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

[rahulrulezz]

You've been at PP for 10 years, I respect you for that.

That said, your post insults common sense at so many levels that it ain't worth pointing out.

Rather than being personal, please come up with facts. Did I say something wrong.

Truth is always hard to digest. Enough of this victim mentality.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Just a short reminder to those wishing to discuss Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

He is not to be addressed as Jinnah but either as Mr. Jinnah or Quaid-e-Azam.

One thing I really appreciate about Pakistanis. You guys know how to respect your historical heroes. Compare that to the crap you hear about Mr Gandhi from our fellow Indians. Yes, Mr Gandhi might have had some black shade, and I wasn't his big fan, you still gotta respect your heroes, as he is not there to defend himself.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Yep i am a doctor living in India and the bolded part is just laughable. I post what i like. If that offends you i am sorry i can't help. Learn to deal with it.

Yes your intellectual dishonesty is offensive. There are multiple factual reasons for not having a senior Muslim leader. The popular ones leaving for Pakistan, the low social economic indicators for the Muslim community, the latent communal misgivings after the partition, the political landscape in India being dominated by a single party and am sure many others. But you choose to ignore all that and put it down to Muslim rule. An event from more than 200 years+ to explain the current state. And these outsiders probably were as harsh on your ancestors as they were on mine. Not to mention you probably share more genes with your much hated Hindu neighbor than with the Muslim invader.

But facts dont excite you as you seem to be from the Zaid Hamid school. It's surprising to see someone as well educated as you are to hold such a distorted world view. It's a reminder of the realities of the state you come from. When educated Muslims can harbour such hatred, the uneducated ones will certainly line up for PFI or ISIS

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indian Public is still not recovered from the muslim conquest of the past. I will be glad to have Muslim ministers in the cabinet. We can have our work done instead of being in the limelight and crucified all the time.

Really? Can you name a few Muslims from present day India or Pakistan or BD who actually ruled India? There simply isnt a single leader worth becoming PM who is from the muslim community. Lets be honest here, the leaders of the muslim community have been used a vote gatherers and they have been happy doing that. They would e vote gatherers for a Congress or CPM or some other party and talk about only muslim welfare then try to be a leader of masses.Thats the unfortunate truth.

We can have our work done instead of being in the limelight and crucified all the time

That is a good thing?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Don't want an ashrafiya as a muslim leader. Syeddism hiding behind muslim empowerment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The secretary of jamiat ulama recently said that if women want equality then why not share pregnancy with men for 4.5 months each. These are the leaders representing muslims in india today.

 

[kaayal]

Yes your intellectual dishonesty is offensive. There are multiple factual reasons for not having a senior Muslim leader. The popular ones leaving for Pakistan, the low social economic indicators for the Muslim community, the latent communal misgivings after the partition, the political landscape in India being dominated by a single party and am sure many others. But you choose to ignore all that and put it down to Muslim rule. An event from more than 200 years+ to explain the current state. And these outsiders probably were as harsh on your ancestors as they were on mine. Not to mention you probably share more genes with your much hated Hindu neighbor than with the Muslim invader.

But facts dont excite you as you seem to be from the Zaid Hamid school. It's surprising to see someone as well educated as you are to hold such a distorted world view. It's a reminder of the realities of the state you come from. When educated Muslims can harbour such hatred, the uneducated ones will certainly line up for PFI or ISIS

Calm down brother. It was comment based on articles of some of hindu leaders, hate speech and the comments like The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, "Babur's progeny, go away to Pakistan or die". Everything is not black and white. These kind of people do exist in India.

And i am least affected by these hindu muslim division tbh more specifically because of being from Kerala/South India. And fyi, i hate all the muslim/mongol invasion we had during that period. You don't need to bring my gene history thinking that i am in support of these invasions because of my "religion". What they did to the local people was pathetic to say the least. And there are high chances that they have resentments for the same especially the older generations. With the hindutva govt reminding them how they were ruled by the temple destroying muslims, these wounds are getting refreshed. No need to guess that they are going to love us after all these communal retorts. Muslims also have equal number of dumbheads in the Owaisi types.

And Zaid hamid seriously?? You don't know anything about me or ground realities.

 

[kaayal]

Really? Can you name a few Muslims from present day India or Pakistan or BD who actually ruled India? There simply isnt a single leader worth becoming PM who is from the muslim community. Lets be honest here, the leaders of the muslim community have been used a vote gatherers and they have been happy doing that. They would e vote gatherers for a Congress or CPM or some other party and talk about only muslim welfare then try to be a leader of masses.Thats the unfortunate truth.



That is a good thing?

I have already posted my opinion in this topic (before that quoted post mine). I don't believe we have any leader worthy of becoming a PM at the moment.

I want only good representation of educated muslim leaders in the Parliament to address their issues instead of this minority appeasement and vote bank politics by Congress and IUML. What we have now is the Owaisi types which are bringing bad reputation for all of us.

 

[Tusker]

Calm down brother. It was comment based on articles of some of hindu leaders, hate speech and the comments like The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, "Babur's progeny, go away to Pakistan or die". Everything is not black and white. These kind of people do exist in India.

And that is because of Events like Kashmir where Millions of Pandits were evicted and some still live as refugees in their own country. And we are talking 20th century just about 30 yrs ago and not the 12th Century !! This situation is almost always guaranteed in any Muslim majority region. History is evidence.

 

[Moh@n]

We are dancing around this so will state it.

