West Bengal Government banned Durga Puja immersion on Muharram Day

[Texan]

Look how the High Court censured them:

 

http://www.ndtv.com/kolkata-news/dont-create-line-between-hindus-and-muslims-high-court-tells-bengal-government-1752978?pfrom=home-lateststories

 

Must be a very secular Government that bans its Hindu citizens from practicing their religion in order to facilitate Muslims to practice their religion. 

[diga]

All people are born equal..some more so than others

[Gollum]

Blame Bengali Hindus. TMC swept the civic polls here last month by an overwhelming margin(241 out of 248 I guess). In the Asansol belt they won all seats and that belt has 90% Hindu pop. May be Bengali Hindus like Mamata and don't mind being treated as 2nd class citizens. 

[Yoda-esque]

Dhimmitude and WB ..nice

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[veer]

9 hours ago, Gollum said:

Blame Bengali Hindus. TMC swept the civic polls here last month by an overwhelming margin(241 out of 248 I guess). In the Asansol belt they won all seats and that belt has 90% Hindu pop. May be Bengali Hindus like Mamata and don't mind being treated as 2nd class citizens. 

May be we are missing something that Bengali hindus are not. Its always better to look at root cause...

[Gollum]

Will not succumb to conspiracy: Mamata on Calcutta HC setting aside govt order on Durga idol immersion

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/durga-idol-immersion-row-will-not-succumb-to-conspiracy-mamata-on-calcutta-hc-order/story-VXySyKuWt3Z80vEW16vQgO.html

 

If there is violence I will not be responsible: Mamata Didi 

One messed up state I will give you that. Brace for riots in Bengal next month folks !!!

[ravishingravi]

11 hours ago, veer said:

May be we are missing something that Bengali hindus are not. Its always better to look at root cause...

I am from Bengal. And no we are missing nothing. The place is celebration of poverty. But hey, if its secular,poverty can be dealt with. 

[veer]

56 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

I am from Bengal. And no we are missing nothing. The place is celebration of poverty. But hey, if its secular,poverty can be dealt with. 

I have a general understanding that Bengolis are most literate ppl of India... What happened to that? May be they just became too liberals...

[ravishingravi]

13 hours ago, veer said:

I have a general understanding that Bengolis are most literate ppl of India... What happened to that? May be they just became too liberals...

We confuse literate with critical and clear thinker. As we have seen before, even on this forum, literacy doesn't mean a thing. In fact, too much literacy makes people more fundamentalist at times.

 

In WB, they are stuck in post independence era where a city is still living in some past glory while state is struggling in poverty. People love the stagnancy. Without the growth, cost of living has also not increased. All their aggression is in beating the indefensible. Good luck RSS, if they are trying to polarize. Mamta is not going anywhere for next 25 years

[Gollum]

To those who criticize BJP for every damn thing under the sun would they prefer living in a state like Gujarat which BJP has ruled for over 2 decades or Bengal where CPM-TMC have ruled for almost half a century? I mean isn't it freaking obvious who should rule the country? For all its faults and shortcomings (and there are quite a few) BJP is still the best bet to somewhat put this country in the right path. Congress has been given enough chances, they were good in the initial stages and had spurts of brilliance in the middle(eg PVNR) but absolutely dreadful since the Italian took charge. Regional parties, the less said about them the better. Apart from Naveen Patnaik, Naidu, late Jayalalitha and Manik Sarkar(even though he is a communist) other regional bosses don't have the nationalistic spirit we require in our leaders. BJP should be given 25 years to rule by the public, if they succeed well and good, if not we are doomed...there is no viable alternative in Indian politics. 

[Gollum]

The only way to save Bengal is to somehow get rid of Mamata. CPM is too weak, Congress has influence only in Malda and Murshidabad  but BJP is emerging fast. Many CPM and Congress Hindu members have seen the light and are shifting to BJP. BJP will get stronger but can never dislodge TMC as long as Mamata is there because of the sagacity of the Bengalis (plus booth capturing skills, gundagiri, bombs etc by certain sections during elections in that state). The only way to save that state from utter ruin and destruction is for IB to get involved and do the necessary thing if you know what I mean. I don't want to spell out the drastic plan of action because that may land me in trouble but I honestly feel many people from politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, police, media, human rights organizations, NGOs etc don't deserve to stay alive. Modi needs to be like Putin and we need a KGB style agency to do the needful to make our country a more secure place. 

