime Minister or Army Chief?

[ManFan]

Quite a silly question, why does it matter?

We all know Pakistan would sooner implode than have a Hindu, Sikh, Ahmadi or atheist PM or Army Chief.
We need to address the problems in our own country before attempting to demonise others.

Agreed. People making a mountain out of a molehill. Pakistan is majority Muslim and India is majority Hindu. You cannot expect a minority leader to govern the majority.

 

[Zero]

Agreed. People making a mountain out of a molehill. Pakistan is majority Muslim and India is majority Hindu. You cannot expect a minority leader to govern the majority.

Thank you, glad we can look past our differences in the other thread!

 

[ManFan]

Thank you, glad we can look past our differences in the other thread!

We are all human at the end Lines drawn on a map shoudnt create borders between people's minds and hearts.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Agreed. People making a mountain out of a molehill. Pakistan is majority Muslim and India is majority Hindu. You cannot expect a minority leader to govern the majority.

India had a Sikh PM so it's not that ludicrous. Unless you consider Sikhs are not really a different religion to Hindus which is a theory shared by some.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

These are some Muslim men who have a overwhelming influence over their community. It really was embarrassing to see their hostile views on TV for the women.

On the topic itself, if you want inclusiveness, it starts within. We need more Muslim women in politics/public life. That's the first step to solve the OP's question as currently, they are just negligible numbers. Will Muslim men support them, from Triple Talaq episode doesn't seems possible.

So would you say that these Muslim men are representative of Indian Muslims? Surely they must be if that is the reason why Indian Muslim women have been held back, and the lack of suitable candidates who could be PM material.

What a shame considering both Pakistan and Bangadesh have had women leaders at the highest level. Seems like partition meant that indeed the feeblest and most backward Muslims were left behind in India.

 

[Thomaskutty]

What a shame considering both Pakistan and Bangadesh have had women leaders at the highest level. Seems like partition meant that indeed the feeblest and most backward Muslims were left behind in India.

They are dynasts , who got to the highest level because of their daddy. You won't see someone rising up on their own merit , like say Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They are dynasts , who got to the highest level because of their daddy. You won't see someone rising up on their own merit , like say Margaret Thatcher.

Even dynasts wouldn't be elected in a more traditional Muslim country, hence you are unlikely to see a woman PM in Afghanistan any time soon. Considering the charge against Indian Muslims laid by posters here is that they are very backwards and controlling of the women, then by those standards we have little option to compare them unfavourably.

 

[Zero]

From what I've read, Ms Bhutto was the leader that Pakistan needed, but was met by many obstacles (the biggest being her gender).
She was a secularist who wanted to separate the religion and state (which is what Mr Jinnah believed in), but that was an impossible task. A brave, brave woman and an inspiration.

For the record, I am a British-born Pakistani so I'm not well versed in Pakistani politics.

 

[someone21]

So would you say that these Muslim men are representative of Indian Muslims? Surely they must be if that is the reason why Indian Muslim women have been held back, and the lack of suitable candidates who could be PM material.

Correct and that's the big problem. The Muslim men have a tight control & grip in selection of their leaders, Muslim women there don't have much voice. And you can't be a PM material with that mindset.

 

[someone21]

Even dynasts wouldn't be elected in a more traditional Muslim country, hence you are unlikely to see a woman PM in Afghanistan any time soon. Considering the charge against Indian Muslims laid by posters here is that they are very backwards and controlling of the women, then by those standards we have little option to compare them unfavourably.

Wrong. It's still overall a Muslim problem as much as like you won't admit. Take Middle East, Iran or even your country as well. There is very limited political participation of the women.

 

[Varun]

India had a Sikh PM so it's not that ludicrous. Unless you consider Sikhs are not really a different religion to Hindus which is a theory shared by some.

Rather, the religion doesn't even enter into the debate outside of Islam. You won't see many fretting 15 years ago about no Sikh being the PM of India. Or a Christian/Jain/Buddhist, etc. Hardly the end of the world if there is one or isn't one.

 

[English August]

Rather, the religion doesn't even enter into the debate outside of Islam. You won't see many fretting 15 years ago about no Sikh being the PM of India. Or a Christian/Jain/Buddhist, etc. Hardly the end of the world if there is one or isn't one.

