Should slandering the loyalty of other Indian by saying "Go to Pakistan" be made a criminal offence just like "Negro"

[Alam_dar]

There is a difference between "Abusing" and "Slandering", which people normally don't realize. 

 

Slandering is already a criminal offence. If you blame someone for rapist, and it is proven that he was not a rapist, then you have made a "slandering" and you must be punished by imprisonment and/or paying the fine. 

 

Another aspect is "One sided Abusing" on the bases of race, religion, colour and making others to appear like 2nd class citizens. It is also an criminal offence. Just like if you say Negro to any black, then he is unable to reply you back and it becomes one sided abuse. 

 

Another aspect is "humiliation".  

Therefore, same is about humiliating someone by calling him "untouchable". It should have also been declared an offensive crime in India. 

 

===

 

Let me ask you one question. In the present incident in India, the motorcyclist came to the Muslim family which was playing cricket, and said: "Mullah go to Pakistan". 

 

How do you think that Muslim Family was supposed to respond to this slandering/one sided abuse/humiliation? 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Clarke]

Should self proclaimed atheists be banned for exhibiting the characteristics of islamists and blaming hindoo baniyas every other day ? 

[Alam_dar]

2 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Should self proclaimed atheists be banned for exhibiting the characteristics of islamists and blaming hindoo baniyas every other day ? 

For me being an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pakistani, India, American is a secondary issue. 

 

But the main issue is being a HUMANIST. We are human first, and humanity stands above all religions and nationalism. 

 

Being a human, it is my right to ask all the Thekaydars of Religion and Nationalism, to tell us: "How a Muslim family is supposed to response to the slandering/one sided abuse/humiliation? 

 

Second question, if the right wing White supremacist abuses/humiliates an Indians in the West by calling him dirty/black/stinking swine/cow urine drunker etc, do you want the Indian guy to keep quite and keep on taking this humiliation?  How to stop this white supremacist from spreading this venom? 

 

[Lannister]

 

 

 

[Clarke]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

For me being an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pakistani, India, American is a secondary issue. 

 

But the main issue is being a HUMANIST. We are human first, and humanity stands above all religions and nationalism. 

 

Being a human, it is my right to ask all the Thekaydars of Religion and Nationalism, to tell us: "How a Muslim family is supposed to response to the slandering/one sided abuse/humiliation? 

 

Second question, if the right wing White supremacist abuses/humiliates an Indians in the West by calling him dirty/black/stinking swine/cow urine drunker etc, do you want the Indian guy to keep quite and keep on taking this humiliation?  How to stop this white supremacist from spreading this venom? 

 

 

That's just your claim, being a humanist. The facts are evident from your posts, you're another rotten P-A-K-I who keeps looking for opportunities to throw dirt at Indian hindus. 

 

Muslims too have various insults on hindus and every other community, just because they didn't show up in a certain media article doesn't mean they don't exist. 

[Clarke]

International affairs all too often seems a weighty subject, full of complexity and nuance, laden with portents of tension and conflict. No wonder it lends itself to overly solemn treatment, full of abstract analyses and recondite allusions:

the relations between countries, it is usually assumed, cannot be understood through the recitation of trivial anecdotes.
True enough. And yet sometimes a minor incident, a tempest in a teacup, can illuminate broader foreign policy challenges. Something of this nature happened this week, when Aatish Taseer, the estranged son (by an Indian mother) of the recently-assassinated governor of Pakistani Punjab, Salman Taseer, wrote a searing column in the Wall Street Journal, with the provocative title “Why My Father Hated India”, on the pathologies of hatred that in his view animated Pakistan’s attitude to our country.
“To understand the Pakistani obsession with India, to get a sense of its special edge — its hysteria — it is necessary to understand the rejection of India, its culture and past, that lies at the heart of the idea of Pakistan,” Aatish Taseer averred. “This is not merely an academic question. Pakistan’s animus toward India is the cause of both its unwillingness to fight Islamic extremism and its active complicity in undermining the aims of its ostensible ally, the United States.”
He went on to make his point in language that was both sharp and, at least to this reader, heartfelt and accurate. I do not know Aatish Taseer, nor had I met his colourful father, but I have admired the young man’s writing, particularly his poignant ruminations on Salman Taseer’s murder by his Islamist bodyguard earlier this year. So I was surprised to see the outraged reactions his article provoked from Pakistani liberal journalists. A number of them whose ideas I have appreciated and whom I “follow” on Twitter — the likes of Marvi Sirmed and Mosharraf Zaidi, widely-respected progressive thinkers both — reacted with rage and derision. One of them, the estimable Ejaz Haider, who has penned some courageous pieces in the Pakistani press criticising his own country, went so far as to author an entire column to disparage and deconstruct Aatish Taseer’s.
Young Taseer had, in his piece, put the onus on the Pakistani Army for that country’s problems, and particularly for diverting the vast amounts of American aid it has received (he underestimated it at “$11 billion since 9/11”) to arming itself against India. He added, powerfully, words I would have gladly put my own name to: “In Afghanistan, it has sought neither security nor stability but rather a backyard, which — once the Americans leave — might provide Pakistan with ‘strategic depth’ against India. In order to realise these objectives, the Pakistani Army has led the US in a dance, in which it had to be seen to be fighting the war on terror, but never so much as to actually win it, for its extension meant the continuing flow of American money. All this time the Army kept alive a double game, in which some terror was fought and some — such as Laskhar-e-Tayyaba’s 2008 attack on Mumbai — actively supported.
“The Army’s duplicity was exposed decisively this May,” he went on, “with the killing of Osama bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad. It was only the last and most incriminating charge against an institution whose activities over the years have included the creation of the Taliban, the financing of international terrorism and the running of a lucrative trade in nuclear secrets. This Army, whose might has always been justified by the imaginary threat from India, has been more harmful to Pakistan than to anybody else. It has consumed annually a quarter of the country’s wealth, undermined one civilian government after another and enriched itself through a range of economic interests, from bakeries and shopping malls to huge property holdings.”
It is hard to imagine anyone in India, however sympathetic they might be to Pakistan, dissenting from this view of the malign role of the Pakistani military. In our naïveté, we also tend to assume that Pakistani liberals would agree with us, seeing the salvation of their land lying in greater democracy and development, free of the stranglehold of the world’s most lavishly-funded military (in terms of percentage of national resources and GDP consumed by any Army on the planet). Alas, judging by their reactions to Taseer’s article, this seems not to be the case.
In his rebuttal, Ejaz Haider goes into great detail about the strength and deployment patterns of the Indian Army, as if to justify the Pakistani military’s behaviour. But there is no recognition whatsoever that India’s defence preparedness is prompted entirely by the fact that Pakistan has launched four incursions into our territory, in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999; that India is a status quo power that manifestly seeks nothing more than to be allowed to grow and develop in peace, free from the attentions of the Pakistani military and the militants and terrorists it sponsors; and bluntly, that there is not and cannot be an “Indian threat” to Pakistan, simply because there is absolutely nothing Pakistan possesses that India wants. If proof had to be adduced for this no doubt unflattering assessment, it lies in India’s decision at Tashkent in 1966 to give “back” to Pakistan every square inch of territory captured by our brave soldiers in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including the strategic Haji Pir Pass, all of which is land we claim to be ours. If we do not even insist on retaining what we see as our own territory, held by Pakistan since 1948 but captured fair and square in battle, why on earth would we want anything else from Pakistan?
No, the “Indian threat” is merely a useful device cynically exploited by the Pakistani military to justify their power (and their grossly disproportionate share of Pakistan’s national assets). But Pakistani liberals are particularly prone to the desire to prove themselves true nationalists; it is the best way to ensure that their otherwise heretical opinions are not completely discredited by the men in uniform who hold the reins of power in the state.
As this otherwise minor editorial spat demonstrates, Indians need to put aside their illusions that there are liberal partners for us on the other side of the border who echo our diagnosis of their plight and share our desire to defenestrate their military. Nor should we be surprised: a Pakistani liberal is, after all, a Pakistani before he is a liberal.

 

http://tharoorians.in/delusional-liberals/

[MechEng]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

For me being an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pakistani, India, American is a secondary issue. 

 

But the main issue is being a HUMANIST. We are human first, and humanity stands above all religions and nationalism. 

 

Being a human, it is my right to ask all the Thekaydars of Religion and Nationalism, to tell us: "How a Muslim family is supposed to response to the slandering/one sided abuse/humiliation? 

 

Second question, if the right wing White supremacist abuses/humiliates an Indians in the West by calling him dirty/black/stinking swine/cow urine drunker etc, do you want the Indian guy to keep quite and keep on taking this humiliation?  How to stop this white supremacist from spreading this venom? 

 

Freedom of speech in it's pure form exists in India only to be honest. And what you're seeing here regarding the Muslim family incident is a product of this freedom of speech, albeit in a negative way. Even in the US, if you're a white guy you can't say N word or criticize jews, shows how freedom of speech is more in India.

 

So if "Go back to Pakistan" must be classified as a hate speech, then Kashmiri muslims should also apologize collectively to Kashmiri pandits and welcome them back to their homeland. This would require compromising on freedom of speech but it should work both ways.

[Alam_dar]

31 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Freedom of speech in it's pure form exists in India only to be honest. And what you're seeing here regarding the Muslim family incident is a product of this freedom of speech, albeit in a negative way. Even in the US, if you're a white guy you can't say N word or criticize jews, shows how freedom of speech is more in India.

 

So if "Go back to Pakistan" must be classified as a hate speech, then Kashmiri muslims should also apologize collectively to Kashmiri pandits and welcome them back to their homeland. This would require compromising on freedom of speech but it should work both ways.

Off course. Absolutely no doubt about it that Kashmiri Pandits should get back home and all those extremist Kashmiri Muslims are actually terrorists who compelled them to leave. Either they had to apologize, or should be punished for this act. 

It is not about one side, but the evils on both sides should be criticized and condemned from the whole civil society. 