[Muloghonto]

57 minutes ago, Gollum said:

To those who criticize BJP for every damn thing under the sun would they prefer living in a state like Gujarat which BJP has ruled for over 2 decades or Bengal where CPM-TMC have ruled for almost half a century? I mean isn't it freaking obvious who should rule the country? For all its faults and shortcomings (and there are quite a few) BJP is still the best bet to somewhat put this country in the right path. Congress has been given enough chances, they were good in the initial stages and had spurts of brilliance in the middle(eg PVNR) but absolutely dreadful since the Italian took charge. Regional parties, the less said about them the better. Apart from Naveen Patnaik, Naidu, late Jayalalitha and Manik Sarkar(even though he is a communist) other regional bosses don't have the nationalistic spirit we require in our leaders. BJP should be given 25 years to rule by the public, if they succeed well and good, if not we are doomed...there is no viable alternative in Indian politics. 

Believe it or not, its a tough call. Gujarat is safer. Its richer & more prosperous than Bengal. 

Gujrat also infringes on personal freedom a lot more. Forget beef, i still remember my dad telling me his horrible experience in Baroda, being evicted from his apartment because Gujju-bhai had a problem with my dad cooking fish for himself.

So what would i prefer - the slightly more unsafe & poorer place, where my individual freedoms are greater or a slightly more developed & safer state, where what i eat behind my closed doors gets me kicked out ?

tough choice, honestly: neither the pros or cons of either state are wide enough from each other to win the argument for me.

 

 

And no, BJP doesn't get 25 years to do what it pleases, just because we made the same mistake with congress. What India needs, are Indians who vote based on accountability, not based on loyalty. If BJP drops the ball, kick them out. If they do a good job this term, it should buy them just one more term, with same evaluation process for every single election.

 

In this regard, i wish more of India was like Punjab- Punjabis are the least 'politically loyal/vendetta' oriented people in India, where they have no problems kicking out a party for failing to do its job and bringing in someone else. 

Rest of India is one large cess-pit of political loyalty. 

Most Sanghis here will vote for BJP no-matter what and people like Outsider will vote for Congress no-matter what. What India needs, is more accountability orienetd voting and less loyalty-of-ideology based voting.

 

[Muloghonto]

53 minutes ago, Gollum said:

The only way to save Bengal is to somehow get rid of Mamata. CPM is too weak, Congress has influence only in Malda and Murshidabad  but BJP is emerging fast. Many CPM and Congress Hindu members have seen the light and are shifting to BJP. BJP will get stronger but can never dislodge TMC as long as Mamata is there because of the sagacity of the Bengalis (plus booth capturing skills, gundagiri, bombs etc by certain sections during elections in that state). The only way to save that state from utter ruin and destruction is for IB to get involved and do the necessary thing if you know what I mean. I don't want to spell out the drastic plan of action because that may land me in trouble but I honestly feel many people from politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, police, media, human rights organizations, NGOs etc don't deserve to stay alive. Modi needs to be like Putin and we need a KGB style agency to do the needful to make our country a more secure place. 

It will be more of the same, even if BJP come to power. Because BJP will come to power exactly the same way Mamata came into power: a 'handshake' between the 'unionist & beurocrat' lobby, who will mobilize their powerful vote-bank and their exceptional booth-capture tacicts, once they realize that Mamata's days are numbered and the BJP is offering this 'tacit handshake'.

 

Same way how trinamool came to power and Jyoti Basu lost power. BJP will find out its impossible to break into Bengal politics, without satisfying the Bengali Babu-dom & union-mafia. As Congress found out for 30+ years. 

Only thing that can save Bengal, is 2-3 years of President's rule under a strong central government that will uproot the Babu-union mafia cabal.

 

[Tibarn]

Comrade Radish is essentially saying that:

 

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

 

has more personal freedom than

 

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in.         

Edited September 23, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

49 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Comrade Radish is essentially saying that:

 

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

 

has more personal freedom than

 

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in.         

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

 

PS: Brainless acquaintances ? there was no housing society. Its good old 1970s/80s style ' we live downstairs, you rent upstairs' rentals. But i don't expect gujju-bhai with such familiarity with policing other people's private kitchens, to see what the problem is. Rest of us Indians are not accustomed to our landlords peeking in our kitchens and getting pissed off at what we are doing in it. 

