Supreme Court banned sale of crackers in Delhi

[dial_100]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err, how is India more liberal than western Europe/Japan/Canada/S.Korea etc ?!

 

You are educated enough. Figure it out yourself. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, dial_100 said:

You are educated enough. Figure it out yourself. 

It isn't,which is why i asked the question.

 

[Gollum]

50 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err, how is India more liberal than western Europe/Japan/Canada/S.Korea etc ?!

 

It is easier to be more liberal in those countries, especially in East Asia. They are some of the most homogeneous ethnicities, there aren't many religions and languages. Look at Western Europe and USA, once there is more diversity in those countries do you think they will be able to have the same liberal values they had 2 decades back? 

India is a special case, nowhere in the planet will you have so many religions, ethnicities, cultures, linguistic groups and castes/sub castes living together side by side. I would say we are doing quite well in spite of these challenges and in spite of having abysmal education/development levels. 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

It is easier to be more liberal in those countries, especially in East Asia. They are some of the most homogeneous ethnicities, there aren't many religions and languages. Look at Western Europe and USA, once there is more diversity in those countries do you think they will be able to have the same liberal values they had 2 decades back? 

India is a special case, nowhere in the planet will you have so many religions, ethnicities, cultures, linguistic groups and castes/sub castes living together side by side. I would say we are doing quite well in spite of these challenges and in spite of having abysmal education/development levels. 

I'd agree for most of western Europe/USA but Canada is the exception here. Amongst 'white people' there is a huge ethnic diversity (unlike USA, where 90% of white people are English,Irish or German descent, Canada has a lot more French and Eastern European as well as Nordic in them), plus there is nearly 20% of the country's population (and this sector is the fastest rising in Canada) that are non-white. 

But where Canada has the advantage over India, is Canadians are much better educated and we basically have a country the size of Delhi and Kolkata in population, with a country 3 times the size of India. Yes, it is pretty remarkable how India manages to remain so peaceful, despite having so many ignorant, illiterate people living in it and i'd say it is the most diverse country in the world that is historically diverse. 

But i wouldn't say India is the most liberal country or the country with most individual freedoms in the world. 

 

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

I'd agree for most of western Europe/USA but Canada is the exception here. Amongst 'white people' there is a huge ethnic diversity (unlike USA, where 90% of white people are English,Irish or German descent, Canada has a lot more French and Eastern European as well as Nordic in them), plus there is nearly 20% of the country's population (and this sector is the fastest rising in Canada) that are non-white. 

But where Canada has the advantage over India, is Canadians are much better educated and we basically have a country the size of Delhi and Kolkata in population, with a country 3 times the size of India. Yes, it is pretty remarkable how India manages to remain so peaceful, despite having so many ignorant, illiterate people living in it and i'd say it is the most diverse country in the world that is historically diverse. 

But i wouldn't say India is the most liberal country or the country with most individual freedoms in the world. 

 

Neither would I. Scandinavian countries, Canada, a few European countries are better in that regard. But if you consider the historical baggage, illiteracy, under development, diversity, etc we are doing a pretty decent job. Ofc things should be better but we have been independent for 70 odd years. Most of the countries more liberal than us have come to their present state after a few centuries. Modern India as we know it is still a nation in making, the idea of present day India is still taking shape every passing day, let's hope we don't mess up the great start that our founding fathers gave us in the 1st 20 years after Independence.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Gollum

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Neither would I. Scandinavian countries, Canada, a few European countries are better in that regard. But if you consider the historical baggage, illiteracy, under development, diversity, etc we are doing a pretty decent job. Ofc things should be better but we have been independent for 70 odd years. Most of the countries more liberal than us have come to their present state after a few centuries. Modern India as we know it is still a nation in making, the idea of present day India is still taking shape every passing day, let's hope we don't mess up the great start that our founding fathers gave us in the 1st 20 years after Independence.

Don't forget the biggest problem of all, *the* historical baggage India has carried that most don't know of : we have always been a humongous population. China actually still hasn't overtaken the 'historic India/aka Indian subcontinent' in population and it wasn't until less than 1500 years ago, when China came close to India in population. IIRC, I remember reading somewhere, Ashoka's empire had over 150 million people in it. Thats 2300 years ago and India would've represented close to 25% of the world's population. Uniting so many people, isn't easy in the first place, especially when most of them are illiterate. 