Well, this thread has now entered 5th page. And many Indians have tried to explain to the Pakistanis the nuances of Indian electoral politics. In their own words, many have pointed out that someone's religion is one of the less important elements one's electability as a Prime Minister. But I get a sense that the point is simply isn't getting across. Without knowing anything about Indian politics, Pakistanis have already decided what they want to believe.

If that's the case, why even bother starting a thread?

 

[Varun]

Well, this thread has now entered 5th page. And many Indians have tried to explain to the Pakistanis the nuances of Indian electoral politics. In their own words, many have pointed out that someone's religion is one of the less important elements one's electability as a Prime Minister. But I get a sense that the point is simply isn't getting across. Without knowing anything about Indian politics, Pakistanis have already decided what they want to believe.

If that's the case, why even bother starting a thread?

Victim mentality. Yet another arena for the usual suspects to cry and whine.

I always compare people to myself: and I'm not whingeing about premiere of state X not being a Hindu am I? Who frikkin' cares?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Victim mentality. Yet another arena for the usual suspects to cry and whine.

I always compare people to myself: and I'm not whingeing about premiere of state X not being a Hindu am I? Who frikkin' cares?

Victim mentality? How is a Pakistani muslim victimized if an indian muslim is not a PM? If anything the indian hindus in this thread are showing oppressor mentality and pakistani muslims are showing thank you Q-e-A mentality.

 

[Varun]

Victim mentality? How is a Pakistani muslim victimized if an indian muslim is not a PM?

Dumb question to ask when this thread is 5-pages long and still going strong.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Dumb question to ask when this thread is 5-pages long and still going strong.

Can't believe you will make such a dumb statement, as you often make good arguments. Many threads become multi page hit, the reason being pakistanis display victim mentality?

 

[Moh@n]

Victim mentality? How is a Pakistani muslim victimized if an indian muslim is not a PM? If anything the indian hindus in this thread are showing oppressor mentality and pakistani muslims are showing thank you Q-e-A mentality.

The same way when they point out apparent atrocities happening to Kashmiri Muslims or what happened to Muslims in Godhra in 2002 or when they bring up Rohingyas. How many times have people like Osama been discussed on this forum in comparison? Or Hindu victims of Muslim terrorism?

And thank you QeA mentality? If that's the case then they need to read some history. Jinnah was willing to give up on the idea of Pakistan if offered to become the PM at that time.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Wrong. It's still overall a Muslim problem as much as like you won't admit. Take Middle East, Iran or even your country as well. There is very limited political participation of the women.

So are you saying that India's problems are not their own, but instead other countries are to be held responsible? While I'm sure India has a remarkable record when it comes to uplifting women who aren't Muslims, it still seems remarkable that foreign influence is holding back those poor Muslim women like our own member @kayaal.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Victim mentality. Yet another arena for the usual suspects to cry and whine.

I always compare people to myself: and I'm not whingeing about premiere of state X not being a Hindu am I? Who frikkin' cares?

I would say victim mentality is to blame other countries for your own lack of progress and for holding back your citizens. Whining and crying about Iran and Saudi Arabia for the failure of your Muslim population for failing to produce figures worth considering for leadership material.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well, this thread has now entered 5th page. And many Indians have tried to explain to the Pakistanis the nuances of Indian electoral politics. In their own words, many have pointed out that someone's religion is one of the less important elements one's electability as a Prime Minister. But I get a sense that the point is simply isn't getting across. Without knowing anything about Indian politics, Pakistanis have already decided what they want to believe.

If that's the case, why even bother starting a thread?

It's going strong because esteemed Indian member someone21 doesn't agree with you and thus the debate continues to establish causes and solutions.

 

[Mian]

No chance of it happening at least in our life time. Sikhs with a population of 21m had their indian PM and Army Chief but Muslims with a population of 180m will never have one!

 

[Itachi]

No chance of it happening at least in our life time. Sikhs with a population of 21m had their indian PM and Army Chief but Muslims with a population of 180m will never have one!

Ok. Tell one Muslim leader in indian politics who is a suitable candidate for pm in current scenario.

 

[Bigbb]

Ok. Tell one Muslim leader in indian politics who is a suitable candidate for pm in current scenario.

Asaduddin Owaisi.

 

[Madplayer]

Ok. Tell one Muslim leader in indian politics who is a suitable candidate for pm in current scenario.

Gh Nabi Azad.

 

[troodon]

Gh Nabi Azad.

