Jump to content

Bal Thackeray passes away


1983-2011

Recommended Posts

What are you talking about dude?? That notion - India is for Hindus - is not romantic at all. It is narrow minded bigoted mindset which every Indian, regardless of religious leaning should denounce. Most Hindus do not care about Hindus. In my opinion that is greatness of Hinduism. We are not raised with a ghetto/mob mentality. I am happy to chat with a Muslim from Kerela because he is Indian, why should I have more affection for a Hindu from Surinam? Is that not what we allege Muslims of doing anyway? Kolkata Muslims supporting Syrians for no reason? I do not think you meant to make that comment, but it did catch my attention. Overall your heart is in the right place though. :--D
Romantic is also used in the sense of "fantasy", "far from reality" or "wishful thinking". That was the meaning I tried to use the word in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' the idea, rightly or wrongly, is that the majority can take care of itself. When people are kind, when they are charitable, they are charitable to their own kind. So the majority, by the very fact that they are in majority, will look after its own interest. Its the minority, which needs the goverment's intervention[/quote'] Great, the poor Hindus get shafted by the government and fellow Hindus because they are busy helping out the minorities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great' date=' the poor Hindus get shafted by the government and fellow Hindus because they are busy helping out the minorities.[/quote'] This is like the upper class claiming ther they get shafted by reservations. But is the problem that acute for them? Surely they can bear minor inconveniences to see people who are down trodden for ages be back on their feet. Why do Hindus need specific schemes of their own? there are general schemes for the poor which benefit Hindus because they are in the majority
Link to comment
Share on other sites

history teaches us that when a certain religous group gain a majority in a certain part of the country...that religous group want to liive on their own.Ex iran,syria,uae in 7th century bc iraq,turkey spain,egypt n africa in 1000ad pakistan in 1947 south sudan in 2011 woork in progress chechenya,kashmie,palestine,xinjaing etc future projects moldova,3-4 african countries,west bengal,assam,kashmir etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard similar complaints many times in many different guises
  1. The rednecks in America feel that Blacks get preferential treatment even though according to the rednecks the blacks are amongst the lowest and most uneducated of society with many involved in criminal practise and not contributing much to society
  2. The men all over the world feel that mordern women get preferential treatment and are treated with kid gloves
  3. Europeans believe that their country bends over backward to accomodate the migrants
  4. And many Indian hindus believe that other religions, particularly Islam is treated with kid gloves

But thats the nature of the beast. Any country is only as strong as its weakest link. Whether you like it or not, blacks are an integral part of America. Muslims are an integral part of India. Unless they can feel safe, secure and assimilated, we wont progress as a nation. Same is true for dalits and other lower caste. Centuries of neglect and distress doesnt evaporate with a couple of schemes. Now you can argue whether hollow reservations and treatment with kid glove is the way to go. But this point, whether a minority should be given special treatment over the majority is easily answered. Yes, they should. And thats how any civilized country treats its poor minority. I see nothing wrong with this and no conspiracy against the hindus in this.