Think its simplistic to think that a majority Hindu state will elect a Muslim PM if he was a panch waqt ka namazi! A Muslim in India to become a PM will need to embrace Hindu culture to become a PM.

Are you implying that the three Muslim presidents we have had were not namazis? Or did the former captain of our cricket team who lead us in three world cups had embraced Hindu culture?

 

[MenInG]

Are you implying that the three Muslim presidents we have had were not namazis? Or did the former captain of our cricket team who lead us in three world cups had embraced Hindu culture?

Dont know where cricket came into this.

I dont know how many namaz/day the previous presidents of India prayed but I cant recall name of one Muslim PM of India - that's the post that really matters.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Lot of dancing around the actual issue. If you could have a puppet Sikh PM then why not puppet Muslim PM? The answer is simple.... it's not acceptable to the Hindu majority.

 

[big_gamer007]

Are you implying that the three Muslim presidents we have had were not namazis? Or did the former captain of our cricket team who lead us in three world cups had embraced Hindu culture?

These guys don't get elected by the general public to rule over them however the PM does.. Do you honestly believe in today's world if a political party puts Muslim as their PM candidate He will get elected?

Unless he has a veg good pro development/honest/corruption free reputation and is popular which no current Muslim leader is..

 

[CricketCartoons]

Lot of dancing around the actual issue. If you could have a puppet Sikh PM then why not puppet Muslim PM? The answer is simple.... it's not acceptable to the Hindu majority.

I would have thrown away my indian passport if a muslim PM was elected/selected.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lot of dancing around the actual issue. If you could have a puppet Sikh PM then why not puppet Muslim PM? The answer is simple.... it's not acceptable to the Hindu majority.

Did the hindu majority come and tell you this?The right wing may hold such a opinion but not the general public.Not too long ago the narrative on PP was that only upper caste can be Indian PM. Right now the PM is from a backward class.The attempt is simpe, muddle indian democracy with such narratives.

If Muslims can be CMs Muslims can be Supreme court judges and CJIs (one of the most powerful positions in India)can be Presidents, can be deputy PM, then a capable muslim leader can be PM as well.

MMS had an image of a very capable, efficient, non corrupt, unblemished character and educated minister in his previous stint as a Finance minister.Sonia Gandhi used that to hold the coalition together.She needed a person like MMS to who had such an image to hold fort, while they looted money.

 

[cricketjoshila]

These guys don't get elected by the general public to rule over them however the PM does.. Do you honestly believe in today's world if a political party puts Muslim as their PM candidate He will get elected?

Unless he has a veg good pro development/honest/corruption free reputation and is popular which no current Muslim leader is..

Why does he needs to be veg?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Did the hindu majority come and tell you this?The right wing may hold such a opinion but not the general public.Not too long ago the narrative on PP was that only upper caste can be Indian PM. Right now the PM is from a backward class.The attempt is simpe, muddle indian democracy with such narratives.

If Muslims can be CMs Muslims can be Supreme court judges and CJIs (one of the most powerful positions in India)can be Presidents, can be deputy PM, then a capable muslim leader can be PM as well.

MMS had an image of a very capable, efficient, non corrupt, unblemished character and educated minister in his previous stint as a Finance minister.Sonia Gandhi used that to hold the coalition together.She needed a person like MMS to who had such an image to hold fort, while they looted money.

What was the need of independence from the brits and partition for muslim homeland if india has to have a muslim PM, only because some sensitive people cannot face pakistani questions? If anything, india should have it enshrined in its constitution that only a practicing hindu can be a PM.

 

[Waseem]

Actually its none of your concern either way.

Absolutely is, don't want an extremist taking over Pakistan let alone India.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Lot of dancing around the actual issue. If you could have a puppet Sikh PM then why not puppet Muslim PM? The answer is simple.... it's not acceptable to the Hindu majority.

When we can have a UK born and educated guy, like you, rooting for a Muslim leader, not on capability but on his religion alone, why should it be surprising to you that the uneducated Hindu man in 3rd world India want one of his own?
It doesn't matter then we don't really have a credible national Muslim leader or that very few politicians in India can match the stature of MMS. You can continue your outrage

 

[GBK_Fan]

Calm down brother. It was comment based on articles of some of hindu leaders, hate speech and the comments like The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, "Babur's progeny, go away to Pakistan or die". Everything is not black and white. These kind of people do exist in India.

And i am least affected by these hindu muslim division tbh more specifically because of being from Kerala/South India. And fyi, i hate all the muslim/mongol invasion we had during that period. You don't need to bring my gene history thinking that i am in support of these invasions because of my "religion". What they did to the local people was pathetic to say the least. And there are high chances that they have resentments for the same especially the older generations. With the hindutva govt reminding them how they were ruled by the temple destroying muslims, these wounds are getting refreshed. No need to guess that they are going to love us after all these communal retorts. Muslims also have equal number of dumbheads in the Owaisi types.

And Zaid hamid seriously?? You don't know anything about me or ground realities.

Surprising you find Zaid Hamid outrageous but have no qualms suggesting others share a view with a murderous fringe mob. Do the Kerala youth representing Isis represent you then? Or do generalisation based on fringe elements should only be done with Hindus?

 

[big_gamer007]

Why does he needs to be veg?

Lol that was an auto correct meant very good pro development not veg..

 

[cricketjoshila]

Absolutely is, don't want an extremist taking over Pakistan let alone India.

Why is India your concern in any way? Indians can elect anyone they want.Its upto us.