I mentioned his name in the 1st page of this thread. He is a capable and shrewd politician. But he needs to stop being a bootlicker of Gandhi Parivar if he has any aspirations of becoming a PM. Congress is a dead horse. Azad needs to join some other party.

 

[Abdullah719]

No chance of it happening at least in our life time. Sikhs with a population of 21m had their indian PM and Army Chief but Muslims with a population of 180m will never have one!

Welcome back [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION]

 

[jagatk]

Gh Nabi Azad.

You really seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of electability. A congress man not named Gandhi will never become a PM unless you luck into it like MMS did and that is not happening again unless Pappu marries a foreigner and then dies leaving PM post vacant. And that is without considering the fact that no one outside his state knows Azad, he is a local politician with no country wide reach.

 

[ILcricket]

what a dumb thread .

 

[Mueez]

Asaduddin Owaisi.

) this Afridi smiley is such a killer at some moments.

 

[Itachi]

Gh Nabi Azad.

Doesn't have nation wide influence.

 

[razazaidi]

Pakistanis should really focus inwards, and allow Ahmadis some breathing room before commenting on India

 

[Mian]

Welcome back [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION]

Thank you Abdullah bhai kese hen?

 

[Abdullah719]

Thank you Abdullah bhai kese hen?

Alhamdulillah aap bataein.

 

[Zhasan]

Muslims in Inda are third class citizens, heck as things stands they're barely Indian citizens. There will never be a muslim PM or Millitary Chief.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Muslims in Inda are third class citizens, heck as things stands they're barely Indian citizens. There will never be a muslim PM or Millitary Chief.

I know thats how some people cope.

 

[Zhasan]

In comparison half of Pakistan's PM's/Presidents/Heads of the gov't have been members of the minority shia community. We've also had a shia Chief of Army Staff as well head of the Air Force.

 

[Swashbuckler]

In comparison half of Pakistan's PM's/Presidents/Heads of the gov't have been members of the minority shia community. We've also had a shia Chief of Army Staff as well head of the Air Force.

Shias are still Muslims. Have there been Hindu, Sikh, Christian heads of governments or high ranking ministers? Do they enjoy space in bureaucracy, big business houses, film industries, positions of eminence? Can Pakistan have a minority as President? Any famous Pakistani Christian who rules the brand endorsement charts?

 

[Pakistanian]

Shias are still Muslims. Have there been Hindu, Sikh, Christian heads of governments or high ranking ministers? Do they enjoy space in bureaucracy, big business houses, film industries, positions of eminence? Can Pakistan have a minority as President? Any famous Pakistani Christian who rules the brand endorsement charts?

Pakistan is officially an Islamic country and has never claimed to be a utopia of pluralism. India OTOH is officially a secular state.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Pakistan is officially an Islamic country and has never claimed to be a utopia of pluralism. India OTOH is officially a secular state.

If India one day becomes a Hindu nation (constitutionally) then no one can ask any questions about her minorities? Change the constitution and problem solved, if that is the thinking I don't agree.

 

[Swashbuckler]

No chance of it happening at least in our life time. Sikhs with a population of 21m had their indian PM and Army Chief but Muslims with a population of 180m will never have one!

1. Rightly or wrongly many Hindus see Sikhs as a part of Hinduism. Since the religion originated in Indian subcontinent they don't see it as an outside religion. Many Hindus and Sikhs go to each other's places of worship, intermarry, jointly celebrate festivals. This is what many believe, so a Sikh PM is more acceptable in this democracy. Sikhs are also more trusted by the Hindus. Muslims can't enjoy the same privilege because of historical reasons, latest being 1947 partition.

2. Manmohan wasn't a politician, he was an economist and RBI governor. Congress brought from outside and made him finance minster during our economic (BOP) crisis in 1992, then he became a puppet PM. He never had an independent voice and was the mask, real rulers were Sonia Gandhi and Rahul. Such a situation is possible for Muslims, example Abdul Kalam a scientist was made President by BJP even when he had no link to politics. In the future an outstanding achiever like Manmohan, Kalam can be brought from outside and made puppet PM.

Our democracy is flawed, it is tough to be mass leader for Muslims when 85% are non-Muslims. There have been some Muslim chief ministers but PM is tough. We always had the Nehru dynasty and their sycophants in that job, recent times BJP has put candidates like Vajpayi and Modi.

 

[Swashbuckler]

It is a worldwide problem, more so in South Asia. Forget PM, how many provincial heads have been minorities? As in Tamils in Sri Lanka, minorities in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh, Muslims in India, Hindus in Bhutan, non-Buddhists in Myanmar etc. We have a handful of Muslim CMs in India, many Christians. Yesterday a Christian Jagan Reddy became CM of Andhra which is 90% Hindu. But even inside India a Hindu can't be CM of Kashmir or the Christian states in North East. Minorities become Governors, Presidents in India easily but those are ceremonial heads. We are by no means a perfect democracy.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Pakistan is officially an Islamic country and has never claimed to be a utopia of pluralism. India OTOH is officially a secular state.

India is a secular democracy. So people choose whoever they want. Laws are impartial and gives everyone the chance to fight elections.

Its funny how people from islamic republic point fingers at secular countries. Lol.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. Rightly or wrongly many Hindus see Sikhs as a part of Hinduism. Since the religion originated in Indian subcontinent they don't see it as an outside religion. Many Hindus and Sikhs go to each other's places of worship, intermarry, jointly celebrate festivals. This is what many believe, so a Sikh PM is more acceptable in this democracy. Sikhs are also more trusted by the Hindus. Muslims can't enjoy the same privilege because of historical reasons, latest being 1947 partition.

2. Manmohan wasn't a politician, he was an economist and RBI governor. Congress brought from outside and made him finance minster during our economic (BOP) crisis in 1992, then he became a puppet PM. He never had an independent voice and was the mask, real rulers were Sonia Gandhi and Rahul. Such a situation is possible for Muslims, example Abdul Kalam a scientist was made President by BJP even when he had no link to politics. In the future an outstanding achiever like Manmohan, Kalam can be brought from outside and made puppet PM.

Our democracy is flawed, it is tough to be mass leader for Muslims when 85% are non-Muslims. There have been some Muslim chief ministers but PM is tough. We always had the Nehru dynasty and their sycophants in that job, recent times BJP has put candidates like Vajpayi and Modi.

Problem is that almost every muslim leader wants to lead only his community and not beyond it. I havent seen anyone even trying.

 

[Pakistanian]

India is a secular democracy. So people choose whoever they want. Laws are impartial and gives everyone the chance to fight elections.

Its funny how people from islamic republic point fingers at secular countries. Lol.

Secular countries don't ban beef just cause one religious group decides. India isn't a secular country by any measure, it's only secular on papers but in reality its laws are that of a Hindu-theocracy.

 

[Pakistanian]

Problem is that almost every muslim leader wants to lead only his community and not beyond it. I havent seen anyone even trying.

The question is, why don't they want to lead India? Is it because they feel alienated by India? That probably is the answer.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Secular countries don't ban beef just cause one religious group decides. India isn't a secular country by any measure, it's only secular on papers but in reality its laws are that of a Hindu-theocracy.

Beef is not banned. You can eat beef. Only killing cows is banned. Lots of countries have laws protecting animals.

As i said its funny that you pass judgement on Indian secularism while Pakistan is a islamic republic.

 

[Pakpak]

I mean I am for bashing India and their pettiness. But we can't really point fingers at them when in our country a minority can't become a PM by law.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Let muslims in india first become citizens like us before dreaming of becoming the prime minister.

 

[Itachi]

The question is, why don't they want to lead India? Is it because they feel alienated by India? That probably is the answer.

.... Or they have doubt about their own ability to lead a country.

 

[FreakCricket]

we are what we say unlike sickular countaries you can eat beef but cant slaughter cow lol

 

[Mian]

The question is, why don't they want to lead India? Is it because they feel alienated by India? That probably is the answer.

This

And we are told muslims in india are getting same opportunities what a joke. They will give excuses look we had a muslim CJ i mean come on Pakistan an islamic republic (never claimed to be secular) with a population of only 1.6% hindus had a hindu CJ fgs

 

[Technics 1210]

Well, to be fair, India did have Muslim rulers.

 

[Technics 1210]

I mean I am for bashing India and their pettiness. But we can't really point fingers at them when in our country a minority can't become a PM by law.

The difference is India is secular by constitution whereas Pakistan is an Islamic Republic.

The reality is of course India is far from being secular.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Unlike Pakistan their constitution allows an individual from any faith to be the head of their state.

 

[Pakpak]

The difference is India is secular by constitution whereas Pakistan is an Islamic Republic.

The reality is of course India is far from being secular.

India are not secular at all, that much is obvious. You don't need to tell me that, you're a newbie so perhaps you don't know my posting history when it comes to arguing with Indians. However even if they were the most barbaric nation on earth it still is a disgrace that a patriotic Pakistani can't lead our country just because he isn't a Muslim.

 

[Technics 1210]

India are not secular at all, that much is obvious. You don't need to tell me that, you're a newbie so perhaps you don't know my posting history when it comes to arguing with Indians. However even if they were the most barbaric nation on earth it still is a disgrace that a patriotic Pakistani can't lead our country just because he isn't a Muslim.

Yes, I am a newbie.

 

[Pakpak]

Yes, I am a newbie.

Or probably as Cpt Rishwat would say, welcome 'new' member.

 

[Pakistanian]

Unlike Pakistan their constitution allows an individual from any faith to be the head of their state.

So it isn't hypocritical for Pakistan not to have a non-muslim head of state however like you said India constitutionally allows minorities to be heads of states yet there has never been a Muslim PM in India's history.

 

[Technics 1210]

So it isn't hypocritical for Pakistan not to have a non-muslim head of state however like you said India constitutionally allows minorities to be heads of states yet there has never been a Muslim PM in India's history.

There will never be peace in a country were Hindus worship the Cow, and Muslims sacrifice the cow. Islam and Hinduism are the complete opposite of the spectrum - Monotheism vs Polytheism. You get the idea.

The reality is both Pakistan and India were fundamentally created on the bedrock on religion. Religion comes first in these countries. A Non-Muslim doesn't stand a chance to be PM in Pakistan likewise a Muslim PM doesn't stand a chance in India - for the sheer fact that the people would not vote them into power. Heck, in both Pakistan and India there's more chance of a woman becoming PM rather than have a PM who opposing the major religion by sheer belief in an another religion.

In Pakistan, the PM's responsibility is not just to protect Pakistan, but Islam too, to a degree - I don't see any sense in an Atheist, Hindu, Christian, or a Jew protecting an Islam republic. The constitution of Pakistan is spot on and with reason. Likewise asking a Muslim PM to protect Hinduism goes against his belief!

The key difference is Pakistan doesn't pretend to be secular, where as India does.

Put simply, India will never have a Muslim PM because it would be like asking McDonalds to look after your cows.

 

[Pakpak]

There will never be peace in a country were Hindus worship the Cow, and Muslims sacrifice the cow. Islam and Hinduism are the complete opposite of the spectrum - Monotheism vs Polytheism. You get the idea.

The reality is both Pakistan and India were fundamentally created on the bedrock on religion. Religion comes first in these countries. A Non-Muslim doesn't stand a chance to be PM in Pakistan likewise a Muslim PM doesn't stand a chance in India - for the sheer fact that the people would not vote them into power. Heck, in both Pakistan and India there's more chance of a woman becoming PM rather than have a PM who opposing the major religion by sheer belief in an another religion.

In Pakistan, the PM's responsibility is not just to protect Pakistan, but Islam too, to a degree - I don't see any sense in an Atheist, Hindu, Christian, or a Jew protecting an Islam republic. The constitution of Pakistan is spot on and with reason. Likewise asking a Muslim PM to protect Hinduism goes against his belief!

The key difference is Pakistan doesn't pretend to be secular, where as India does.

Put simply, India will never have a Muslim PM because it would be like asking McDonalds to look after your cows.

I agree. What a fantastic job Muslim PMs in Pakistan have done protecting Islam and serving our nation since 1965 is for all to see.

...


People who aren't religious like me have helped hundreds if not thousands in Pakistan, much more than little keyboard bigots like you. People like you have ruined our nation, side-lining our minorities and choosing religion over actual talent and merit. Hence our nation has been down the toilet, and looks like India are joining us as well. Welfare of a people, rich or poor, Muslim or non-Muslim is what matters most.

The only hope is Imran Khan, an honest person who 30 years would never have been voted by the likes you.

Another one on my ignore list, a Pakistani having the distinct honor joining said list with a host of Indian trolls.

 

[Technics 1210]

Another one on my ignore list, a Pakistani having the distinct honor joining said list with a host of Indian trolls.

I'm touched. Ignored by a snowflake! )

 

[CCAD]

So it isn't hypocritical for Pakistan not to have a non-muslim head of state however like you said India constitutionally allows minorities to be heads of states yet there has never been a Muslim PM in India's history.

It’s a concept hard for Pakistanis to understand but you have to win the elections too.
We don’t have army controlling and chosing who should become the next PM of the country Imran bhai.

 

[Itachi]

There will never be peace in a country were Hindus worship the Cow, and Muslims sacrifice the cow. Islam and Hinduism are the complete opposite of the spectrum - Monotheism vs Polytheism. You get the idea.

The reality is both Pakistan and India were fundamentally created on the bedrock on religion. Religion comes first in these countries. A Non-Muslim doesn't stand a chance to be PM in Pakistan likewise a Muslim PM doesn't stand a chance in India - for the sheer fact that the people would not vote them into power. Heck, in both Pakistan and India there's more chance of a woman becoming PM rather than have a PM who opposing the major religion by sheer belief in an another religion.

In Pakistan, the PM's responsibility is not just to protect Pakistan, but Islam too, to a degree - I don't see any sense in an Atheist, Hindu, Christian, or a Jew protecting an Islam republic. The constitution of Pakistan is spot on and with reason. Likewise asking a Muslim PM to protect Hinduism goes against his belief!

The key difference is Pakistan doesn't pretend to be secular, where as India does.

Put simply, India will never have a Muslim PM because it would be like asking McDonalds to look after your cows.

The key difference is, there's no institutional restrictions in India. That's why India is secular.

Everyone has the right for equal opportunity. Can you show me any discrimination in Indian political system which prevents a Muslim from becoming a pm?

 

[Technics 1210]

The key difference is, there's no institutional restrictions in India. That's why India is secular.

Everyone has the right for equal opportunity. Can you show me any discrimination in Indian political system which prevents a Muslim from becoming a pm?

I don't think you have understood my post. Anyway, if you want to see discrimination against Muslims in the Indian political system, then look no further than the 80% of Hindu voters.

 

[Itachi]

I don't think you have understood my post. Anyway, if you want to see discrimination against Muslims in the Indian political system, then look no further than the 80% of Hindu voters.

You didn't get my point. What I am asking is, is there any discrimination in Indian constitution which prevents a Muslim from becoming a pm?

Is there any discrimination in election commission of India protocol which prevents Muslims from voting?

 

[Technics 1210]

You didn't get my point. What I am asking is, is there any discrimination in Indian constitution which prevents a Muslim from becoming a pm?

Is there any discrimination in election commission of India protocol which prevents Muslims from voting?

I already stated that India's constitution is secular though in practise very different.

Plus no one mentioned that Muslims couldn't vote. Thread is about why india has never had a Muslim PM.

 

[Itachi]

I already stated that India's constitution is secular though in practise very different.

Plus no one mentioned that Muslims couldn't vote. Thread is about why india has never had a Muslim PM.

If the system is secular, then no one can stop someone as laws will still be valid if someone challenges. That's what secularism is where if discrimination occurs, you still have the opportunity to fight against the discrimination while being in the system through the system.

Point is, no one is stopping a Muslim to become a pm. There's no such restrictions in the system. If no one is coming, then it simply means lack of wide influence in greater mass.

I live in Assam and no one from Assam has become a pm yet. Should I cry discrimination because of it?

 

[Pakpak]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION]
Tape Ball Star

This message is hidden because Technics 1210 is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

Why do people on an ignore list continue to reply and waste their time knowing their messages aren't visible anymore?

 

[Technics 1210]

If the system is secular, then no one can stop someone as laws will still be valid if someone challenges. That's what secularism is where if discrimination occurs, you still have the opportunity to fight against the discrimination while being in the system through the system.

Point is, no one is stopping a Muslim to become a pm. There's no such restrictions in the system. If no one is coming, then it simply means lack of wide influence in greater mass.

I live in Assam and no one from Assam has become a pm yet. Should I cry discrimination because of it?

I don't know what you are talking about. Who said India is not secular as per constitution? Who said the constitution prevents India a Muslim from being a PM?

The PEOPLE - mainly Hindu - would not vote for a Muslim PM - here lies the discrimination. Remind me what happened to the Muslim MP in Gurjat, during the riots?

 

[Technics 1210]

Why do people on an ignore list continue to reply and waste their time knowing their messages aren't visible anymore?