 

[mishra]

Alam, Any Muslim living in India has no right to ask or work for further partition. Partition was done in 1947. Muslims decided to take Pakistan. Its settled. If someone wants it now, they should go to Pakistan. 

 

India is not getting divided again. No matter whi is asking, be it Hindus or Muslims or Jains or Christians or libtard and atheists . So there is no double standard 

[Singh bling]

30 minutes ago, mishra said:

Alam, Any Muslim living in India has no right to ask or work for further partition. Partition was done in 1947. Muslims decided to take Pakistan. Its settled. If someone wants it now, they should go to Pakistan. 

 

India is not getting divided again. No matter whi is asking, be it Hindus or Muslims or Jains or Christians or libtard and atheists . So there is no double standard 

1947 will not stand foreover in history , already propaganda by indian muslims is on full swing

 

1) Pakistan was evil creation of jinnah who was rss agent.

2) All pakistani's irrespective of religion are bad people.

3) Muslims at the time of partition were whole heartidly with Gandhi , it was nathuram godse hindutva who shot Gandhi.

4). Large number of muslims never voted in favour of pakistan as only 10% population at that time was allowed to vote

5) Muslims rulers treated hindu's very well but in 70 years hindu's are treating them bad.

 

Go to social.medoa and you will need torch to find an indian muslim who believe it was islam that partitioned india, Babur , Aurangzeb etc were evil.

[Alam_dar]

30 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

1947 will not stand foreover in history , already propaganda by indian muslims is on full swing

 

1) Pakistan was evil creation of jinnah who was rss agent.

2) All pakistani's irrespective of religion are bad people.

3) Muslims at the time of partition were whole heartidly with Gandhi , it was nathuram godse hindutva who shot Gandhi.

4). Large number of muslims never voted in favour of pakistan as only 10% population at that time was allowed to vote

5) Muslims rulers treated hindu's very well but in 70 years hindu's are treating them bad.

 

Go to social.medoa and you will need torch to find an indian muslim who believe it was islam that partitioned india, Babur , Aurangzeb etc were evil.

Muslims will keep on sticking to their own propaganda to get the legitimacy against the extreme Hindu right wing. They will keep on defending their religion, their rulers, their era. 

 

Yes, it is really frustrating. 

 

And it seems our Hindu friends are taking out their FRUSTRATION against the Muslims by telling them to go to Pakistan. 

 

Any how, I am also extremely frustrated with what Muslims have become today due to their religion. 

 

But my way of taking out my FRUSTRATION is this that I directly hit the very base, and criticize Islam directly for it's inhuman teachings. 

 

I believe my path is more effective and it brings earthquakes in the very base i.e. religion of Islam itself. After that Muslims are frustrated, but I am no more frustrated. 

[straight_drive]

Muslims will keep on sticking to their own propaganda to get the legitimacy against the extreme Hindu right wing. They will keep on defending their religion, their rulers, their era. 
 
Yes, it is really frustrating. 
 
And it seems our Hindu friends are taking out their FRUSTRATION against the Muslims by telling them to go to Pakistan. 
 
Any how, I am also extremely frustrated with what Muslims have become today due to their religion. 
 
But my way of taking out my FRUSTRATION is this that I directly hit the very base, and criticize Islam directly for it's inhuman teachings. 
 
I believe my path is more effective and it brings earthquakes in the very base i.e. religion of Islam itself. After that Muslims are frustrated, but I am no more frustrated. 

The basic problem is your ideas you cannot even say openly in your country

Atleast Muslim in India can raise their voice against the majority that is what freedom as long they have freedom they can fight

Freedom does not and will not exist in Pakistani land that is the main reason why your ideas you cannot say in your country and also the very fampus MALALA who got British citizenship early cannot raise against her country of origin and cannot even go there

Sent from my SM-J701F using Tapatalk

[diga]

Thank god people like the OP are in Pak...we have enough p-secs to deal as it is

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, straight_drive said:

The basic problem is your ideas you cannot even say openly in your country

Atleast Muslim in India can raise their voice against the majority that is what freedom as long they have freedom they can fight

Freedom does not and will not exist in Pakistani land that is the main reason why your ideas you cannot say in your country and also the very fampus MALALA who got British citizenship early cannot raise against her country of origin and cannot even go there

Sent from my SM-J701F using Tapatalk
 

You are so right. The religion of Islam is worse in this regards and no one could even criticize Islam in Pakistan without being killed. Even I don't do any humiliation of their sacred personalities, but only criticize on scholarly level, still they are going to issue the fatwa of blasphemy, and then kill me. 

 

I wish that people of Europe and India and where ever they are free to speak, could get the basic education about Islam and it's inhuman teachings. At least in these countries Islam and the extremist Muslims could be suppressed through educational work. 

 

But I am afraid the world has not done enough Scholarly work and education against Islam. The world knows only that face of Islam which the Muslims present. It is so important to let the world know the true face of Islam which the Mullahs hide. 

 

Education on scholarly level is more important than becoming right wing and killing the Muslims. I know the facts, and I am sure that Muslims could be defeated through education to the masses about this religion. And even if present day Muslims don't leave Islam, but surely their later coming generations will abandon it.