Hindu man refuses Zomato takeaway over 'Muslim driver' !!!

[beetle]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Ok. I quit. 

But I am still personally interested in reading about those laws which favoured Muslims against the Hindus. If you could provide some information about these laws, then I will be grateful. 

It was the communal violence bill that assumed that the majority is always the one that indulges in violence and the minority always needs protection. 

In India...that is not at all true .

In west bengal, there are areas where criminals from the muslim community can commit crimes and find refuge because the police can't even enter those areas because of political patronage.

There are areas in WB where hindus can't celebrate durga puja 

There are places in kashmir where no hindus are left.

So to assume the majority community is the aggressor in India is pretty wrong and to make draconian laws against them is something that will make the majority community worried.

 

The law was for minorities but most minorities do not have issues with the majority community except muslims and sometimes christians.

 

 

https://www.change.org/p/global-hindus-protest-against-congress-policy-on-harassment-of-hindus

 

This is the reaction this kind of proposal has on people.

When people see the govt ( previous govt)media  become anti them...they tend to follow anyone that provides them relief.

 

The RSS and the bajrang dal tap on to the insecurity of the majority community because the majority community finds themselves being cornered by the what they feel is unfair behavior of the media, the politicians in power.

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by beetle

[G_B_]

12 hours ago, sandeep said:

I can agree with you in the Uber example with the sticker. 

 

Do you know how far-reaching and all-encompassing the laws are when it comes to "disturbing communal peace" in India?  If you want to claim a libertarian point of view, best to leave the "laws" out of the debate. 

 

And again, I am inclined to share your opinion on the "as long as no laws are broken" stand-point.  But there is such a thing as "social norms".  And if you accept blatantly prejudicial actions and soft bigotry, it can lead to extremely unwanted consequences in society.  For instance - the USA made slavery illegal in 1865, but it wasn't until 1965 that institutionalized discrimination against non-whites in the US was legislated out.  And it took decades after that to address the social norms - and many would point out that it remains a problem till today. 

 

I believe you are a resident of the UK are you not?  You cannot advocate equal rights for all, in your personal context, and then argue to enable and empower blatant discrimination when it doesn't impact you.  I mean, you can, but it would be sheer hypocrisy.

 

The USA still allows the KKK to operate. They have not banned them, nor can they legally ban them. This just illustrates my point. If the RSS indulge in violence then by all means take action against them. But anything apart from that is your opinion. nothing more....nothing less.

 

Re the UK and India. I advocate equal rights for all in all nations. This is the right to print stickers of their religion on cars or the right of Hindus to chant hanuman chalisa on the streets if Muslims are allowed to read namaz on the streets. The UK unlike India has a uniform civil code. Food for thought.

 

 

 

 

 

[Epic]

I don't know how twisted people here might be to actually support the guy declining delivery from a muslim man.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, G_B_ said:

The USA still allows the KKK to operate. They have not banned them, nor can they legally ban them. This just illustrates my point. If the RSS indulge in violence then by all means take action against them. But anything apart from that is your opinion. nothing more....nothing less.

 

Re the UK and India. I advocate equal rights for all in all nations. This is the right to print stickers of their religion on cars or the right of Hindus to chant hanuman chalisa on the streets if Muslims are allowed to read namaz on the streets. The UK unlike India has a uniform civil code. Food for thought.

 

In the US, it is illegal for a business to refuse service to a customer or discriminate based on race/ethnicity etc.  And, my point is not about the law on paper, but more so about societal norms.  I doubt you'd find anything other than public ridicule and shaming for any American who publicly announces that he wants his uber or pizza delivery driver to be not black, or not muslim.  Not to say that such ignorant bigotry doesn't exist - it sure does.  But when voiced in this manner on social media, it would invite ridicule and consequences. 