So other users can see how your views are destroyed. It is already established you cannot face a challenge.

No way you dealt with Indian posters this long if all it took was 3 paragraphs to flummox your fragile existence.

 

[Itachi]

I don't know what you are talking about. Who said India is not secular as per constitution? Who said the constitution prevents India a Muslim from being a PM?

The PEOPLE - mainly Hindu - would not vote for a Muslim PM - here lies the discrimination. Remind me what happened to the Muslim MP in Gurjat, during the riots?

You mentioned practically India isn't secular.

If people aren't voting for a Muslim pm, how it makes India, not secular? They have the choice, they have the voting power and they are choosing their candidates.

When and why should secularism guarantee a Muslim pm?

 

[CCAD]

The difference is India is secular by constitution whereas Pakistan is an Islamic Republic.

The reality is of course India is far from being secular.

It’s like this Islam is religion of peace but the reality is that Muslims are far from being peaceful.
Your logic not mine.

 

[CCAD]

You mentioned practically India isn't secular.

If people aren't voting for a Muslim pm, how it makes India, not secular? They have the choice, they have the voting power and they are choosing their candidates.

When and why should secularism guarantee a Muslim pm?

The way he argues reminds me of a certain Mr Zakir Hussain, will say anything and twist words to sound he is correct in every argument. Best to ignore such people.

 

[Technics 1210]

You mentioned practically India isn't secular.

If people aren't voting for a Muslim pm, how it makes India, not secular? They have the choice, they have the voting power and they are choosing their candidates.

When and why should secularism guarantee a Muslim pm?

So you agree Muslims have no chance of being a PM because the Hindu majority will not vote for them, regardless of India being secular by constitution (in name only).

I did ask you what happened to the Muslim MP of Gujarat during the riots. An exemplary example of secularism in India.

Secularism doesn't guarantee squat. I suggest you look up what Secularism actually means, it means, Separation of religion from the state. Seeing as in India people will vote based on religion, India is secular on paper, but not in practice.

I hope you finally understand.

 

[Technics 1210]

To be clear. Secularism does not mean religions can live peacefully side by side, it means religion and state are separate, and religion should have no influence on the state. A far cry from current situation in India when the BJP, a right-wing religious party, is not only in power, but controls the state.

 

[Technics 1210]

It’s like this Islam is religion of peace but the reality is that Muslims are far from being peaceful.
Your logic not mine.

Spot on. Islam is not at fault, the people are. Well done. You are finally learning.

Now since you have accepted this glaring fact, you can stop blaming Islam, and start focusing on the people.

 

[Itachi]

So you agree Muslims have no chance of being a PM because the Hindu majority will not vote for them, regardless of India being secular by constitution (in name only).

how do you know that hindu voters did't vote for muslim candidates and vice versa? Unless you can reveal the statistics in this subject, simply your opinion doesn't hold any substance.

Secularism doesn't guarantee squat. I suggest you look up what Secularism actually means, it means, Separation of religion from the state. Seeing as in India people will vote based on religion, India is secular on paper, but not in practice.

I hope you finally understand.

Again, what you stated is simply your speculation and nothing else. I'll again state, unless you can show the votes by the indian population by their religion and the respective candidates, it is your opinion only.

 

[Itachi]

Spot on. Islam is not at fault, the people are. Well done. You are finally learning.

Now since you have accepted this glaring fact, you can stop blaming Islam, and start focusing on the people.

which brings the question. Did islam fail to inspire the people for good deeds?

 

[Technics 1210]

how do you know that hindu voters did't vote for muslim candidates and vice versa? Unless you can reveal the statistics in this subject, simply your opinion doesn't hold any substance.

No need, the facts are on front.

OK, prove me wrong. What were the results of the standing Muslim candidates in this election? Please can you let me know of what heppened to the Gujarat Muslim MP, and what happened to him during the riots?

Now you can pretend that there is no friction between Hindus and Muslims in India but you'd be so wrong that I would question your thinking.

h
Again, what you stated is simply your speculation and nothing else. I'll again state, unless you can show the votes by the indian population by their religion and the respective candidates, it is your opinion only.

The definition of secularism is not speculation. I suggest you look it up.

 

[Technics 1210]

which brings the question. Did islam fail to inspire the people for good deeds?

We can talk about Islam and how it inspired people then please start a thread. Happy to debate there.

But before you do, there is a difference between religion and cultural influence.