[dial_100]

All the countries you are mentioning are sitting on the graves of so many millions. What do you think Americans did to the natives, how about British, French. All invaders and expansionists. My country is only liberal in every whichever way. So many religions were born here and peacefully allowed to coexist. Only 1 set of people are trying to change that dynamics. They are the only ones who completely fu&ked up or else all my childhood I only heard peace. No hate against anyone. There is a reason Indians will never give up on their cultural and religious practices. Look at last 500-1000 year to know who real liberals are. And learn to understand this deadly inside you. Do not just argue by picking up one word here and there put of context. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, dial_100 said:

All the countries you are mentioning are sitting on the graves of so many millions. What do you think Americans did to the natives, how about British, French. All invaders and expansionists. My country is only liberal in every whichever way. So many religions were born here and peacefully allowed to coexist. Only 1 set of people are trying to change that dynamics. They are the only ones who completely fu&ked up or else all my childhood I only heard peace. No hate against anyone. There is a reason Indians will never give up on their cultural and religious practices. Look at last 500-1000 year to know who real liberals are. And learn to understand this deadly inside you. Do not just argue by picking up one word here and there put of context. 

 

 

We are sitting on our own grave of millions. 

You know whats the sad thing ? Most arm-chair nationalist Indians, have focussed on the 'great Islamic genocide of India'. It is of course, justified- since it has so little purchase globally and since it does represent a huge setback in our civilization. But its a limited view and what isn't focussed on, is we are much to blame for our own demise. 

If you read of how badly India ripped itself apart between the fall of the Harshavardhana (550s AD) and the first major Islamic conquests in India proper (i.e., east of the Indus) - Ghaznavid conquests of Punjab (late 900s AD) and for much longer in the South till arrival of muslims in the deccan, it becomes pretty apparent, that we destituted and killed off most of our own people in numerous bloody, brutal wars. 

Did you know that in the Chola-Chalukya wars, both empires mobilized well over 15,000 war elephants each, along with well over 250K total troops ? These are almost every decade event within India for that almost 5 year period, most of the times, multiple instances per decade. 

 

So if the native american can point at disease and white man's oppression, our main fall was at our own hands. Muslims came and knocked down the facade, but ultimately, our civilization's failure, is due to our own ancestors. That is a tough reality, most Indians cannot face up to/have yet to face up to and not go totally commie insane. 

 

PS: What America did to the natives- well, there is ample evidence that over 75% of natives died of new diseases brought from the old world. Disease like smallpox, tuberculosis - which are deadly enough for old world people but far more deadly for virgin population like the natives (and natives have lesser genetic diversity compared to old world people apparently) were mostly to blame.

This of course, does not mean the white man was nice to the natives and didn't do to them, what muslims did to us. But critical difference, they mostly marginalized the few and far between natives left in a vast, depopulated land.

 

 

PPS: What happened in the past, is ultimately, of lesser consequence to what it is NOW. NOW, Canada, most of western Europe and even USA have far greater individual freedom and are far more liberal than India actually is. 

 

As for real liberals - i can tell you as much, they are NOT the staunch hindus. Who are just as bad and as brainwashed and relics of a dying era, as their muslim, christian, etc. counterparts are. Slaves to tradition, slaves to defunct and useless belief systems. But yes, through this, a strong streak of liberalism and freedom has managed to survive in India, so far. But RSS is jeopardizing it as much as the muslim 'kattars' are.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

NGT has already recommended to stop open cremations on wood around Delhi, SC will act soon.

[mishra]

19 hours ago, Gollum said:

No it will not. Diwali or vehicles aren't the reason for Delhi's air pollution this time of the year. I have highlighted the real issue in a previous post in this thread-'paddy stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana'. Kejri's odd-even formula though admirable had no effect on air pollution. This cracker ban too won't have any effect. 

Fact is, Diwali Crackers have been banned because of right to life. The one day celebration is causing massive suffering to say asthamatics or some one sick who cant live because there is a cracker exploding and making too much noise.

 

While I agree that it does encroach upons peoples right to life but shouldn't this been handled better way with better rules or ask government to regulate it as in my opinion, SC is top grade chewtiya when it comes to understanding technical nit bits.