 

[Tibarn]

49 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

 

PS: Brainless acquaintances ? there was no housing society. Its good old 1970s/80s style ' we live downstairs, you rent upstairs' rentals. But i don't expect gujju-bhai with such familiarity with policing other people's private kitchens, to see what the problem is. Rest of us Indians are not accustomed to our landlords peeking in our kitchens and getting pissed off at what we are doing in it. 

 

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  

 

2) It's objective data that Bengal is more violent than Gujarat. That's something you always avoid giving and answering, since you apparently can't find it, copy it, and paste it from Wikipedia.  Since independence, Bengal is among the leaders in the country in riots, political murders, violent crime, et al. There is more than enough data on violence to confirm this. Naturally, someone of your "intellect" can't take objective criticism of a state, and instead automatically turns it into state vs state ethnic issue. It's not a surprise coming from someone masquerading as a liberal who promotes fundamentalism/hatred unsupported by data. (If you want the data, just ask, I'll even provide criticism of Gujarati crime issues for free ).     

 

3) You're Canadian, not Indian. You revoked your citizenship to get Canadian citizenship, and you aren't Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh that you have a religious ties to India as a civilizational state. It's time to let go Radish.  

 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  

A liberal can be a regionalist, since liberalism is not contradictory to nationalism (and regionalism is just a sub-set of nationalism). 

However, chauvinist ? thats rich, coming from a guy who thinks women are 'corrupting themselves' by sleeping with multiple partners (but not men) and such anti-women traditional male-chauvinist views. 

 

Quote

2) It's objective data that Bengal is more violent than Gujarat. That's something you always avoid giving and answering, since you apparently can't find it, copy it, and paste it from Wikipedia.  Since independence, Bengal is among the leaders in the country in riots, political murders, violent crime, et al. There is more than enough data on violence to confirm this. Naturally, someone of your "intellect" can't take objective criticism of a state, and instead automatically turns it into state vs state ethnic issue. It's not a surprise coming from someone masquerading as a liberal who promotes fundamentalism/hatred unsupported by data. (If you want the data, just ask, I'll even provide criticism of Gujarati crime issues for free ).     

I already said that Bengal is less safe than Gujarat. I also said that the data between two states is not wide. Its not like we are comparing Helsinki and Los Angeles. thats the whole point. Bengal isn't violent/unsafe enough for me to consider trading away my personal freedoms ala Gujarat, Gujarat isn't advanced enough or peaceful enough to make me consider it either. 

 

Quote

3) You're Canadian, not Indian. You revoked your citizenship to get Canadian citizenship, and you aren't Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh that you have a religious ties to India as a civilizational state. It's time to let go Radish.  

I have ethnic ties with India and Indian government allows me to become an Indian anytime i wish to. Until Indian government changes that and invalidates my PIO claims, I can chose to operate as i do. 
Being Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh is also irrelevant to the issue of foreign citizens interested in Indian affairs. I have cultural ties to India, which override and supersede your laughable 'religious ties' of make-believe sky-Gods and supermen. 

 

PS: If your newly minted degree had conferred some reading skills, you'd have found, I didn't invent or start the Gujarat vs Bengal comment i highlighted, i responded to the guy who did. And its YOUR Gujju pride that made you barge in. 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Tibarn]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

A liberal can be a regionalist, since liberalism is not contradictory to nationalism (and regionalism is just a sub-set of nationalism). 

However, chauvinist ? thats rich, coming from a guy who thinks women are 'corrupting themselves' by sleeping with multiple partners (but not men) and such anti-women traditional male-chauvinist views

Your "liberalism" is indeed contradictory to nationalism, since the kind of liberalism you advocate is universalist ie universal human rights. That directly takes away the rights of a nation/people to have different values and views of human rights relative to their different cultures.  If the Chinese have a different view on what human rights entail, that is their right. You are the same as Islamists/Christians who want to impose Islam and Christianity on the entire world. The fact that you masquerade as a "liberal" doesn't change that you want to impose your view of the world on the entire world. That is no different than Osama, Aurangzeb, Stalin, and all the other people who feel like they have some universal knowledge that they need to forcefully spread to everyone in the world, even when those people themselves don't ask for it.  