 

[Bilal7]

"Possible", "May be", let's talk when you have concrete examples. Also Sikhs and Muslims are not usually put in the same bucket by most western countries. I assume you see the difference in social acceptance and the concessions accorded to either community

I just gave you an example of Jagmeet Singh. There is no such difference in Canada. Sikhs, who are more visibly different than Muslims, have it more difficult if anything. There are several Muslim MPs in Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario is a Pakistani-born Muslim. If Canada, which has a Muslim population percentage of 1% and an even smaller percentage of Sikhs, can do it, so can India.

It's amazing how this thread is full of the word "Hindutava Extremists" as if they have faced or heard some Hindu extremism by these extremists in their native country or any country in the world. Have you heard a single hinditava extremists blowing or shooting in name of religion .. its other way around where most of the world have seen extremists from a certain religion.
Regardless, it's funny how people call Modi and BJP a Hindutava party even if they haven't implemented a single anti Muslim or pro Hindu policy. Ironic thing is, Muslim country such as Pakistan has political party names such as "Muslim" Awami league or heck even their country is named "Islamic" republic of Pakistan.

Pakistan is an Islamic country, at least in name if not in practice, but India is not a Hindu country, is it? 20% of the population is Muslim and a good portion are Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians. If India wants to be secular like it claims to be, Modi isn't the best choice.

One thing I really appreciate about Pakistanis. You guys know how to respect your historical heroes. Compare that to the crap you hear about Mr Gandhi from our fellow Indians. Yes, Mr Gandhi might have had some black shade, and I wasn't his big fan, you still gotta respect your heroes, as he is not there to defend himself.

Not only Gandhi but also the Mughals, Delhi Sultanate and various other Muslim rulers who are embedded in the history of India and the larger Indian subcontinent. I recently read an article about the current government neglecting the Taj Mahal, which is the most iconic structure in all of India, simply because it is an Islamic monument.

The British robbed India but the above-mentioned fellows were as Indian as any other Indian so it is surprising that the majority of non-Muslim Indians do not respect them.

Lol that was an auto correct meant very good pro development not veg..

This was funny.

 

[Bilal7]

Calm down brother. It was comment based on articles of some of hindu leaders, hate speech and the comments like The murderous mobs of Gujarat who were screaming, "Babur's progeny, go away to Pakistan or die". Everything is not black and white. These kind of people do exist in India.

And i am least affected by these hindu muslim division tbh more specifically because of being from Kerala/South India. And fyi, i hate all the muslim/mongol invasion we had during that period. You don't need to bring my gene history thinking that i am in support of these invasions because of my "religion". What they did to the local people was pathetic to say the least. And there are high chances that they have resentments for the same especially the older generations. With the hindutva govt reminding them how they were ruled by the temple destroying muslims, these wounds are getting refreshed. No need to guess that they are going to love us after all these communal retorts. Muslims also have equal number of dumbheads in the Owaisi types.

And Zaid hamid seriously?? You don't know anything about me or ground realities.

The local people were liberated. Wish we could time-travel back to the Mughal era and ask one of the "untouchables" whether they were treated better by those "foreign invaders" (Most Mughal emperors were born in India) or their very own upper-caste brethren

 

[cricketjoshila]

I just gave you an example of Jagmeet Singh. There is no such difference in Canada. Sikhs, who are more visibly different than Muslims, have it more difficult if anything. There are several Muslim MPs in Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario is a Pakistani-born Muslim. If Canada, which has a Muslim population percentage of 1% and an even smaller percentage of Sikhs, can do it, so can India.



Pakistan is an Islamic country, at least in name if not in practice, but India is not a Hindu country, is it? 20% of the population is Muslim and a good portion are Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians. If India wants to be secular like it claims to be, Modi isn't the best choice.



Not only Gandhi but also the Mughals, Delhi Sultanate and various other Muslim rulers who are embedded in the history of India and the larger Indian subcontinent. I recently read an article about the current government neglecting the Taj Mahal, which is the most iconic structure in all of India, simply because it is an Islamic monument.

The British robbed India but the above-mentioned fellows were as Indian as any other Indian so it is surprising that the majority of non-Muslim Indians do not respect them.



This was funny.

20% isnt muslim.More like 13 to 14% Rest 6% are other non hindus and 80% is hindu.

Modi was elected by the people in a free and fair election.He has the legal right to be PM.He wont be denied that because some foreigner somewhere thinks so.People who win election hold office, thats the law. Or according to PP Modi, Trump, Bush, Blair etc wont hold office.

India is secular.It doesnot need to follow what happens in XYZ country, because while smaller countries will just try to copy and implement what happens in some other big country, India with its size,population economy, etc can have its own system that fits its own needs.

 

[Varun]

I shudder to think what their views on prohibition will be.

It's bad enough having Beef banned in several states (thankfully not yet in Karnataka, hopefully never), but beef and beer? I'm sorry, that calls for a hartal.

 

[Moh@n]

Lot of dancing around the actual issue. If you could have a puppet Sikh PM then why not puppet Muslim PM? The answer is simple.... it's not acceptable to the Hindu majority.

Yeah the Hindu majority was fine having three Muslim presidents but having a Muslim PM isn't acceptable. Lulz, ok.

 

[Moh@n]

I dont know how many namaz/day the previous presidents of India prayed but I cant recall name of one Muslim PM of India - that's the post that really matters.

How does it matter? Do you know how many namaz/day Qamar Bajwa does? It's none of anyone's business is it?