 

1. After 11PM, No fire crackers.

2. No crackers to be sold which have sound more than certain decibel

3. Tax crackers so that people buy it less and use the money for cleaning the Road and environment

4. Government/local councils specially in mid to large cities  should be asked to do its own Firework display which will encourage people flocking to see the fireworks instead of random every street kid with big box of cracker exploding it every next mins

 

Finally, If a wedding happens in your neighborhood, it automatically becomes inconvenience to everyone in street. But in most cases whole neighborhood celebrates it and if tomorrow a hotel/pandal owners with vested interest of more business decides that they file Right to life kind of complain, Will Supreme Court ban massive weddings celeberations at home.

 

[mishra]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Don't forget the biggest problem of all, *the* historical baggage India has carried that most don't know of : we have always been a humongous population. China actually still hasn't overtaken the 'historic India/aka Indian subcontinent' in population and it wasn't until less than 1500 years ago, when China came close to India in population. IIRC, I remember reading somewhere, Ashoka's empire had over 150 million people in it. Thats 2300 years ago and India would've represented close to 25% of the world's population. Uniting so many people, isn't easy in the first place, especially when most of them are illiterate. 

[someone]

Just now, Gollum said:

India is a special case, nowhere in the planet will you have so many religions, ethnicities, cultures, linguistic groups and castes/sub castes living together side by side. I would say we are doing quite well in spite of these challenges and in spite of having abysmal education/development levels. 

Different Topic. However, we had influence from Afgan to Indonesia but now have shrink to just 20% of it today. So we aren't doing well and are regularly losing the battle.

[someone]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Yep. 
But then again, whenever religion conflicts with the state, religion should lose. 

I have no problems banning firecrackers from religion because its a health-hazard. Same with i have no problem banning animal slaughter for religion or calling religious people who show up and occupy their own holy sites with guns, terrorists. 

Secularism means each and every-time religion clashes with the common good of the state, religion loses. As any unsubstantiated dogma should.

Wrong. In secularism, we don't want religion to influence state, however similarly, we do not want state to influence religion. Firecrackers aren't unconstitutional and banning them is plain interference. There should be some regulations instead.

 

 

[Tibarn]

18 hours ago, surajmal said:

That asura Harshvardhan deleted his tweets after getting mauled by annoyed hindus. faack, this BJP has been a disappointment. Hindus need to turn towards sympathetic (or our own) advocacy groups, forget political parties. Get the temples freed first and use to funds to fight for remaining hindu causes. 

 

I'm done with shouting equal application of unjust laws. I want freedom to live my life the way I wish. If desert cultists like their barbarian ways, go nuts. Just leave me the * alone. Libtards are itching for a confrontation and they will get it. 

 

 

I've never cared about the UCC stuff. If non-Hindus get their own civil code, then we need our own as well, outside of government interference.  

 

Desert cultists and the gliberals both have the mosaic distinction as part of their ideology, so it seems neither will ever want to leave Hindus or other "nonbelievers" alone. The best thing in the current situation would be turning their evangelist zeal on each other I guess...  

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, someone said:

Wrong. In secularism, we don't want religion to influence state, however similarly, we do not want state to influence religion. Firecrackers aren't unconstitutional and banning them is plain interference. There should be some regulations instead.

 

 

Wrong.

Secularism means lack of religious influence in the state. It does not mean lack of state influence in religion. Infact, secularism, in practice means state influence on religion, because in-order to preserve the secular ideal that religion must not influence state, on every occasion that religion clashes with state, the state wins, therefore, it is influencing religion.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, someone said:

Different Topic. However, we had influence from Afgan to Indonesia but now have shrink to just 20% of it today. So we aren't doing well and are regularly losing the battle.

???

Influence is measured with people. Not with land. Our influence has shrunk by about 40% of what it used to be 1500 years ago.  

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

???

Thats the figure often used by Dr. Angus Maddison in his research for historic economics. Ashokan era Indian subcontinent having roughly 160 million people in it, with about 10-15 million people residing outside of his empire (i.e., kerala + Tamil Nadu). This is actually a conservative estimate, some put it over 200 million people. In a time when the world had about 500-700 million people in it. 

[mishra]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

???