 

Chauvinism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism

Quote

undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged

• regional chauvinism

To be a male chauvinist

Quote

an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex

 Nowhere have I said one sex is superior to the other. Please prove it.        

 

Regionalism and nationalism are compatible: I can't even... I bet you think up also equals down.   

 

Please show me where I said women corrupted themselves and said men didn't. You made that up, because either you have poor reading comprehension skills derived from inbreeding or are just a liar.  The study I posted said both are negatively affected. I never disagreed with the study I posted and never claimed only women.  You were too busy virtue-signalling, soiling yourself, running away to even read/look up the study. It was you who limited the debate only toward women, saying that "Women need sexual liberation" so I provided the relevant chart, and you were too shameless to read the whole thing. Don't blame me that you thought you were crusading for "women's liberation" and framed the debate only toward women. It was only you who felt like you have some universal knowledge and felt the need to say that women need to learn from you and your unsupported opinions. Again, I dare you to show me where I advocate men having multiple sexual relationships and not women.   

 

 

That reminds me, why did you run away? Everyone is still waiting for a response in this thread. You didn't provide evidence for any of your claims, and at least two other posters are waiting for an explanation as to how exactly a lack of oxygen affects lift. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I already said that Bengal is less safe than Gujarat. I also said that the data between two states is not wide. Its not like we are comparing Helsinki and Los Angeles. thats the whole point. Bengal isn't violent/unsafe enough for me to consider trading away my personal freedoms ala Gujarat, Gujarat isn't advanced enough or peaceful enough to make me consider it either.

As of 2015, the rate of violent crime in Gujarat is 12.9 and in West Bengal its 31.7 per 100,000 people. Of all the big states, Gujarat has the lowest violent crime rate.   

 

The fact is, based on relatively recent events, that in West Bengal one can't criticize either Mohammed or Mamata Banerjee without getting jailed or having a threat on their life. There is also greater political murders historically.  What freedom is there exactly if one gets murdered for a different political opinion, one can't criticize certain religions for fear of their life, and one can't criticize the government in power?       

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I have ethnic ties with India and Indian government allows me to become an Indian anytime i wish to. Until Indian government changes that and invalidates my PIO claims, I can chose to operate as i do. 
Being Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh is also irrelevant to the issue of foreign citizens interested in Indian affairs. I have cultural ties to India, which override and supersede your laughable 'religious ties' of make-believe sky-Gods and supermen. 

Nope, squirm as much as you want worm, you fail both the secular and the nationalist criteria for being Indian. 

 

Secular: Nope, you don't have citizenship, therefore you aren't a citizen.  Indian origin and Indian aren't the same thing. Laws matter to humans, although goons like you don't understand that. You don't contribute to our society, you interfere in our internal matters (even causing ethnic conflicts even on this forum), and you certainly don't feel any of the effects of anything that happens here. Pro-tip: if you can't vote in an Indian election, you aren't an Indian citizen.    

 

Nationalist:   Those who consider themselves "nationalist" in India consider India to be a civilizational state based on the Dharmic religions as part of Indian civilization. You are an atheist, at least on some days, who has no cultural ties to India. You are as much a Bangladeshi as you are an Indian. After all, those people in Bangladesh have the same culture as West Bengal. Hell, you're not even a believer in an Indian brand of Christianity or Islam.      

 

Carry on with your mental gymnastics while giving gyaan from Canada. The fact is you're not Indian.  

Quote

PS: If your newly minted degree had conferred some reading skills, you'd have found, I didn't invent or start the Gujarat vs Bengal comment i highlighted, i responded to the guy who did. And its YOUR Gujju pride that made you barge in. 

Your low IQ is getting the best of you. You made it an ethnic issue, not Gollum. Gollum was speaking purely as a matter of government. Similarly I posted a post outlining all the horrible things that happen in West Bengal, whether on the violence front, or the personal freedom front.  

 

It was you that brought ethnicity into this by directly going into slurring the Gujarati people after I made a criticism of the state of Bengal. When your first response to any criticism of a state by a poster is to suddenly attack people as a whole, it is you making it an ethnic issue. I originally responded with facts of things that have historically happened in post-independence West Bengal, not by saying Bengalis are violent or prone to murder.  You went to the extent of essentially calling Gujaratis mass murderers. I criticize a state on objective parameters and you go straight into ethnicity.