And when we can have a Muslim as our president, as our cricket captain, as our chief justice - then we can certainly have one as our PM too if he is capable enough.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Yeah the Hindu majority was fine having three Muslim presidents but having a Muslim PM isn't acceptable. Lulz, ok.

Understand the difference between a "selected ceremonial role" and one elected by the public executive role.

The majority does not have a say in president election. if it was an elected role, there would have been no Muslim President.

A Sikh puppet PM was acceptable but puppet Muslim PM not.

So almost 200 million Indians have no one in their ranks that is capable of being PM.... but an uneducated Hindu right wing fascist is

 

[cricketjoshila]

Understand the difference between a "selected ceremonial role" and one elected by the public executive role.

The majority does not have a say in president election. if it was an elected role, there would have been no Muslim President.

A Sikh puppet PM was acceptable but puppet Muslim PM not.

So almost 200 million Indians have no one in their ranks that is capable of being PM.... but an uneducated Hindu right wing fascist is

Who exactly told you a puppet or otherwise muslim PM isnt acceptable?

Who told you Modi us fascist or Uneducated?

Who told you right wing cannot hold office?


Please dont think what you think is a fa t and that its should be acceptable to or follwed by Indians.

 

[LastManstanding]

Understand the difference between a "selected ceremonial role" and one elected by the public executive role.

The majority does not have a say in president election. if it was an elected role, there would have been no Muslim President.

A Sikh puppet PM was acceptable but puppet Muslim PM not.

So almost 200 million Indians have no one in their ranks that is capable of being PM.... but an uneducated Hindu right wing fascist is

Why don't you give us the name of few Muslim leaders in India, who you think are better than Modi?

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is sad and funny how Pakistanis have played Indians here. They got their rightfully deserved homeland, but are mocking Indians who couldn't get their homeland. And the Indians, instead of unabashedly being happy that they never had a muslim PM rule over them, are getting defensive and claiming their are secular. Mind slaves to secularism and are soon going to lose their culture and religion and land if they continue singing hymns of secularism. Where is our hindu homeland? Till when are we going to play the dumb charade of secularism? Till when are we going to be embarrassed of our hindu identity just because it didnt originate in jerusalem or arabia?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's amazing how this thread is full of the word "Hindutava Extremists" as if they have faced or heard some Hindu extremism by these extremists in their native country or any country in the world. Have you heard a single hinditava extremists blowing or shooting in name of religion .. its other way around where most of the world have seen extremists from a certain religion.
Regardless, it's funny how people call Modi and BJP a Hindutava party even if they haven't implemented a single anti Muslim or pro Hindu policy. Ironic thing is, Muslim country such as Pakistan has political party names such as "Muslim" Awami league or heck even their country is named "Islamic" republic of Pakistan.

What-about-ism example #4

By the way, does extremism only count when it's blowing or shooting in the name of religon? What about when they raze whole neighbourhoods and kill hundreds in mob rampages?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I shudder to think what their views on prohibition will be.

It's bad enough having Beef banned in several states (thankfully not yet in Karnataka, hopefully never), but beef and beer? I'm sorry, that calls for a hartal.

Are all Muslims in India devout? If that's the case no wonder there's never been a Muslim PM, there would be Shariah law imposed within a year.

 

[GBK_Fan]

I just gave you an example of Jagmeet Singh. There is no such difference in Canada. Sikhs, who are more visibly different than Muslims, have it more difficult if anything. There are several Muslim MPs in Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario is a Pakistani-born Muslim. If Canada, which has a Muslim population percentage of 1% and an even smaller percentage of Sikhs, can do it, so can India.



Pakistan is an Islamic country, at least in name if not in practice, but India is not a Hindu country, is it? 20% of the population is Muslim and a good portion are Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians. If India wants to be secular like it claims to be, Modi isn't the best choice.



Not only Gandhi but also the Mughals, Delhi Sultanate and various other Muslim rulers who are embedded in the history of India and the larger Indian subcontinent. I recently read an article about the current government neglecting the Taj Mahal, which is the most iconic structure in all of India, simply because it is an Islamic monument.

The British robbed India but the above-mentioned fellows were as Indian as any other Indian so it is surprising that the majority of non-Muslim Indians do not respect them.



This was funny.

So let's take your metrics and apply them to the right wing BJP. BJP has multiple Muslim ministers let alone MPs. They supported a Muslim for the presidency and even voiced him for a second term. But the same metrics won't let you call them secular.

I am sure you will come up with more arguments to shift the goalpost. Frankly I am not interested in indulging you in your juvenile, whimsical arguments. Quote me if you have anything tangible to go by

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are all Muslims in India devout? If that's the case no wonder there's never been a Muslim PM, there would be Shariah law imposed within a year.

How will Sharia be imposed when it will in contravention to the constitution?The PM cannot change the basic secular nature of the constitution.Any such law will be struck down.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Neglecting the Taj Mahal? Our temples have been neglected all these years and some are talking about neglect to the Taj mahal..which is a monstrosity which shouldn't exist in our holy land.. What a shame that Hindus are repeatedly criticized and mocked, and instead of fighting back, they have internalized the unfounded criticism and are always embarrassed and defensive. Great going..continue like this..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How will Sharia be imposed when it will in contravention to the constitution?The PM cannot change the basic secular nature of the constitution.Any such law will be struck down.

Yes that's what I thought, just Varun mentioned that beer might be prohibited if a Muslim was appointed as PM, and as he is an Indian I assumed he would know better than me.

 

[CricketCartoons]

How will Sharia be imposed when it will in contravention to the constitution?The PM cannot change the basic secular nature of the constitution.Any such law will be struck down.

Wow..the very chain which has kept hindus in slavery is being lauded by hindus. The constitution is just a raddi ka tukra..but the way indians treat it as some superior holy book is sad.. How much damage has this propaganda of secularism has done..that hindus have started distancing themselves from their glorious religion and culture and dance to the tune of a man made, amendable , raddi ka samaan called the constitution of india.

 

[kaayal]

Surprising you find Zaid Hamid outrageous but have no qualms suggesting others share a view with a murderous fringe mob. Do the Kerala youth representing Isis represent you then? Or do generalisation based on fringe elements should only be done with Hindus?

Why are you feeling so offended by my remark? Indian public includes every citizens educated/uneducated Rural/Urban. Our rural population is much much more that the urban population. The NDA govt won 336/546 lok sabha seats. Try making it as a fringe element but these hate speakers does play a part in voting especially among the uneducated people of the BIMARU states. These are the areas which was worst hit by the conquest and they gain votes by communal polarisation where the hindus definitely outnumbers muslims.

Winning BIMARU states means winning Indian election=Indian public opinion of accepting this party's views.

I am not saying thats the only factor but this also have some role to play especially in that region which constitues the majority of Indian population.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why are you feeling so offended by my remark? Indian public includes every citizens educated/uneducated Rural/Urban. Our rural population is much much more that the urban population. The NDA govt won 336/546 lok sabha seats. Try making it as a fringe element but these hate speakers does play a part in voting especially among the uneducated people of the BIMARU states. These are the areas which was worst hit by the conquest and they gain votes by communal polarisation where the hindus definitely outnumbers muslims.

Winning BIMARU states means winning Indian election=Indian public opinion of accepting this party's views.

I am not saying thats the only factor but this also have some role to play especially in that region which constitues the majority of Indian population.

I don't think you would be saying the same with Congress would have won through the Bimaru states. Keep mocking the hindus because they voted for a party you don't like. Keep demonizing them. Hindus are used to be mocked in their own land..and soon will be driven away or absorbed by others. Not blaming you. It is our fault. We deserve to be insulted.

 

[kaayal]

The local people were liberated. Wish we could time-travel back to the Mughal era and ask one of the "untouchables" whether they were treated better by those "foreign invaders" (Most Mughal emperors were born in India) or their very own upper-caste brethren

Every invasion was ruthless in the begining. They killed local people, looted their wealth, raped, plundered, destroyed the local architecture and everything that was there before. In some of these dynasties after 3-4 generations the King also becomes of local blood and therefore works for the betterment of land and does good things to it's people like Akbar. But there are exceptions like Aurangazeb.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Every invasion was ruthless in the begining. They killed local people, looted their wealth, raped, plundered, destroyed the local architecture and everything that was there before. In some of these dynasties after 3-4 generations the King also becomes of local blood and therefore works for the betterment of land and does good things to it's people like Akbar. But there are exceptions like Aurangazeb.

We lost 3000 plus temples..and want just 3 back. When are we going to get them? Do we deserve to have just a tiny bit of historical wrongs corrected? Do we deserve a bit of respect? Or are we subhuman just because we follow a religion which involves praying to anything and everything? Forget justice..will we ever be classified as victims even? We lost everything and yet we are the bad guys?

 

[kaayal]

I don't think you would be saying the same with Congress would have won through the Bimaru states. Keep mocking the hindus because they voted for a party you don't like. Keep demonizing them. Hindus are used to be mocked in their own land..and soon will be driven away or absorbed by others. Not blaming you. It is our fault. We deserve to be insulted.

Sorry i have heard more hindu hate preachers than the Owaisi types. And more importantly the other group influences only 14% of even if they brainwashed the whole Muslims. And that will reflect nothing in the Indian election tbh ,unless the hindus also support it.

 

[kaayal]

We lost 3000 plus temples..and want just 3 back. When are we going to get them? Do we deserve to have just a tiny bit of historical wrongs corrected? Do we deserve a bit of respect? Or are we subhuman just because we follow a religion which involves praying to anything and everything? Forget justice..will we ever be classified as victims even? We lost everything and yet we are the bad guys?

I don't have any problem tbh. Built your temple, that's like Mecca for you guys. Built 1 masjid anywhere near/away from it. That's all needed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sorry i have heard more hindu hate preachers than the Owaisi types. And more importantly the other group influences only 14% of even if they brainwashed the whole Muslims. And that will reflect nothing in the Indian election tbh ,unless the hindus also support it.

And why wont you hear about hate preachers? when their religion has been under constant attack? They cant even get their 3 temples back? Hindus have been the oppressed and persecuted people, and if they still dont get justice, because they got cheated in the name of independence, are you expecting them to speak of peace? Instead of looking at their grievances you are only demonizing them? Give them their rights..they are begging you. Please give us some thing so that we can live with a bit of dignity. Granted our religion has flaws..but we are also humans. We dont even have a homeland? And cows are killed to mock our faith..to show that we are still the slaves we always were. And yet we are the haters? What has love given us..of only it has taken away everything we had.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't have any problem tbh. Built your temple, that's like Mecca for you guys. Built 1 masjid anywhere near/away from it. That's all needed.

But that is just you. The majority of muslims are not willing to give us just even one temple? Where are we supposed to go? Are we not humans? Do we not feel hurt like you when abused? Or bleed just like you when cut?