Well maybe you are spending too much time with Rednecks then. If you feel India has already achieved its secular ambitions then you are not from India or know nothing about it. I think bit of both is true. Most immediate egs :- Not one muslim/christian can purchase a flat in my locality and I am from the most metropolitan city in the country. Apparently. Are you saying you are unaware of this fact in your city or any city in India or just being Ostrich. Sometimes it is convenient to bury the truth and live in a utopia. India has a long long way to go. You remind me of delusional pseudo secularist and superficial neo feminists that I have met who make similar arguments and keep building castles in the air without any understanding of the ground reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe you are spending too much time with Rednecks then. If you feel India has already achieved its secular ambitions then you are not from India or know nothing about it. I think bit of both is true. Most immediate egs :- Not one muslim/christian can purchase a flat in my locality and I am from the most metropolitan city in the country. Apparently. Are you saying you are unaware of this fact in your city or any city in India or just being Ostrich. Sometimes it is convenient to bury the truth and live in a utopia. India has a long long way to go. You remind me of delusional pseudo secularist and superficial neo feminists that I have met who make similar arguments and keep building castles in the air without any understanding of the ground reality.
Wait, because the ground reality is as you claim, doesnt the need for favoring minority come more into the picture? We do have a long long way to go and till the time we do acquire a more secular outlook, majority should stop crying foul when goverment seems tio be favoring minorities. Someone asked why the hindus dont need religion specific schemes. Well your example answers the point, the majority will take care of themselves. Also how much do you think the goverment can intefere with a common citizen when he doesnt want to give his house for rent to a minority community. So instead they can have schemes to elevate the minority
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is like the upper class claiming ther they get shafted by reservations. But is the problem that acute for them? Surely they can bear minor inconveniences to see people who are down trodden for ages be back on their feet. Why do Hindus need specific schemes of their own? there are general schemes for the poor which benefit Hindus because they are in the majority
Most of the cases that benefit from government schemes like reservation benefit the rich in those communities and reaches the downtrodden very minimally. A son of a bank peon who is upper class will not get any benefits from the govt while the sons of managers who happened to be SC/ST can get into IITs because they have lesser cutoffs etc. I agree that reservation or Affirmative action was needed to uplift the weaker sections/minorities initially back in 1947, but in 2012 it doesn't make sense as the conditions are like what I explained earlier. Most of these are availed by richer folk among minorities, but the poor among the minority or majority get shafted in society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, because the ground reality is as you claim, doesnt the need for favoring minority come more into the picture? We do have a long long way to go and till the time we do acquire a more secular outlook, majority should stop crying foul when goverment seems tio be favoring minorities. Someone asked why the hindus dont need religion specific schemes. Well your example answers the point, the majority will take care of themselves. Also how much do you think the goverment can intefere with a common citizen when he doesnt want to give his house for rent to a minority community. So instead they can have schemes to elevate the minority
I am not addressing the question of what should be "constitutionally" done for minorities. It is not in my hands and there are whole host of factors that go behind those decisions. Whether any kind of shot in the arm for any community is appeasement/vote bank or an attempt to make level playing field is a separate argument which I have not addressed anywhere here. Now to the original question, is India a secular country ? Constitutionally and intentionally yes. Practically and on the ground no. Mentality has to evolve and we have a long long way to go. Does anybody who has any idea or has lived in India disagree with that ? Are we all filled with hate and discrimination ? No. But have we reached a point where we are not prejudiced because of somebody's personal faith and practices ? No. It is changing but we are not there yet. India's trouble from the look of things is not going to secularism v/s communalism. It is going to be intolerance and fundamentalism. So,"he thinks India is not a secular state, he reminds of redneck arguments", "he wants more quota for muslims, he is anti-hindu and apologist".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not addressing the question of what should be "constitutionally" done for minorities. It is not in my hands and there are whole host of factors that go behind those decisions. Whether any kind of shot in the arm for any community is appeasement/vote bank or an attempt to make level playing field is a separate argument which I have not addressed anywhere here. Now to the original question, is India a secular country ? Constitutionally and intentionally yes. Practically and on the ground no. Mentality has to evolve and we have a long long way to go. Does anybody who has any idea or has lived in India disagree with that ? Are we all filled with hate and discrimination ? No. But have we reached a point where we are not prejudiced because of somebody's personal faith and practices ? No. It is changing but we are not there yet. India's trouble from the look of things is not going to secularism v/s communalism. It is going to be intolerance and fundamentalism. So,"he thinks India is not a secular state, he reminds of redneck arguments", "he wants more quota for muslims, he is anti-hindu and apologist".