 

Mind read however much you want: I have also made similar posts when you vomited nonsense about Jatts, Baniyas, Maharashtra, and the Hindi belt as well, so I guess you think I'm a Jatt + Marathi + Baniya + Bihari + Gujarati combo as well. 

 

Only a thug like you could claim a place where even minors are jailed for expressing opinions online and common people with different political opinions are murdered has more personal freedom (notice how none of that is a criticism of Bengalis themselves but of the state, a distinction you were too dumb to understand).  That claim was without any data. Anyway, data is after all a conspiracy or psy-ops to a clown like you. Unsubstantiated propaganda and wikipedia-chori is more your forte. 

 

Pro-tip: if you're going to comment on reading skills, you should at least know the rules of basic English grammar such as: "i" is capitalized or that one doesn't start a sentence with "And".  Nobody will be able to understand your semi-illiterate rambling with such poor grammar.  

Edited September 24, 2017 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Your "liberalism" is indeed contradictory to nationalism, since the kind of liberalism you advocate is universalist ie universal human rights. That directly takes away the rights of a nation/people to have different values and views of human rights relative to their different cultures.  If the Chinese have a different view on what human rights entail, that is their right. You are the same as Islamists/Christians who want to impose Islam and Christianity on the entire world. The fact that you masquerade as a "liberal" doesn't change that you want to impose your view of the world on the entire world. That is no different than Osama, Aurangzeb, Stalin, and all the other people who feel like they have some universal knowledge that they need to forcefully spread to everyone in the world, even when those people themselves don't ask for it.  

Having universal human rights is not incompatible with nationalism, since rights of the nation are not by default incongruous with rights of the individual. And last i checked, we are all species homo sapiens. Hence a baseline of rights applicable to all is logical. But nice try to 'relativize' human rights, so you can justify your piddly religious views.  And nobody force-spread human rights. India signed it freely according to its own will. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Chauvinism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism

To be a male chauvinist

 Nowhere have I said one sex is superior to the other. Please prove it.        

Granting unequal rights and holding unequal standards is de-facto superiorism,just not de-jure. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Regionalism and nationalism are compatible: I can't even... I bet you think up also equals down.   

Nice try to vacillate. and fail.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

 

That reminds me, why did you run away? Everyone is still waiting for a response in this thread. You didn't provide evidence for any of your claims, and at least two other posters are waiting for an explanation as to how exactly a lack of oxygen affects lift. 

the explanation has already been provided. Look harder. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

As of 2015, the rate of violent crime in Gujarat is 12.9 and in West Bengal its 31.7 per 100,000 people. Of all the big states, Gujarat has the lowest violent crime rate.   

As i said, very little difference.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

The fact is, based on relatively recent events, that in West Bengal one can't criticize either Mohammed or Mamata Banerjee without getting jailed or having a threat on their life. There is also greater political murders historically.  What freedom is there exactly if one gets murdered for a different political opinion, one can't criticize certain religions for fear of their life, and one can't criticize the government in power?       

Goodies saying Bengalis can' t criticize religion, when they routinely go on rampage for offence taken by fundamentalist hindus. ironic. 

What freedom ? i just told you what greater freedom exist in Bengal- i can eat what i want, in my kitchen without my landlord imposing his/her arbitry cultural value on my life. Justify the comment that there is more political murders in Bengal than Gujarat since 1947.

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Nope, squirm as much as you want worm, you fail both the secular and the nationalist criteria for being Indian. 

 

Secular: Nope, you don't have citizenship, therefore you aren't a citizen.  Indian origin and Indian aren't the same thing. Laws matter to humans, although goons like you don't understand that. You don't contribute to our society, you interfere in our internal matters (even causing ethnic conflicts even on this forum), and you certainly don't feel any of the effects of anything that happens here. Pro-tip: if you can't vote in an Indian election, you aren't an Indian citizen.    

Kiddo, i send more $$ back to India this year alone, than your entire contribution to India for your whole life. I interfere in your internal matters because i am legally entitled to do so. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

Nationalist:   Those who consider themselves "nationalist" in India consider India to be a civilizational state based on the Dharmic religions as part of Indian civilization. You are an atheist, at least on some days, who has no cultural ties to India. You are as much a Bangladeshi as you are an Indian. After all, those people in Bangladesh have the same culture as West Bengal. Hell, you're not even a believer in an Indian brand of Christianity or Islam.      

Nope. You just pulled it out of your ar$e that to be a nationalist we have to idenitfy India as a civilization-state with dharmic principles. Nowhere in the definition of a nation or nationalism does it involve religion. Anyone can be a nationalist, if they work in the interest of a nation-state. Ergo, ahteist, hindu, muslim,jew- anyone can be a nationalist towards India. And yes, i do have cultural ties to India. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Carry on with your mental gymnastics while giving gyaan from Canada. The fact is you're not Indian.  

Your low IQ is getting the best of you. You made it an ethnic issue, not Gollum. Gollum was speaking purely as a matter of government. Similarly I posted a post outlining all the horrible things that happen in West Bengal, whether on the violence front, or the personal freedom front.  

Gollum compared Gujarat to W.Bengal and said how one is more livable than another. I gave reasons why it is not so. Only an inferiority-complex driven hindu superiorist like you can twist that to an ethnic comment. 

 

16 hours ago, Tibarn said:

It was you that brought ethnicity into this by directly going into slurring the Gujarati people after I made a criticism of the state of Bengal. When your first response to any criticism of a state by a poster is to suddenly attack people as a whole, it is you making it an ethnic issue. I originally responded with facts of things that have historically happened in post-independence West Bengal, not by saying Bengalis are violent or prone to murder.  You went to the extent of essentially calling Gujaratis mass murderers. I criticize a state on objective parameters and you go straight into ethnicity.

What slurring ? so apparently saying Gujarat gives less personal freedom is slurring Gujarati people, but saying there are more poliitcal murders in Bengal is not. Go figure. 

 

[Tibarn]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Having universal human rights is not incompatible with nationalism, since rights of the nation are not by default incongruous with rights of the individual. And last i checked, we are all species homo sapiens. Hence a baseline of rights applicable to all is logical. But nice try to 'relativize' human rights, so you can justify your piddly religious views.  And nobody force-spread human rights. India signed it freely according to its own will. 

 

 

That's solely your opinion. Not all societies view the individual as the basis of society. Some societies favor collectivism, groupism, tribalism, or other variants. Some societies favor individualism. Some societies will exterminate their own populations. Your imposing views that a society should be centered around individual interests is based on your own beliefs.  I didn't mention India, so that is a strawman. India may have signed it and it may remove itself from it later. That's none of your business as you aren't Indian. 

 

What's funny is that the idea that all humans have value is in itself a religious view. Just like beliefs in blank-slate, this too is derived from religion/are quasi-religious.  The idea of human rights is derived from the concept of natural law, which is law that is derived either from gods/Transcendence or Nature. These rights are considered inalienable. In nature, nothing has inherent value separate from the ecosystem itself. All humans can go extinct tomorrow and nature will move on. In all of human history it is pretty clear that humans themselves have a violent nature and little regard for other human life. This is true even in the recent history of signatories of the HRC.     

 

Communists, who are rabidly anti-religious and atheist by policy, have regularly erased millions of human lives, the lives of their own people and people outside of their political borders. Similar things have happened under religious governments, secular governments, democratic governments, dictatorships, etc. Groups only decide who qualifies for humane treatment and who is expendable.   

 

That you think life has value solely based on everyone being human is not based on anything objective (you probably also support abortions which is taking a human life). Where is the evidence that any life has value, let alone human life? Where is the evidence that the value of an elephant is greater than that of an ant? Humans are just animals, just like any other animals. Humans aren't magic creatures, no matter how much you want to believe so.  One human on one side of the planet doesn't have inherent value to another human on another side of the planet. I would like to see anything objective that says otherwise.  Too bad you're too foolish to see your own cognitive dissonance whining about religon while promoting religious concepts like the value of human life.    

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Granting unequal rights and holding unequal standards is de-facto superiorism,just not de-jure. 

Prove that unequal rights imply superiority. Oh wait, that is more sophistry by you.

 

Someone can pass a law that only left-handed people can wear red shoes , that only right-handed people can wear blue shoes, but all people can wear shoes of any other color besides those two.

