Jump to content
bharathh

Muslim appeasement in India - myth or truth?

Recommended Posts

@Mariyam Created this thread separately from the Xinjiang one. You raised an interesting point there. 

 

I don't pretend to speak for the OP of that thread... but here are my thoughts on what I consider to be Muslim appeasement. I am happy to be corrected as these are my thoughts - please let me know if you disagree and we can have a discussion on this. I would really like to have a contrarian view on this as well. 

 

Perception issues

India is said to be a secular country where hypothetically people are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. India is a country of diverse faiths and communities that depend heavily on the concept of being Indian before any other category of people. Before we get to the meat of this... there is a perception (that is compounded by things such as the recent Hijab controversy where small girls say hijab before kitaab, or never speaking against communal comments by ppl like Owaisi, etc.) that many Muslims put their religion before their nation. For a lot of ppl, including me, this tends to become a sore point as the same folks argue for individual rights over the state when convenient - but do not hesitate to take advantage of legal rights when in their advantage.

 

There is also a constant sensationalizing of Islamophobia where many prominent Muslims keep acting like they are under constant threat for their lives. These same prominent Muslims never speak out against the Islamists or any events where the guilty party are Muslims. Here is an example where the Amar Jawan memorial in Mumbai is desecrated during some protests. The award wapsi and dar ka mahol hai folks lose their voices immediately. This kind of hypocrisy gives rise to perceptions that somehow people always speak up for Muslims when they are victims but never when they are the aggressors. 

 

spacer.png

 

 

There is a lot of historical baggage as well. As a lot of keyboard warriors like to claim - Muslims ruled over Indians for 1000+ yrs. They committed numerous atrocities and changed the demographics of the country permanently through the sword and economic intimidation. There were many attempts at cultural genocide - and yet many of these folks are considered to be heroes. Tipu Sultan, the Mughals, etc. are good examples. There has been little to no discourse to reconcile these atrocities. Any attempt to talk about these (even as recent as the most recent genocide in Kashmir) is seen as something that will upset communal harmony. Why should some random Muslim get triggered by the blame on an extremist of the religion who committed a horrendous crime? Asking Hindus and those of other religions to keep shut and move on while things such as Gujarat 2002 (which ironically was started by the burning of pilgrims at Godhra), Babri Masjid etc. are brought up regularly as ways in which Muslims are killed consistently in India. Why is talking about these not considered ways to hinder communal harmony?

 

Legal issues

The biggest issue or advantage seen is the Muslim personal law. As a lawyer you will be more conversant with the reach of these laws than I am - so I am not planning to argue on these laws. However, why a Muslim personal law? Does it not set one religion apart completely from the rest of the nation in a secular country? Why do Muslims need a civil law only to themselves. Muslims have a huge population in India. 200M+? Why do these folks have a different law applicable to them when the majority of folks do not?

 

Due to these laws, Islamic bodies such as the Waqf board (again I am sure you know more about this) is the 3rd largest land owner in the country. And yet they pay no taxes, do not sell any land and can claim any land they wish to. Any disputes have to be settled only by the Waqf appointed board. (I believe)Even the SC of India cannot adjudicate on these cases. Is this not a clear advantage? I am not saying this for Muslims in general - but this board represents the religion and its foundation is religion based. Similarly mosques and other religious institutions of India do not come under the same restrictions that the Hindus do. In fact in many states they get funded by the state as opposed to getting money taken away as seen with Hindu temples. There is no govt interference with anything related to Islam. 

 

Muslims get a healthy quota of reservations as OBCs when no other religion gets this. Why do Muslims get these quotas? This is enshrined in the constitution which apparently is supposed to be secular. These apply across the board for education, jobs, promotions, etc.

 

Islamic institutions are allowed to operate completely independently from the affirmative actions required of other schools and institutions. In fact, they are allowed to reserve a lion's share of seats for people of their own religion. Is this not an advantage? Dress codes, modes of operation, faculty mix (completely Muslim) etc. are completely managed only the basis of religion.

 

A large amount of money was spent on Haj pilgrimages to go to another country. The common taxpayer paid a pretty penny for these subsidies and centres for decades. Again when the Waqf board sits on so much property and is worth many lakhs of crores - but never seems to do anything for Muslims. It is always the state and centre that has to shell out for programs like these. 

 

There are many more things to discuss - perhaps we can do so. Just kicking off the discussion with these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@bharathh

 

Thank you taking the time out and penning down in great detail your point of view.

 

Lets start with what we understand as appeasement. And the difference between appeasement and freebies/hand outs/reservations. Those are distinct issues which you've clubbed as instances of appeasement.

 

If there is so much 'appeasement' why then are Muslims laggards on almost every HDI metric? 

 

To begin with, what you cite as a 'perception issue' is magnified IMO and quite frankly a product of an echo chamber that is perpetuated by consuming very biased and dubious sources of news/information. There is a lot of chatter against extremism in the mainstream Muslim society. In the print media and online. By established Muslim voices.

Since you mentioned the Hijab related controversy in Karnataka, one of the judges passing the Judgement is a Muslim lady. The verdict by the Kerala HC Judgement which set a precedent of sorts for this ruling, was also by a Muslim judge . The lawyer arguing on behalf of the State of Kerala ( and in a related case for the CBSC) was also a Muslim. I'd much rather we have people like these than those who 'condemn' violent acts by extremists. Mouthing platitudes never solved anything.

