bulbul Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Dude, you do realize that Hindus vastly outnumber Muslims in pretty much every constituency and elections are decided on absolute numbers, not percentages? If a constituency has 80 Hindus and 20 Muslims and even if 80% of Muslims vote on religious grounds and only 20% of Hindus vote on religious grounds, the absolute number of Hindus and Muslims voting on religious grounds is exactly the same - 16 in this case. Nothing against Muslim community as such , but they have to decide how,why they vote? Poor Muslims in particular just listens to whatever their top leaders say as they dont have much knowledge about politics.Non stop media covergae is not helping either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The problem is voting %among Hindus is roughly 40-45% in India, among muslims -around 65-70% So Hindus voting on religious grounds =80*0.2*0.4= 6.4 Muslims voting on religious grounds = 20*0.8**0.6=9.6 On top of that the 6.4 hindu votes will get divided in 3-4 parties, the 9.6 at max in 2. Start doing the complex maths and you will know why they say "Muslim votes decide fate of nearly 150 LS seats in India" let me give an example. Lalu Yadav ruled Bihar for nearly 15 years only on support of two groups, his fellow Yadav caste (12% population in Bihar, and Muslims 16%)..that gave him nearly 29-30% of the total polled votes, good enough to keep him in power despite fierce opposition from Upper Castes (12-13%), large section of dalits (17-18%) and non-Yadav OBCs (11-12% other than Yadavs). The day he lost complete support of the muslims (even though he still gets 30-35% of muslim votes in Bihar), he lost power and suffered massive defeats. Do you have any sources to back up your data? In my example I just made up the numbers on a very liberal side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saneindian Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Talking of tactical voting, various groups other than Muslims do that. Terms like AJGAR (Ahir,Jat, Gujjar and Rajputs) , KHAM (Kshatriya, Harijan and Muslims) have been quite popular in the past and have yielded rich dividends to political parties. Nothing wrong in that IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saneindian Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Do you have any sources to back up your data? In my example I just made up the numbers on a very liberal side of things. Gave you broader figures based on my readings. Will point out a few examples with exact figures when I have a better net connectivity probably during the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The problem is voting %among Hindus is roughly 40-45% in India, among muslims -around 65-70% So Hindus voting on religious grounds =80*0.2*0.4= 6.4 Muslims voting on religious grounds = 20*0.8**0.6=9.6 On top of that the 6.4 hindu votes will get divided in 3-4 parties, the 9.6 at max in 2. Start doing the complex maths and you will know why they say "Muslim votes decide fate of nearly 150 LS seats in India" let me give an example. Lalu Yadav ruled Bihar for nearly 15 years only on support of two groups, his fellow Yadav caste (12% population in Bihar, and Muslims 16%)..that gave him nearly 29-30% of the total polled votes, good enough to keep him in power despite fierce opposition from Upper Castes (12-13%), large section of dalits (17-18%) and non-Yadav OBCs (11-12% other than Yadavs). The day he lost complete support of the muslims (even though he still gets 30-35% of muslim votes in Bihar), he lost power and suffered massive defeats. precisely but i think the overall voting % of both hindus and muslims will go up by 5 % at least in the GE next year..if the % of hindu voters go up, those 150 LS seats dependent on muslim votes primarily, will reduce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 precisely but i think the overall voting % of both hindus and muslims will go up by 5 % at least in the GE next year..if the % of hindu voters go up' date=' those 150 LS seats dependent on muslim votes primarily, will reduce[/quote'] Well, that's the most interesting thing in this 2014 elections. For the first time in Indian history, the youths of the country have shown strong interest in politics and are becoming increasing vocal and involved. If the youths actually do turn out to vote, it changes the complete voting demographics and really makes it to more accurate to reality. And really irrespective of your political viewpoint, you need to exercise your right to vote. If the above do happens, all those existing assumptions and calculations will reduce as you stated with the greatest benefit of this change being BJP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Well, that's the most interesting thing in this 2014 elections. For the first time in Indian history, the youths of the country have shown strong interest in politics and are becoming increasing vocal and involved. If the youths actually do turn out to vote, it changes the complete voting demographics and really makes it to more accurate to reality. And really irrespective of your political viewpoint, you need to exercise your right to vote. If the above do happens, all those existing assumptions and calculations will reduce as you stated with the greatest benefit of this change being BJP. I doubt all the Internet warriors actually go and Vote , any way let us see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 I doubt all the Internet warriors actually go and Vote ' date=' any way let us see.