Those are unequal rights. Which one is superior: those who are given exclusive access to red shoes or those to blue shoes?    

 

Inequality only means inequality. Only someone of your "intellect" could think that something being unequal implies superiority-inferiority. 

 

Prove that inequality is bad. That's an assumption. 

 

Also, show me where I said people should have unequal rights based on biological sex, along with the numerous other things you accused me of claiming, or do you admit you were lying? 

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nice try to vacillate. and fail.

It's not my job to teach someone who believes the Earth is flat that it is in fact spherical... 

 

If you want to believe that loyalty to a state, say Gujarat, over a country say India, is nationalism, that is your prerogative. You can try whatever mental gymnastics that you want to convince yourself of the same.  If you put a state's interests above India's interests, you are not a nationalist. 

 

Considering you support the English colonizing India, thereby supporting the destruction of the Indian economy, looting of the country, killing of millions, I don't think there is much need to lend credence to what you consider nationalism means. 

 

 

Lol at 12/100k people and 32/100k people being a small difference.  

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Goodies saying Bengalis can' t criticize religion, when they routinely go on rampage for offence taken by fundamentalist hindus. ironic. 

What freedom ? i just told you what greater freedom exist in Bengal- i can eat what i want, in my kitchen without my landlord imposing his/her arbitry cultural value on my life.

Where did I say people routinely go on rampage? You need to work on your reading comprehension and quit peddling strawmen. Re-read what I actually wrote (or don't)

 

You claimed that people in Gujarat barge into kitchens on some (undocumented) personal anecdote based on a sample size of n=1.

I can give (n=1) an example of people being arrested in West Bengal for criticism of the state government. 

I can give (n = 1 )an example of people being arrested for criticizing Mohammed in West Bengal.

I can give  (n =1) an example of how certain people aren't allowed religious freedom in West Bengal.

I can give (n = 1) an example of accusations of booth capturing in West Bengal during elections. 

 

If you use n = 1 to paint an entire state, one that you have no experience in, then I can similarly use a sample size of 1 to paint an entire state. These are the "rigorous" standards you yourself provided. By the standards you push, of (n = 1):

 

Gujarat:

No Freedom to eat Fish in a private kitchen 

 

West Bengal: 

No freedom to criticize religion

No freedom of religion

No freedom of speech (criticizing the state government)

No freedom to vote (booth capturing and murder based on political lines)

Some "freedom" 

 

Quote

Justify the comment that there is more political murders in Bengal than Gujarat since 1947

The graph is property of Rohit Ticku and is based off of INSCR data of political violence incidents from 1955 to 2005. 

Excerpt

Quote

West Bengal alone accounted for over 34% of all political violence-related deaths in the sub-sample (Figure 2).

 

If you want to ignore the data, feel free, it wouldn't be the first time...

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Kiddo, i send more $$ back to India this year alone, than your entire contribution to India for your whole life. I interfere in your internal matters because i am legally entitled to do so. 

On a janitors salary?

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. You just pulled it out of your ar$e that to be a nationalist we have to idenitfy India as a civilization-state with dharmic principles. Nowhere in the definition of a nation or nationalism does it involve religion. Anyone can be a nationalist, if they work in the interest of a nation-state. Ergo, ahteist, hindu, muslim,jew- anyone can be a nationalist towards India. And yes, i do have cultural ties to India. 

 

Wrong, silly rage-boy. There are only two views of Indian nationalism. I didn't say anyone has to follow either one. I only pointed out that you don't fall under either category. 

 

1) India as a nation-state created post 1947. By this standard, which is the standard most self-declared Secular nationalists, ie the INC, prescribe to, one has to actually be a legal citizen of India. Since you are a citizen of Canada, and India does not allow dual citizenship, you are not legally Indian. No amount of squirming can change that, worm. In this sense anyone with an Indian citizenship can be Indian. (I didn't say Muslims, Jews, etc aren't Indian or can't be nationalist. Another strawman). Anyone without an Indian citizenship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Atheist, etc isn't Indian, so long as they don't have citizenship.  

 

2) "Nationalist" (notice the quotation marks around nationalist which I also used earlier because the BJP uses this definition) This is BJP's Civilizational nationalism where Dharmic people + Indian citizens are part of the civilization.   

 

Neither national party's definition excludes Christians etc.  