Nice refreshing and quite accurate perspective. My earlier comment was that we are a secular state on paper and we should work towards achieving the secular state goal. Some people here were suggesting otherwise - I just want to drive in the point that we are (on paper) a secular state and there we should not regress but only improve towards reaching that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe you are spending too much time with Rednecks then. If you feel India has already achieved its secular ambitions then you are not from India or know nothing about it. I think bit of both is true. Most immediate egs :- Not one muslim/christian can purchase a flat in my locality and I am from the most metropolitan city in the country. Apparently. Are you saying you are unaware of this fact in your city or any city in India or just being Ostrich. Sometimes it is convenient to bury the truth and live in a utopia. India has a long long way to go. You remind me of delusional pseudo secularist and superficial neo feminists that I have met who make similar arguments and keep building castles in the air without any understanding of the ground reality.
Not sure if I quite follow. India is a fully secular country constitutionally. That is not under debate. But if people are chewtiya what are you gonna do?? I am sure you live in a decent locality, which I would assume means people are well educated, well earning people. If these people discriminate it only shows how retarded Indians are, not really how weak Indian Secular fabric is, isn't it? And what should be the remedy anyway? Should GOI enact laws that would then put Cops in charge of making sure this doesnt happen? Aka start beating up the Gujjus in South Mumbai because they often do not let maans-machli khaane waala pariwaar inside their apartment complex? (yes discrimination is not only against non-Hindus, but also within Hindus). The oddest thing is in my living memory it has gotten worse. Muslims did not have problem buying house in Bombay, now they do. You are quite right about the danger of growth of fundamentalism here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe you are spending too much time with Rednecks then. If you feel India has already achieved its secular ambitions then you are not from India or know nothing about it. I think bit of both is true. Most immediate egs :- Not one muslim/christian can purchase a flat in my locality and I am from the most metropolitan city in the country. Apparently. Are you saying you are unaware of this fact in your city or any city in India or just being Ostrich. Sometimes it is convenient to bury the truth and live in a utopia. India has a long long way to go. You remind me of delusional pseudo secularist and superficial neo feminists that I have met who make similar arguments and keep building castles in the air without any understanding of the ground reality.
No offense to you but Don't know what kind of a community you live in then....i can name the areas of places I have lived in India and mind you all 'metropolitan cities' and have never seen such discrimination Infact I have seen the other way round.....Muslims who have been living in the area for a long time,selling away their flats and moving to an area where they have more populace.. So don't see your point generalizing on one or two instances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man has made many mistakes but he isn't quite as bad as he is made out to be.
Yes, he is. The Srikrishna Commission, which I consider a non partisan body, has indicted Bal Thakrey for directing and instigating Shiv Sainiks to attack Muslims and their properties. In fact, the commission has proof (eye witnesses/ audio clips etc) of now deceased Sena MP Madhukar Sarpotdar making the assertion that it is legitimate to respond to attacks by Muslims in one area by attacking unconnected co-religionists in other parts of the city. When further probed, the MP just shrugged and said that these orders were from 'higher ups'. The tragedy is that lots of people, educated ones at that, consider Thakrey as some sort of a hero; when all he did was 'retaliation' against innocents. He's a mass murderer and a criminal, no different to the Dawoods/Chota Shakeels/Rajans from whom he claimed to protect Mumbai and Mumbaikars. Going into 'battle' against innocent men, women and children carrying Shivaji Maharaj's standard is a disgrace and dishonours the name of the real patriot who fought tooth and nail against an oppressive tyrant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense to you but Don't know what kind of a community you live in then....i can name the areas of places I have lived in India and mind you all 'metropolitan cities' and have never seen such discrimination Infact I have seen the other way round.....Muslims who have been living in the area for a long time,selling away their flats and moving to an area where they have more populace.. So don't see your point generalizing on one or two instances.
Just because you have not experienced it, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Shabhana Azmi complained about not being able to buy to buy a flat in Mumbai also.
I don't know the specifics of the Shabana Azmi case, but people from the film fraternity are considered 'new money' and not welcome in affluent or even semi affluent neighbourhoods. And I say this based on experience and anecdotal evidence. Generally people do not like film stars in their society. It isn't religion which is the issue, it is lifestyle. The late night parties, the obnoxious "do you know who I am, how dare you ask me to shut down the music it is only 3am" guests et al which societies like to avoid. Its happened with Emraan Hashmi, Himesh Reshamiya ( can't blame the society in this case :D) and a few others. Not saying that religion based discrimination doesn't exist in Mumbai, but its definitely lesser now than what it was say in 2002.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he is. The Srikrishna Commission, which I consider a non partisan body, has indicted Bal Thakrey for directing and instigating Shiv Sainiks to attack Muslims and their properties. In fact, the commission has proof (eye witnesses/ audio clips etc) of now deceased Sena MP Madhukar Sarpotdar making the assertion that it is legitimate to respond to attacks by Muslims in one area by attacking unconnected co-religionists in other parts of the city. When further probed, the MP just shrugged and said that these orders were from 'higher ups'. The tragedy is that lots of people, educated ones at that, consider Thakrey as some sort of a hero; when all he did was 'retaliation' against innocents. He's a mass murderer and a criminal, no different to the Dawoods/Chota Shakeels/Rajans from whom he claimed to protect Mumbai and Mumbaikars. Going into 'battle' against innocent men, women and children carrying Shivaji Maharaj's standard is a disgrace and dishonours the name of the real patriot who fought tooth and nail against an oppressive tyrant.
He is not a mass murder i havent seen him carrying out any attacks he is a brave politician who stood up for Hindus in mumbai when no other neta did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...