 

For example a few months  ago, there was a white woman who got very suspicious about a black man walking into the apartment building where she lived, and she asked him why he was there.  The black man taped the incident on his phone - and the woman was fired from her job for exhibiting prejudicial behavior.  And she wasn't anywhere near overtly racist.  

 

Let's not shift the goal posts by talking about uniform civil code etc - I am well aware that such whataboutism about "special" rights for muslims is a pet peeve and talking point for folks with a certain world-view.  But this is not about that.  This is about the hate-filled actions of one individual in question, who chose to advertise it on twitter.   

[sandeep]

20 minutes ago, Epic said:

I don't know how twisted people here might be to actually support the guy declining delivery from a muslim man.

A sense of victimhood can lead one to support some distasteful things without realizing it.  "Oh, but what about muslims reading namaz on the road, and rules against Garba stopping early in the night".

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, G_B_ said:

The USA still allows the KKK to operate. They have not banned them, nor can they legally ban them. This just illustrates my point. If the RSS indulge in violence then by all means take action against them. But anything apart from that is your opinion. nothing more....nothing less.

 

 

The request is very simple, please avoid aggressive attitudes in the religions which could make people of other beliefs uneasy and uncomfortable or fearful. 

 

Unfortunately, the new trends of saffron Rudra Hanuman and Jai Shri Ram have become very frightening due to their violent usage by saffron brigade lately. Was Hinduism incomplete without these new trends during all those last thousands of years of it's history? 

 

All measures against extremist Islam is welcome. But overdoing such things will make you yourself like the extremist Muslims. Limits are necessary for a civilised society. 

 

And among Muslims too, not all are extremists. There are many who only want to live in peace and earn their bread. 

 

Quote

 The UK unlike India has a uniform civil code. Food for thought.

I don't think it is related to the case of discussion here. 

For example, I do agree with uniform civil code in India, but I disagree with the Hindu chap drama against Zomato, and I also oppose the opinion of all the members here who above wrote that they are going to support this Hindu guy and will boycott Zomato as punishment for sending Muslim Drivers to Hindus to deliver the food. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Alam_dar

[sergio04]

 

[someone]

This foodie wanted similar "special treatment" as given to Muslims, so he tried his luck at Zomato. It failed miserable as he made a request publicly. He ought to learn from the minority, who always negotiate or intimidate privately. 

 

You don't fight the special treatment or appeasement issue of other groups, by asking same thing for yourself. There is no end game and it benefits none.

[someone]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Unfortunately, the new trends of saffron Rudra Hanuman and Jai Shri Ram have become very frightening due to their violent usage by saffron brigade lately. Was Hinduism incomplete without these new trends during all those last thousands of years of it's history? 

That's the core point. Is it a crime to be "Hindu" publicly? Muslims always show and "assert" their faith with topi, burqa, beard, clothes, public prayers. So are you frighten by such symbols? Yet, whenever Hindus display the God photos, wear saffron, or even visit temples, you make it a problem. One can show your faith in public and private life. It applies to all religions.

Edited August 2, 2019 by someone

[Jimmy Cliff]

Can't help but wonder how many of these "incidents" are staged/manufactured for publicity/narrative building/outrage industry .

[sandeep]

56 minutes ago, someone said:

That's the core point. Is it a crime to be "Hindu" publicly? Muslims always show and "assert" their faith with topi, burqa, beard, clothes, public prayers. So are you frighten by such symbols? Yet, whenever Hindus display the God photos, wear saffron, or even visit temples, you make it a problem. One can show your faith in public and private life. It applies to all religions.

This is nonsense.  There are umpteen public displays of faith in India and beyond, of hinduism.  99.99% of desi owned cars will have religious symbols everywhere.  Nobody has any issue with that.

 

That angry Hanuman logo has been co-opted as a symbol of assertive and threatening "power" by a radical fringe.  This is not to say that the poster is bad - its usage by these gangsters is bad.  

[sandeep]

10 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Why Ashok becomes Ahmad at Delhi's goat market ahead of Eid

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/why-ashok-becomes-ahmad-at-delhis-goat-market-ahead-of-eid/steady-sales/slideshow/65501859.cms

 

 

 

No denying that such attitudes do exist - not just in India, but everywhere.  But when a customer makes a public request to a business, they cannot be expected to "normalize" and accept such attitudes.   Bigots are going to bigot - but you can't and shouldn't "mainstream" such things as acceptable behavior.  

[someone]

17 minutes ago, sandeep said:

This is nonsense.  There are umpteen public displays of faith in India and beyond, of hinduism.  99.99% of desi owned cars will have religious symbols everywhere.  Nobody has any issue with that.

 

That angry Hanuman logo has been co-opted as a symbol of assertive and threatening "power" by a radical fringe.  This is not to say that the poster is bad - its usage by these gangsters is bad.  

With your logic, certain religion book has been co-opted and used by terrorists , so should be ban that? You should be more tolerant and accept ppl beliefs including the right to be a "Hindu" publicly. Nothing wrong with a "Rudra" form of Hanuman God.

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, someone said:

That's the core point. Is it a crime to be "Hindu" publicly? Muslims always show and "assert" their faith with topi, burqa, beard, clothes, public prayers. So are you frighten by such symbols? Yet, whenever Hindus display the God photos, wear saffron, or even visit temples, you make it a problem. One can show your faith in public and private life. It applies to all religions.

I am afraid that no one is comfortable with Muslims when they display their religious signs in the public. 

People are extreme uncomfortable with Muslim women with Burqa. It is already considered a sign of discrimination against women. 

Same is true about Muslims praying on the roads and public places openly. 

I am extremely uncomfortable when I see Pakistani players doing prostrations or using words like thanks Allah or Insha Allah in every other sentence they utter.

 

Long beards of Muslims were also uncomfortable, but still tolerable till 1990s. But since the start of 1990s, many Jihadists started having the same long beards and then it became a sign of fear and terror to me, and now I am much more uncomfortable with long Muslim beards. 

 

I don't think I got so much problems with logos of Hindu deities till the rise of BJP and saffron brigade, even I was Muslim at that time. But today I am more uncomfortable with Saffron brigade and Jai Sri Ram, even though today I am an atheist. And I am not at fault here, while saffron brigade has already connected terror and fears with these new signs. 

 

Therefore, my question still stands there, why do moderate Hindus need these new signs in Hinduism today which are causing fears and have become primarily the signs of the extremist Hindus? 

[someone]

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't think I got so much problems with logos of Hindu deities till the rise of BJP and saffron brigade, even I was Muslim at that time. But today I am more uncomfortable with Saffron brigade and Jai Sri Ram, even though today I am an atheist. And I am not at fault here, while saffron brigade has already connected terror and fears with these new signs. 

 

Therefore, my question still stands there, why do moderate Hindus need these new signs in Hinduism today which are causing fears and have become primarily the signs of the extremist Hindus? 

The same question can be asked to you, why are reacting? Do you have a problem with idol worship? Why are so intolerant? If "Rudra" images hurt your feelings, you are the bigot.

 

And calling Hindus moderates or extremist is wrong. There aren't any commandments in books here.

[beetle]

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Therefore, my question still stands there, why do moderate Hindus need these new signs in Hinduism today which are causing fears and have become primarily the signs of the extremist Hindus

What makes you think these are new signs?

Did you know the previous generations?

My grandparents life was guided by religion. Every event and function was conducted according to religion .

My parents were less religious and my generation is even lesser religious.

 

You don't live in India.

Your information is based on what the english media which is very biased against the majority community.

 

It is not the fault of hindus if a trishul ,the saffron color or the hanuman image is being seen as aggressive .

Do people feel the same for the kirpan?

 

To hindus...saffron is a sacred color denoting fire which itself is considered sacred .It denotes chastity and abstinence. It is the color worn by sadhus . It is a spiritual color.