 

[jusarrived]

Any good reason we should have had one ?

 

[jusarrived]

Sorry i have heard more hindu hate preachers than the Owaisi types. And more importantly the other group influences only 14% of even if they brainwashed the whole Muslims. And that will reflect nothing in the Indian election tbh ,unless the hindus also support it.

The problem is its not the most difficult 14% to brainwash , unlike the rest who can think for themselves . There is a reason with Hindus , Sikhs etc you will find supporters for BJP , Congress , JDU and even Aap . Cant say the same about Muslims , who seem to be unified against BJP or anyone one with BJP .

 

[kaayal]

The problem is its not the most difficult 14% to brainwash , unlike the rest who can think for themselves . There is a reason with Hindus , Sikhs etc you will find supporters for BJP , Congress , JDU and even Aap . Cant say the same about Muslims , who seem to be unified against BJP or anyone one with BJP .

That's actually true tbh. Indian muslims, majority of them are ghettoized and vote like sheep for Mulayam/ Mayawatis etc. And the well off ones support the Congress/IUML whom they consider as the only alternative against RSS more specifically than BJP. And there is another group like mine who support the Communist despising both IUML and BJP.

 

[Specialisttailender]

Yes that's what I thought, just Varun mentioned that beer might be prohibited if a Muslim was appointed as PM, and as he is an Indian I assumed he would know better than me.

Alcohol is already banned in Modi's native Gujarat lol.

 

[Specialisttailender]

So let's take your metrics and apply them to the right wing BJP. BJP has multiple Muslim ministers let alone MPs. They supported a Muslim for the presidency and even voiced him for a second term. But the same metrics won't let you call them secular.

I am sure you will come up with more arguments to shift the goalpost. Frankly I am not interested in indulging you in your juvenile, whimsical arguments. Quote me if you have anything tangible to go by

BJPs don't like Muslims, its a fact, it doesn't matter how many ministers they appoint, it is a fact. But funny Pakistanis out of all trying to paint India as a worse country than Pakistan.

 

[Moh@n]

Understand the difference between a "selected ceremonial role" and one elected by the public executive role.

The majority does not have a say in president election. if it was an elected role, there would have been no Muslim President.

So the majority won't stage even a mild protest if they had a problem with the religion being followed by their president? And we are talking 80% majority here.

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=133135]kaayal[/MENTION]

Can you name 3 muslim leaders at present who you think are fit to be PM?

 

[cricketjoshila]

So the majority won't stage even a mild protest if they had a problem with the religion being followed by their president? And we are talking 80% majority here.

You think they have any idea of how India functions.Asking about Army Chief.The Army chief has no powers in a civilian govt.

Rather the Supreme court justices are far more powerful and many of the including CJI have been muslims.How many hindus have protested?

 

[Bilal7]

Every invasion was ruthless in the begining. They killed local people, looted their wealth, raped, plundered, destroyed the local architecture and everything that was there before. In some of these dynasties after 3-4 generations the King also becomes of local blood and therefore works for the betterment of land and does good things to it's people like Akbar. But there are exceptions like Aurangazeb.

Comments right out of a brain-washed Hindu nationalist's playbook.

 

[kaayal]

[MENTION=133135]kaayal[/MENTION]

Can you name 3 muslim leaders at present who you think are fit to be PM?

Bhai, please read the whole post when i quote you. Already answered that in Post #88 in reply to your earlier post...

I have already posted my opinion in this topic (before that quoted post mine). I don't believe we have any leader worthy of becoming a PM at the moment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Comments right out of a brain-washed Hindu nationalist's playbook.

Muslims got their homeland, and rightly so..but hindu nationalists don't deserve the same? Of course, as hindus are lesser humans. They must be mocked and ridiculed for asking what is rightfully theirs.

 

[kaayal]

Comments right out of a brain-washed Hindu nationalist's playbook.

Oh yeah you must be feeling really good when someone comes to your house, loots your money, rape you/your mother, kill your father, destroy your house and then starts ruling there. Sorry, i don't want any invasion, be it of any religion. They are ruthless in the begining.

 

[Bilal7]

Oh yeah you must be feeling really good when someone comes to your house, loots your money, rape you/your mother, kill your father, destroy your house and then starts ruling there. Sorry, i don't want any invasion, be it of any religion. They are ruthless in the begining.

Don't get me wrong, the upper castes were subjugated ruthlessly and arguably, deservedly for their inhumane treatment of the lower castes but you're being melodramatic again. There was an easy way to avoid all of that bloodshed, it is called not having a battle against a force clearly more powerful than your own.

Baghdad, a true jewel of a city, was similarly ransacked by an invading force. The difference however, was that the Mongols did nothing for the betterment of the conquered lands and eventually converted to Islam themselves, whereas the Mughals not only benefited India greatly but lived and died there.

 

[Black Zero]

Muslims got their homeland, and rightly so..but hindu nationalists don't deserve the same? Of course, as hindus are lesser humans. They must be mocked and ridiculed for asking what is rightfully theirs.

I think you are advocating for two nation theory...
And being a patriotic hindu, you shouldn't.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think you are advocating for two nation theory...
And being a patriotic hindu, you shouldn't.

I am a hindu first, and only a hindu homeland deserves my patriotism..not this rotten at the core country which is a so called secular state trying to appease all extremists. Who knows, in coming years I will be known as the ideological father of the new hindustan.

 

[Black Zero]

I am a hindu first, and only a hindu homeland deserves my patriotism..not this rotten at the core country which is a so called secular state trying to appease all extremists. Who knows, in coming years I will be known as the ideological father of the new hindustan.

Will you give some credit to Iqbal/MA Jinnah?

And, name "hindu-stan" does not suit with the spirt. May I suggest hindudesh.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Will you give some credit to Iqbal/MA Jinnah?

And, name "hindu-stan" does not suit with the spirt. May I suggest hindudesh.

Inspiration yes, but credit no..as they did nothing for hindus. Right you are..just shows even a hindu like me is still enslaved that i still use names given by the muslim. As a persecuted lot we even forgot our own vocabulary..

 

[Spidy201]

fact: despite 13% Muslims, in 70 years India never had a Muslim PM.

some PPers: India is not truly secular.

another fact: despite ~50% women population, USA never had woman president in 240 years of history.

applying same logic: USA does not have gender equality.

same ppers: :/

 

[CricketCartoons]

fact: despite 13% Muslims, in 70 years India never had a Muslim PM.

some PPers: India is not truly secular.

another fact: despite ~50% women population, USA never had woman president in 240 years of history.

applying same logic: USA does not have gender equality.

same ppers: :/

india, pakistan and bangladesh have had female premiers, but have the worst conditions for women..so the logic is flawed, but not the conclusion. India is not a secular state..so we should stop pretending and accept that hindus and muslims are not meant to be together. what is holy for one is food for the other. so time for final separation and eternal peace.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bhai, please read the whole post when i quote you. Already answered that in Post #88 in reply to your earlier post...

I just reconfirmed behen.Someone a non indian said its laughable that 150mn muslims dont have 1 person of PM quality.

PS: You are too angry these days.Dont be stressed.Exam is in in January.

 

[Spidy201]

india, pakistan and bangladesh have had female premiers, but have the worst conditions for women..so the logic is flawed, but not the conclusion. India is not a secular state..so we should stop pretending and accept that hindus and muslims are not meant to be together. what is holy for one is food for the other. so time for final separation and eternal peace.

1. how India is not secular?
Indian Constitution does not endorse any particular religion, and that makes it secular. republic of India is secular, you like it or not, this is reality.

2. your method won't achieve eternal peace, but further segregation, today it's Hindu vs Muslim, tomorrow Hindu vs Sikh/Buddhist/jains
then "Hindus" vs dalits or Hindi speaking vs non Hindi speakers. it won't end until my neighborhood is declared separate country.
eternal peace is achieved by peaceful coexistence not by us vs them.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. how India is not secular?
Indian Constitution does not endorse any particular religion, and that makes it secular. republic of India is secular, you like it or not, this is reality.

2. your method won't achieve eternal peace, but further segregation, today it's Hindu vs Muslim, tomorrow Hindu vs Sikh/Buddhist/jains
then "Hindus" vs dalits or Hindi speaking vs non Hindi speakers. it won't end until my neighborhood is declared separate country.
eternal peace is achieved by peaceful coexistence not by us vs them.

You are only proving that india is secular on paper ( I dont want it to be on paper either)..
and please..keep this narrative to yourself. every religion has got its homeland ( excluding sikhs..but that is your problem) and hindus..one of the most persecuted and mocked religion. Hinduphobia is so much normalized that it is the norm now..and being sympathetic to hindus grievances makes you a hate monger. anyway, why am i asking for your support. you dont even care about khalistan.. but mark my words. if we dont have another partition, there will be blood and there wont be no country for secular men.

 

[Spidy201]

population of sikhs in Canada: 1.4%
population of Sikhs in India: 1.7%
not much of a difference, then why jagmeet Singh(just a party leader atm) is an example of secularism in canada, but after having PM, President & army chief, India is still not secular?

 

[Spidy201]

You are only proving that india is secular on paper ( I dont want it to be on paper either)..
and please..keep this narrative to yourself. every religion has got its homeland ( excluding sikhs..but that is your problem) and hindus..one of the most persecuted and mocked religion. Hinduphobia is so much normalized that it is the norm now..and being sympathetic to hindus grievances makes you a hate monger. anyway, why am i asking for your support. you dont even care about khalistan.. but mark my words. if we dont have another partition, there will be blood and there wont be no country for secular men.

if India is not secular in reality, then it favors which religion?

if your answer is Islam:
please tell this to few Pakistani Britishers here, because they accuse India of being anti Muslim.

if your answer is Hinduism: then whats your problem? you have problem with what's written "on paper"? you got Hindu homeland already.

 

[Waseem]

Why is India your concern in any way? Indians can elect anyone they want.Its upto us.

Never mind! If you still don't understand how electing a bigot may impact neighbouring country then i don't really need to waste my time.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Never mind! If you still don't understand how electing a bigot may impact neighbouring country then i don't really need to waste my time.

We dont vote thinking oh wait ‘Modi will be bad for our neighbours, lets vote Congress because its good for them even though they have been looting our nation for 70 years.’

Please tell me one instance where Modi and his government impacted the life of avg Pakistanis?

I honestly dont care who Pakistan elect as their leader, not really my concern nor the concern of an average Indian. You guys elect people that is best suitable for your country irespective of how your neighbour(s) look at it.

 

[Black Zero]

I hope india elect muslim PM as CC has convinced me that partition 2.0 is inevitable.
Plus, muslims are not like hindus so you cannot enslave them for long.. (I am paraphrasing MAJinnah)

 

[Waseem]

We dont vote thinking oh wait ‘Modi will be bad for our neighbours, lets vote Congress because its good for them even though they have been looting our nation for 70 years.’