Thats the figure often used by Dr. Angus Maddison in his research for historic economics. Ashokan era Indian subcontinent having roughly 160 million people in it, with about 10-15 million people residing outside of his empire (i.e., kerala + Tamil Nadu). This is actually a conservative estimate, some put it over 200 million people. In a time when the world had about 500-700 million people in it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1700

 

You seem way off

[someone]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Wrong.

Secularism means lack of religious influence in the state. It does not mean lack of state influence in religion. Infact, secularism, in practice means state influence on religion, because in-order to preserve the secular ideal that religion must not influence state, on every occasion that religion clashes with state, the state wins, therefore, it is influencing religion.

Religion is under the state, and so state keeps an eye. That is correct. But that doesn't mean states can dictate/control religion, its festivals & customs. That's a Saudi version if you want state to decide on how much or little religion one can display/do.

 

States keep an eye on religion through the secular constitution, if only something is unconstitutional, they may intervene. Decisions are made through on constitution, not from your insignificant opinions which are completely irrelevant. Here, firecrackers is not unconstitutional so it's a wrong decision and unnecessary interference. Tomorrow, a judge could say meat has health hazards and bans it. Would you support it? No, and it's a similar case here of completely wrongful interference.

[dial_100]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

We are sitting on our own grave of millions. 

You know whats the sad thing ? Most arm-chair nationalist Indians, have focussed on the 'great Islamic genocide of India'. It is of course, justified- since it has so little purchase globally and since it does represent a huge setback in our civilization. But its a limited view and what isn't focussed on, is we are much to blame for our own demise. 

If you read of how badly India ripped itself apart between the fall of the Harshavardhana (550s AD) and the first major Islamic conquests in India proper (i.e., east of the Indus) - Ghaznavid conquests of Punjab (late 900s AD) and for much longer in the South till arrival of muslims in the deccan, it becomes pretty apparent, that we destituted and killed off most of our own people in numerous bloody, brutal wars. 

Did you know that in the Chola-Chalukya wars, both empires mobilized well over 15,000 war elephants each, along with well over 250K total troops ? These are almost every decade event within India for that almost 5 year period, most of the times, multiple instances per decade. 

 

So if the native american can point at disease and white man's oppression, our main fall was at our own hands. Muslims came and knocked down the facade, but ultimately, our civilization's failure, is due to our own ancestors. That is a tough reality, most Indians cannot face up to/have yet to face up to and not go totally commie insane. 

 

PS: What America did to the natives- well, there is ample evidence that over 75% of natives died of new diseases brought from the old world. Disease like smallpox, tuberculosis - which are deadly enough for old world people but far more deadly for virgin population like the natives (and natives have lesser genetic diversity compared to old world people apparently) were mostly to blame.

This of course, does not mean the white man was nice to the natives and didn't do to them, what muslims did to us. But critical difference, they mostly marginalized the few and far between natives left in a vast, depopulated land.

 

 

PPS: What happened in the past, is ultimately, of lesser consequence to what it is NOW. NOW, Canada, most of western Europe and even USA have far greater individual freedom and are far more liberal than India actually is. 

 

As for real liberals - i can tell you as much, they are NOT the staunch hindus. Who are just as bad and as brainwashed and relics of a dying era, as their muslim, christian, etc. counterparts are. Slaves to tradition, slaves to defunct and useless belief systems. But yes, through this, a strong streak of liberalism and freedom has managed to survive in India, so far. But RSS is jeopardizing it as much as the muslim 'kattars' are.

Few bad apples and you got your whole story wrapped around it. I still maintain my stand. We are most liberals of a lot. It is easy with much homogeneous population to have a liberal facade but that is because they dont have any great traditions and culture to follow. We have 1000s of years of a civilization. Despite being extremely diverse population, we maintain quite liberal tolerant attitude towards each other. We are what we are inside out, unlike pretentious people. 

 

This society has worked against so many archaic and bad traditions and maintained the core ethos of our culture. And the ones you are calling liberals are mostly immoral people. what do you they know about traditions. Now I consider myself non-religious but those traditions are always part of my life. I wont renounce my festivals and core beliefs in the name of liberalism. Most liberals in india only take pride in bashing hindus. When it comes to others, they hide in their blankets. I call them coward and immoral people.

 

Now stay on the topic.