 

If the libtards and media see aggression in that color...it is the fault of their discrimination and biased mind.

 

It is the media and people like you who are making  people decide to flaunt the saffron color more.

 

Infact after reading this thread...I am tempted to get the so called angry hanuman sticker myself.

[beetle]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

For example, I do agree with uniform civil code in India, but I disagree with the Hindu chap drama against Zomato, and I also oppose the opinion of all the members here who above wrote that they are going to support this Hindu guy and will boycott Zomato as punishment for sending Muslim Drivers to Hindus to deliver the food. 

I don't think people are asking to boycott zomato for sending a muslim driver....they are asking for boycott for zomato being hypocrite and the owner trying to get some brownie points on the social media.

If they are such champions ,they should be same for all communities.

 

They could have ignored the idiot like he should have been specially since they can't promise to be brave enough to be consistent on such issues...instead they chose to look like champions ...for a short time.

 

[someone]

11 minutes ago, beetle said:

To hindus...saffron is a sacred color denoting fire which itself is considered sacred .It denotes chastity and abstinence. It is the color worn by sadhus . It is a spiritual color. If the libtards and media see aggression in that color...it is the fault of their discrimination and biased mind.It is the media and people like you who are making  people decide to flaunt the saffron color more. Infact after reading this thread...I am tempted to get the so called angry hanuman sticker myself.

But are all those saffron colors, pictures necessary in Hinduism? The answer is No, and that's the beauty of Hinduism. You don't need to believe in any particular god, or books or way of life, to be Hindu.  Nothing is "compulsory" here. Yet, this "beauty" has turned out to be a "weakness". As certain minority, libtards, assert themselves and ask us to follow their version of Hinduism and not express ourselves freely.

 

Compare that to other religions, where they have one fixed book, so any single person can always justify their actions, beliefs using it. Hinduism is different, thus many have used it to control us, and explains our lack of unity....

 

 

[Alam_dar]

49 minutes ago, beetle said:

I don't think people are asking to boycott zomato for sending a muslim driver....they are asking for boycott for zomato being hypocrite and the owner trying to get some brownie points on the social media.

If they are such champions ,they should be same for all communities.

 

They could have ignored the idiot like he should have been specially since they can't promise to be brave enough to be consistent on such issues...instead they chose to look like champions ...for a short time.

 

For me it is not a crime from Zomato to protest against the hate behaviour of this Hindu guy, but I appreciate this behaviour.

And Zomato has done nothing to discriminate against the Hindu community, but still they have been constantly blamed for this.  

People find one fault or another to put blames on others. In this case, it is the allegation of brownie points, which is good enough to boycott Zomato and start a campaign against it. 

 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, beetle said:

What makes you think these are new signs?

Did you know the previous generations?

My grandparents life was guided by religion. Every event and function was conducted according to religion .

My parents were less religious and my generation is even lesser religious.

 

You don't live in India.

Your information is based on what the english media which is very biased against the majority community.

 

It is not the fault of hindus if a trishul ,the saffron color or the hanuman image is being seen as aggressive .

Do people feel the same for the kirpan?

 

To hindus...saffron is a sacred color denoting fire which itself is considered sacred .It denotes chastity and abstinence. It is the color worn by sadhus . It is a spiritual color.

 

If the libtards and media see aggression in that color...it is the fault of their discrimination and biased mind.

 

It is the media and people like you who are making  people decide to flaunt the saffron color more.

 

Infact after reading this thread...I am tempted to get the so called angry hanuman sticker myself.

 

Off course, I feel the same for Kirpan too. 

I feel the same for the weapons law in US which they consider for their culture as holy as their religion. 

 

No problem with harmless Sikh turban or beard or kara. But Kirpan brings fear to the others and make them uncomfortable. Things should change with time and reforms should be introduced. 

 

Even if laws does not ban some thing, but social norms in a civilised societies do guide us to avoid use of things which could bring fears to the others.