Please tell me one instance where Modi and his government impacted the life of avg Pakistanis?

I honestly dont care who Pakistan elect as their leader, not really my concern nor the concern of an average Indian. You guys elect people that is best suitable for your country irespective of how your neighbour(s) look at it.

If you followed the disucssion, i am not suggesting who India should elect as PM. From Pakistan's perspective, i don't care if Indian PM is Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Dalit/Shia/Sunni etc but it is a concern if neighbours elect bigot and hostile warmonger.

 

[CanadianG00se]

If you followed the disucssion, i am not suggesting who India should elect as PM. From Pakistan's perspective, i don't care if Indian PM is Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Dalit/Shia/Sunni etc but it is a concern if neighbours elect bigot and hostile warmonger.

It will always be aconcern who does ur neighbour elect as leader. You see relation will always be futile regardless of the leader. Congress paid the price for being pro Pakistan and face the heaviest defeat in their history. Honestly i also dont want war or hostile relationship, i have been advising that both nations should completely shun the communication for at least 10-15 years before taking a step of friendship. Tbh I dont think neither India nor Pakistan will start any war, both nations knows any stupidity might just ignite full scale nuclear war which no one really wants it. So, Pakistan and India both should relax as we know War isn’t happening.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Never mind! If you still don't understand how electing a bigot may impact neighbouring country then i don't really need to waste my time.

Actually electing anyone isnt neighbouring country's concern.

The problems arise when the neighbouring country with a history of dictatorship and a religious republic starts calling a democratically elected PM of a secular democracy a bigot.

Just like it isnt my concern whether pakistan has Sharif or Mussharaff or Zia or Bhutto or Imran.Its a concern of Pakistanis only.

Its only the concern of Indians who they elect, any non indian poking its nose will be treated with disdain.

You see some of you dont even realise this simple thing and then wonder why India refuses to deal with Pakistan much on a diplomatic front.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Never mind! If you still don't understand how electing a bigot may impact neighbouring country then i don't really need to waste my time.

Actually electing anyone isnt neighbouring country's concern.

The problems arise when the neighbouring country with a history of dictatorship and a religious republic starts calling a democratically elected PM of a secular democracy a bigot.

Just like it isnt my concern whether pakistan has Sharif or Mussharaff or Zia or Bhutto or Imran.Its a concern of Pakistanis only.

Its only the concern of Indians who they elect, any non indian poking its nose will be treated with disdain.

You see some of you dont even realise this simple thing and then wonder why India refuses to deal with Pakistan much on a diplomatic front.

 

[English August]

This is an interesting thread. Pakistanis can't seem to understand the Indian bafflement for their oversimplified question. And Indians can't understand why Pakistanis are asking this question in the first place.

My own view is: after 70 years of being separated, the two societies are grown so apart that they simply can't understand each other at an intrinsic level. Mahatma Gandhi was careful about ensuring establishment of basic political framework before independence from the British was formalized. In chouri choura, he suspended the Non-Cooperation Movement after 20+ policemen were violently killed. He decided that India wasn't ready for independence in 1922. On the other hand, Pak was established by someone who threatened direct and violent civil war unless his demands were met.

The results are clear and there was certain inevitability about it.

India has gone on to become a secular democratic society. We take our elections for granted. We know that once the elections are conducted, there would be smooth transfer of power irrespective of who won. We know 100% that our armed forced will never try to seize political power and will remain in the barracks come what may. We know that when we select our cricket captain, we don't look at his religion (heck, Indian cricket selection used to be influenced by many other biases like which state / region, but never religion!). When we go to school, we make friends with whoever we want to, and don't divide people by religion. While there continues to be some communal violence from time to time, Indian society at large is secular. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians get along just fine without thinking about religion in a conscious way.

Pakistanis simply can't understand this. Their nation was born out of a violent threat. From thereon it went downhill. Army has seized power at least four times by my count. No one trusts the political process, not even the Pakistanis themselves. Sunnis and shias can't get along, leave alone any hope for the Hindus and Christians. Not being exposed to the complex political process the Indians are so used to, they ask this oversimplified question -- "how come there hasn't been a Muslim PM or Army General?" In a society that doesn't bat an eyelid before making Azhar the captain, or where Azim Premji has as much chance of succeeding in technology industry as Narayan Murthy, there is inevitability about a Muslim PM too. It will happen when someone is ready. It's just that it's not an important question at all and Indians don't even think about it as a question to ask. Pakistanis, given your upbringing over the past 70 years, will never understand it.

 

[English August]

What was the need of independence from the brits and partition for muslim homeland if india has to have a muslim PM, only because some sensitive people cannot face pakistani questions? If anything, india should have it enshrined in its constitution that only a practicing hindu can be a PM.

It has as much chance of working as the ban Trump keeps trying to impose on Muslims entering the US. Leaving aside the morality of such a position, it's simply not practical. You can't prove that someone is a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian. You can prove that someone is an engineer or an MBA by looking at their educational background. But there is no way to establish anyone's religious beliefs. People like Narasimha Rao and Vajpayee may pretend to be Brahmin Hindus, but nothing prevents them from being Muslims in their hearts and offering Namaz 5 times a day in the privacy of their house. How do you know that the Indians haven't been ruled by Muslim PM(s) already? How do you know that Modi isn't a closet Catholic?

Similarly, for all you know, Azim Premji might be doing Saraswati Pooja every day and know the Bhagwad gita backwards!