 

You don't fall under either, 

1) You don't have Indian citizenship, a necessary condition to be Indian under the constitution. 

2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic).  

 

 

 

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills: Here is the sequence of events

1) Gollum makes a post comparing two states, Gujarat and Bengal in terms of government

2) You respond his post saying that you believe that Bengal has more personal freedom because X,Y,Z

3) I laugh at your post, pointing out examples of how Bengal has worse personal freedom in key areas and that there is greater lawlessness in the state of Bengal (in case you don't realize, violence is often used to restrict freedoms like the right to vote).  No mention was made of Bengalis as a group of people. The criticism was solely of the state and how it is run. See my post below

Quote

a state where Hindus aren't allowed to celebrate festivals, people are arrested for facebook posts against the Chief Minister or "insulting" a so-called prophet, people stone-pelt police stations, entire villages are razed in riots, and people rampage on the streets advocating massacring non-believers

has more personal freedom than

a state where women are able to travel freely even at the later hours of night without "male chaperons", low-levels of crime and violence, etc because one of his brainless acquaintances didn't check the rules of the housing society he bought/rented a house in

4) You proceed to call Gujaratis genocidal: what you posted is verbatim below

Quote

Yea. It is better than the state actually practicing mass murder on ethnic lines. Godhra, anyone ? Compared to you genocidal Gujjus (both Muslims who torched the train and the hindus who went on a rampage), we Bongs are just talk. 

You specifically state Gujaratis are genocidal(see red) and imply that Bengalis are non-violent.

 

5) I responded with this post saying that I'm not interested in ethnic issues of Gujarati vs Bengali(red). I proceed to criticize you as a poster and the law and order situation in Bengal. There is still no mention of Bengalis being A,B,C.   

Quote

I don't care about the Gujju-Bong issue that you want to make it into (feel free to make whatever claims you want to make about Gujarat/Gujaratis). I don't have any problem with actual Bengalis, however:

...

 

1) you seem to turn everything into Bengali vs Gujju, Bengali vs, Marathi, Bengali vs Hindi speakers, Bengali vs Punjabi etc. That's your prerogative comrade. I just find it funny that you always try to masquerade yourself as a liberal, yet you consistently display the tendencies of a regionalist, ethnic chauvinist bigot. Embrace your true nature comrade.  

 

Again, the only person who attacked an ethnicity in this thread is you. You lost what little mental balance you had the moment I pointed out numerous ways that Bengal was worse on the freedom front, using the same low standards that you used. You made a claim slurring Gujaratis as a group of people as genocidal. I made no generalized claim on Bengalis as people, just the government in charge there and the state of law and order. 

 

Squirm however much you want.  

 

 

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 Only an inferiority-complex driven hindu superiorist like you can twist that to an ethnic comment. 

I have never said Hindus or Hinduism are superior to other people. Nice, another strawman.  

Enjoy what's below 

Spoiler

Considering how insecure you are on this forum itself, constantly quoting me and begging for my attention in nearly every thread in which I post in this sub-forum, I would say the only person with an inferiority complex is you, and that the inferiority complex you have seems to be relative to me. How else do you explain your psychopathic/pathological need to search out each and every one of my posts in a sub-forum and share your opinion with me? The reverse rarely happens. I rarely quote or even pay attention to your trash posts in any thread, only taking time when they are particularly stupid, to make fun of you.  

 

It is bordering on creepy how obsessed you are with my posts. It's like you have a low sense of self-worth/self-esteem and need to prove yourself to me. You have even been so pathetic that you felt the need to explain your career decisions to me, someone maybe half your age. If that isn't a textbook inferiority complex, I don't know what is.

 

You never seem to provide data in your posts, even though that is what rational people use to change other peoples opinions. You can slur other people as chaddis, sanghis, fascists to your hearts content, but name-calling is no substitute for data/research.  It's like you think that repeating the same stuff to me in the same posts over and over will suddenly make them true or convince me, and obviously you have a pathological need to share your opinion with me.     

 

For someone who thinks so highly of himself, one would think you would have the confidence to back up your claims with data/research. If your goal was truly to convince other people of your views being accurate, you would provide such things, or at least have enough integrity to admit you are just sharing your opinion and have no data/research to support your posts.

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Tibarn