[/quote'] Internet warriors do include all religions. Andthere is no question that the interest level has increased and that's a good thing for the country. Of course, you do not expect all youths to voute but as long it is a significant increase which i do expect, then it is a really heading in a right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Your decision is purely based on religious matters. :hmmm: Yes, because white = absence of black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Yes' date=' because white = absence of black[/quote'] I don't know about black & white , you mentioned you vote for con party for a particular reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Commendable if this is not a sarcastic response. Can you respond to my question earlier ( When and how did supporting the case of Babri Masjid become a right thing to do ? ) I will answer your condition under one pretext - no sarcasm, smiley abuse or any other non sense. If not, consider that you win - you are the greatest poster here and I am just a nobody. Enjoy your day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 is there a way to block particular threads? If not, there should be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulbul Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Sure thing. But you will have to make it fast. i.e before my ICF a/c gets deleted ... kinda difficult for me to respond after that for obvious reasons lol. Then what's the point :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Commendable if this is not a sarcastic response. Can you respond to my question earlier ( When and how did supporting the case of Babri Masjid become a right thing to do ? ) I already answered your question to which you ran away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Lets look at some inconvenient facts shall we ? 1. The Khilafat movement was not started by MK Gandhi . So who then were the founders? surprise surprise its your beloved supposedly Secular and normal Muslims that you go around claiming to be just as secular as any other community in India. 2. Who were the founders ? A whole bunch of Mullahs but prominent among them is a certain Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Yep the guy who was awarded Bharat Ratna. Only in India can such things happen. 3. Lastly where did these Mullah's operate from : Surprise Surprise Lucknow the very place you sing praises about. Need more ? let me know. So basically as long as you have naive posters who dont know their history you will emerge as a Secular Sher. The moment anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Indian History and politics shows up you will do your standard petulant kid wala "Take the bat and run away because you got clean bowled" nautanki. I consider Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to be a better candidate for Bharat Ratna than Savarkar or any of the RSS-BJP founders. At the very least Maulana Abul Kalam Azad stood for seperate civic law for Muslims and Hindus while remaining under uniform criminal code & a same non-federalist nation. That is more patriotism than what Savarkar or other hinduvta hacks have come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I consider Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to be a better candidate for Bharat Ratna than Savarkar or any of the RSS-BJP founders. At the very least Maulana Abul Kalam Azad stood for seperate civic law for Muslims and Hindus while remaining under uniform criminal code & a same non-federalist nation. That is more patriotism than what Savarkar or other hinduvta hacks have come up with. Hindsight used to be 20/20...:haha: A genius idea. Radish's (and the closet islamist Azad's) gift to the world: Pakistan the size of the subcontinent. As if the current iteration isn't enough of a problem. :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Hindsight used to be 20/20...:haha: A genius idea. Radish's (and the closet islamist Azad's) gift to the world: Pakistan the size of the subcontinent. As if the current iteration isn't enough of a problem. :hatsoff: I dont get it. Are you saying India is like Pakistan or complaining at how big Pakistan (plus Bangladesh) is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I dont get it. Are you saying India is like Pakistan or complaining at how big Pakistan (plus Bangladesh) is ? No, I'm saying that who in their right mind would give the mullahcracy of Pakistan a playground the size of undivided India? Current Situation is already approaching volatile levels. Now imagine adding another 400 million that includes the most hate filled lot found on the entire planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 No' date=' I'm saying that who in their right mind would give the mullahcracy of Pakistan a playground the size of undivided India? Current Situation is already approaching volatile levels. Now imagine adding another 400 million that includes the most hate filled lot found on the entire planet.[/quote'] Mullahcracy of Pakistan ? Pakistan has its share of fundamentalists- far more than its share infact- but it is not a mullahcracy, its a military dictatorship for the most part. I dont think there would've been significantly greater friction in the subcontinent if AKA's plan was followed. He was for the cesession of Khyber-Pakhtunwa-Balochistan to Afghanistan, wanted to hold on to Bangladesh+ Punjab+ Sindh. Dont think it would've added massively to the muslim scenario in India currently and one would say we certainly would've avoided 3 major wars and one psuedo war with nuclear brinkmanship. On the other hand, one could say that India might've been in civil war if Federated India was created. But thats a big 'might've' and worst case scenario of the Federeated India idea. If we ceded western pakistan to Afghanistan and established the Indus as the frontier, i think AKA's plan was workable. If we'd decieded to keep the Khyber-Pakhtunwa-Balochistan region in 'federated undivided India', it would've been trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Conjecture vs. Conjecture... I choose mine. :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts