Would India still be a secular nation had Muslims been 80% and Hindus 15%

[someone]

1. It is "when" not "had".  It's inevitable.  Would India still be a secular nation when Muslims 80% and Hindus 15%.

2. Secular nation itself is two questions. Would India still be a one nation?

3. Similarly, Would India still be secular?

 

The answer for all such questions is NO.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, SecondSlip said:

Let me ask you one thing. 
 

If you surveyed every Muslim in India that is above 18 years old and had only 2 options on the survey, which one would get the majority of votes? Here are the 2 options: 

 

A) Should India be a secular republic 

OR

B) Should India be a Islamic republic 

 

I can guarantee you that 97% of Indian Muslims today in year 2020 will vote for the Islamic republic. 
 

Seeing sickulars like you defend these people with all your might is really funny to see. 

Gotta love how "dharmics" like you are so confident about what "97%" of Indian muslims would say.  Extra points for the 97 - so precise.  

 

Reality is that you know phucck-all about what they would say.  But I know what you believe they would say.  That's the textbook definition of bigotry.  It doesn't survive facts, it needs ignorant mindless flat-earth belief to survive.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

This is negation of history, ML campaigned for Partition of the country and a vote for them was a vote on Pakistan. This is from historical accounts of elections at that time from even left historians.  If we want to move on and if it is water under the bridge, we need a reconcilliation to move forward. We need to make sure we could trust and not make it happen again.

Its not 'negation'. My point is that at that point 'partition' wasn't as well-defined as it is today. I don't think Jinnah himself wanted a hostile adversial relation between his bastardised creation and the mother nation.  Well he was selfish and ignorant anyway, but that's besides the point.  

 

A lot of muslims voted for Pakistan and left for Pakistan post-1947, for economic reasons. They feared competition with rest of India, whereas with Pakistan, it was a clean slate, and there was plenty of opportunity for qualified muslims, who faced little or no competition.  Of course it was a selfish choice, but almost everybody is selfish.  If the tables were turned, and Hindus were in a similar position, and given similar choices, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Hindus would have voted and acted similarly - outside of the "Direct action" horrors of course.  

 

 

[someone]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Gotta love how "dharmics" like you are so confident about what "97%" of Indian muslims would say.  Extra points for the 97 - so precise.  

 

Reality is that you know phucck-all about what they would say.  But I know what you believe they would say.  That's the textbook definition of bigotry.  It doesn't survive facts, it needs ignorant mindless flat-earth belief to survive.

Reality is using terms like bigots in your posts, does not make you correct. Next, you can be struck on the figure 97% but the context is the most important. Why are Muslims considered to be flag-bearers of secularism?

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, someone said:

Why are Muslims considered to be flag-bearers of secularism?

Yet another nugget of bullpoop. Keep making up nonsense to fight against.  

[MechEng]

23 hours ago, Gollum said:

This isn't an anti-Muslim thread. Stop trying to be PC. Muslim societies never giving two hoots about secularism/tolerance or having abnormally high TFR....these may be politically incorrect or in some cases difficult topics for snowflakes but not anti-Muslim. Just like how discussing caste atrocities doesn't make someone anti-dharmic. 

 

On 3/17/2020 at 4:20 PM, coffee_rules said:

BD was around 22% Hindu in 1947. Now Hindus are 8%. So, no, I will not be a secular nation

Let us all convert peacefully, no point in fighting a losing battle. 

[Alam_dar]

23 hours ago, Gollum said:

Had Muslims been at 80% and Hindus at 15% post partition, by now there would be <5% Hindu pop in India. Difference in TFR combined with status of kafirs in Muslim society, plus I am pretty sure we would have seen many 1971 type genocides and KP type exoduses. You and me would have long departed for safer lands, maybe even as refugees. 

 

JK had around 60% Muslim pop in 1951, how did that state turn out? In Muslim majority villages in Bengal, Durga Puja is banned, women's football is banned, Hindu women with sindoor have been repeatedly targeted in hate (rape) crimes....and Bong Muslims are comparatively more chilled out. 

 

Remember this, Muslims are a difficult minority and tyrannical majority. All communities get cocky when they have majoritarian privilege, but Muslims aim to wipe out others when they are in majority, then they start fighting among themselves about who is more Muslim or the correct kind of Muslim. Look at so called 'progressive' Malaysia, there is a complete ban on Shia Islam. 

 

Unfortunately, very hard, but very true facts about the Muslim communities. 

I agree with you upon all these facts. 

But best line of action is this that the "reaction" against this particular fanatic Muslim behaviour should come from the combined Secular platform of India itself, and not from the Hindutva platform of India. 

Secularism always keeps one escape door open and moderate Muslims have the chance to enter through this door and separate themselves from the fanatics. 

While Hindutva platform is unable to provide any such option of an escape door. Their only solution is "Ghar Wapsi" or "Muslim Genocide". 

[coffee_rules]

8 minutes ago, MechEng said:

 

Let us all convert peacefully, no point in fighting a losing battle. 

La ilaha illallah , mohhamad rasoolallah

[someone]

12 hours ago, sandeep said:

Yet another nugget of bullpoop. Keep making up nonsense to fight against.  

Covering your eyes when a crime happens, doesn't make the crime go away. Not talking about the issues, doesnt mean the issues dont exist. Calling other bigots, doesnt mean you are pure and right.

 

Instead, you are soft and unable to provide substance, and thus resort to emotions and your moral stuffs. Also, try peaching all this to other side, and I guarantee, you would be outcast right away...

Edited March 19, 2020 by someone

[Alam_dar]

The "pattern" of writing style of Mr. @sandeep in this post (as well as all together) is:

 

(1) He will criticize Pakistan a lot (just like other "Indian Muslims" usually do now-a-days to show themselves to be loyal to India, although their forefathers voted for Pakistan). 

 

(2) But he will never utter any word against the Religion of Peace itself.  In his posts, you will never find that he criticises any aspect of Islam directly. At maximum, he will hide this lack of criticism of Islam behind the curtain of criticizing the Mullahs (just like almost all moderate Muslims do).

 

(3) He will try his best to defend the Indian Muslim community and try to prove that they are loyal to India. 

 

@Gollum , @someone , @SecondSlip , although we could not be sure about it, but keep in mind while debating with Sandeep that he could actually be a Muslim in disguise. 

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

The "pattern" of writing style of Mr. @sandeep in this post (as well as all together) is:

 

(1) He will criticize Pakistan a lot (just like other "Indian Muslims" usually do now-a-days to show themselves to be loyal to India, although their forefathers voted for Pakistan). 

 

(2) But he will never utter any word against the Religion of Peace itself.  In his posts, you will never find that he criticises any aspect of Islam directly. At maximum, he will hide this lack of criticism of Islam behind the curtain of criticizing the Mullahs (just like almost all moderate Muslims do).

 

(3) He will try his best to defend the Indian Muslim community and try to prove that they are loyal to India. 

 

@Gollum , @someone , @SecondSlip , although we could not be sure about it, but keep in mind while debating with Sandeep that he could actually be a Muslim in disguise. 

Sandy is dharmic, he may have differences in ideology with some of us and that is perfectly fine as long as respect and courtesy are maintained. I have difference in opinion with so many Hindu colleagues of mine, I will prefer to argue the points rather than person. You are saying 'Muslim' as if it is a cuss word lol, criticism should be directed towards tenets of Islam and not Muslims, we don't decide in which family we are born. 

 

Besides one thing I have to make very clear... as long as some poster here isn't antagonistic towards India, Indic civilization/roots, dharmic history/culture I have no problem. The poster you mentioned ticks these criteria, isn't a troll, is of Indian origin, adds quality to discourse here and gets along well with other posters. Don't drag me into this, if you have a bone to pick with the said poster debate him and if you don't like, put on 'ignore' list. We are all adults here, let us behave appropriately. 

 

PS- You mentioned same thing in another thread, I desisted from responding. Put this post because you tagged me, please don't do this again. 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Gollum

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

You are saying 'Muslim' as if it is a cuss word

I have no problems with Muslim either and I do respect them as fellow human beings. 

The issue here was "Possible Muslim in DISGUISE"

 

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

PS- You mentioned same thing in another thread, I desisted from responding. Put this post because you tagged me, please don't do this again. 

If I have made any personal attack against you, then I should be ashamed of myself as you I like your postings. 

If I criticized religion or traditions, then I think it is a basic human right to differ. 

 

If you don't want me to tag you again, then it is sad, but I respect your opinion. (PS: But it may be I quote you if I find any point for the discussion. You need not answer it though). 

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

If I have made any personal attack against you, then I should be ashamed of myself as you I like your postings. 

If I criticized religion or traditions, then I think it is a basic human right to differ. 

If you don't want me to tag you again, then it is sad, but I respect your opinion. (PS: But it may be I quote you if I find any point for the discussion. You need not answer it though). 

Arey baba, I meant about sandeep or someone else. You can tag/quote me as long as it is part of general discussion about various topics, unless I am bored or have time constraints I will respond. I am not interested about other posters because that digresses as well as lowers the quality of discussion. 

[Stradlater]

Sandeep Or Syyed? 

[Vilander]

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The "pattern" of writing style of Mr. @sandeep in this post (as well as all together) is:

 

(1) He will criticize Pakistan a lot (just like other "Indian Muslims" usually do now-a-days to show themselves to be loyal to India, although their forefathers voted for Pakistan). 

 

(2) But he will never utter any word against the Religion of Peace itself.  In his posts, you will never find that he criticises any aspect of Islam directly. At maximum, he will hide this lack of criticism of Islam behind the curtain of criticizing the Mullahs (just like almost all moderate Muslims do).

 

(3) He will try his best to defend the Indian Muslim community and try to prove that they are loyal to India. 

 

@Gollum , @someone , @SecondSlip , although we could not be sure about it, but keep in mind while debating with Sandeep that he could actually be a Muslim in disguise. 

Does not matter he is Indian.

[sandeep]

5 hours ago, Gollum said:

Sandy is dharmic, he may have differences in ideology with some of us and that is perfectly fine as long as respect and courtesy are maintained. I have difference in opinion with so many Hindu colleagues of mine, I will prefer to argue the points rather than person. You are saying 'Muslim' as if it is a cuss word lol, criticism should be directed towards tenets of Islam and not Muslims, we don't decide in which family we are born. 

 

Besides one thing I have to make very clear... as long as some poster here isn't antagonistic towards India, Indic civilization/roots, dharmic history/culture I have no problem. The poster you mentioned ticks these criteria, isn't a troll, is of Indian origin, adds quality to discourse here and gets along well with other posters. Don't drag me into this, if you have a bone to pick with the said poster debate him and if you don't like, put on 'ignore' list. We are all adults here, let us behave appropriately. 

 

PS- You mentioned same thing in another thread, I desisted from responding. Put this post because you tagged me, please don't do this again. 

Gollum bhai, He's just made at me because I may have exposed his fake atheist taqqiya.  And he thinks accusing me of being a "muslim" is some kind of masterstroke. Its comedy is what it is.  Just ignore it.

[sandeep]

19 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Sandeep Or Syyed? 

Sri Sri Sandeep Syed Alhambibuollah.

[sandeep]

7 hours ago, someone said:

Covering your eyes when a crime happens, doesn't make the crime go away. Not talking about the issues, doesnt mean the issues dont exist. Calling other bigots, doesnt mean you are pure and right.

 

Instead, you are soft and unable to provide substance, and thus resort to emotions and your moral stuffs. Also, try peaching all this to other side, and I guarantee, you would be outcast right away...

I'm not 'covering' my eyes.  You made a false claim about "muslims being considered flag bearers of secularism".  Who exactly made this claim? Certainly not me.  But you used it as a talking point - that's what I'm referring to.  And now you respond with vague generalized nonsense.  I have no exclusive claim on 'moral stuffs'.  But you certainly feel quite comfortable to "call out" the problems in the muslim mindset as you see them, even without any basis, or specifics.  Why shouldn't I feel free to express my opinion on specific prejudiced posts and opinions when I see them? 

 

Ultimately, I don't think a lot of guys who are posting passive aggressive stuff about muslims are actually bigots.  But are being carried and seduced by the wave of mainstreaming prejudice.  Which is why I feel its important to counter it a little bit - because the more you tolerate and allow such things to be said and repeated, the more intense and louder it gets. 

 

 

[sandeep]

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

While Hindutva platform is unable to provide any such option of an escape door. Their only solution is "Ghar Wapsi" or "Muslim Genocide". 

This moron needs to a slap or 2, a virtual one in the form of temporary ban would suffice.  @Moderator

[someone]

28 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I'm not 'covering' my eyes.  You made a false claim about "muslims being considered flag bearers of secularism".  Who exactly made this claim? Certainly not me.  But you used it as a talking point - that's what I'm referring to.  And now you respond with vague generalized nonsense.  I have no exclusive claim on 'moral stuffs'.  But you certainly feel quite comfortable to "call out" the problems in the muslim mindset as you see them, even without any basis, or specifics.  Why shouldn't I feel free to express my opinion on specific prejudiced posts and opinions when I see them? 

 

Ultimately, I don't think a lot of guys who are posting passive aggressive stuff about muslims are actually bigots.  But are being carried and seduced by the wave of mainstreaming prejudice.  Which is why I feel its important to counter it a little bit - because the more you tolerate and allow such things to be said and repeated, the more intense and louder it gets. 

 

 

You have to call a spade a spade. Refusing to acknowledge the problem even exists as it hurts your feelings, is one silly reasoning. In a ideal world, I would have agreed to you. But there are a lot of bad happenings, and it's important to understand such issues instead of living in denial.

 

I judge how one community wants a" veto power" in disguise of secularism, and the protests and violent are against making sure they get their veto power back.