Speaking of condemnation, I think its a given that most people are against all these acts of violence on the basis of religion. That is the default state of most Muslims. To question why abc doesn't condemn every terrorist act is very condescending.  And can be hurtful. Its not that the violent act has our sanction. We never supported them in the first place. Also, what would mere condemnation do? A terrorist is not going to change his view point based on what some 'moderate' said as a sound-byte on twitter. 

 

Re: History and reconciliation.

In my opinion, history has become in India a tool used by groups to push a sense of victim hood. What exactly is reconciliation? Say the NCERT introduces a chapter that says Akbar wasn't a great but a tyrant. What does that solve? These are faux-emotional issues which should have zero relevance in modern India. Instead there would be a million of people celebrating stuff like this and some other million protesting this and taking the issue to court. Wasting precious court time over what is essentially nonsense. I ask again, does it really matter if Akbar were a tyrant or a saint? 

I am, fair to say, a lot more plugged into the Muslim community than most others on this website. I've never seen people glorify Aurangzeb or who ever. Most people ( me included) won't even be able to name the Mughals in chronological order. They aren't our heroes. Strangely its on ICF that I find a lot of people who claim to ( and possibly do) know a lot about medieval Indian history.  Most who know the history are generally unhappy about it.

Look, I am not denying that there were atrocities that invading Muslim armies or rulers engaged in centuries before. But what has this to do with people living in India today? If on page 55 of chapter 8 of your 6th grade text book, you had 2 lines which said Akbar were a tyrant what tangible difference would it make to your existence today?

IMO, Muslims (or at least religious leadership) should denounce the invaders. They should have handed over the Babri Masjid before the demolition. All of this would go a long way in reconciliation. Much more than ' historical' irredentism.

 

Re: Reservation.

Don't think this has much to do with religion. I have been quite privileged, and my comments here may lack the necessary depth that the topics requires. Reservations, for communities, should be time bound. Otherwise, they become election gimmicks like they are today in India. Has there even been a community for whom reservations were rescinded, once accorded. We are essentially killing merit.

We have entire groups who were rulers in the past ( Jaats, Marathas) who are claiming to be backward. In most societies of the world, the rush to falsify history consists of groups that want to move up the social ladder by claiming higher birth/caste/family name. Its only in India that communities claim 'lower' status.

Don't know why you claim Muslims get the better of it? That isn't the case. In my view, changing your religion doesn't immediately change who you are from a socio-economic point of view. In India reservations are for castes and most castes are professions. Those professions that traditionally did the heavy lifting and were ostracised need reservation. That should be irrespective of what religion they belong to now.  You aren't right on OBC reservations. They are available for all communities not just Muslims.

 

Re: Haj Subsidy. I had once written a long post on this. Which I can't find. In a nutshell, Haj subsidy was GoI funding Air India and giving it monopoly over the Haj route. And the Haj Committee was an extremely corrupt and nepotistic entity. As an experiment, ask your not so well off or middle class friends what they think about the Haj Committe and what they had to pay to advance their 'ziyarat number'. Pretty much offsets the subsidy benefit for most people.

 

Re: Waqf board: Why do you say there is no government inference? Its a statutory body of the GoI. Its books are audited regularly and they are answerable to the CAG's office under the respective State's submission of consolidated funds. It is also an extremely corrupt body ( but which isn't). But think of it this way, unlike temples where there is an active culture of donation for aeons, aside of dargahs there is no culture of donations. In many cases, it is shirked upon. The Waqf board also has the unenviable task of maintaining 1000s of religious structures, graveyards, libraries and now obsolete buildings like granaries/baths/jharokas with views of masjids erc. Many of these are no longer able to generate any income. Most state WAQF boards pay no taxes because they don't have an income. They are generally in the red. Only a few Waqf boards have been self sustaining. All of this is public domain information.

 

I  think the Waqf board gets a lot of hate because they were litigants in the Babri Masjid case. But that is their stated job!

A better question is why aren't many of these structures under the purview of the ASI?  Especially to do with structures where prayers aren't offered.

 

Re: Personal Law. There is a Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu Succession Act. Hindu Guardianship Act. Hindu Adoption Act. Your point here isn't structured well. What are you trying to ask.

Personally, I'm in favour of the UCC. Had it happened years earlier there would have been so much lesser to study! Could have trolled more on ICF :icflove:

 

 

 

 

@Mariyam   

 

 

Very balanced views.    I would say non-muslims of India are extremely agitated at how MAJORITY Muslims continue to vote as a block and willing aid and abet political parties that appease them. 

 

Do you think PM MM Singh would make such ridiculous atrocious politics if this kind of appeasement politics was not working ? It has been working and it is working because of "block voting"  to favor "secular" ( aka appeasing parties )

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/muslims-must-have-first-claim-on-resources-pm/articleshow/754937.cms

Quote

Muslims must have first claim on resources: PM Manmohan Singh.


Non-muslims of India are also extremely agitated at how muslims being the second largest minority by far ( 220 Million plus ) - they always play the minority card and have a victim mentality.   Jains, Sikhs, Parsees, Sindhis ...etc are tiny or negligible minorities relative to Indian muslims - yet one rarely sees them playing a victim/minority card.

Quote

 

If there is so much 'appeasement' why then are Muslims laggards on almost every HDI metric? 

 

 

 

@Mariyam  I would really really urge you to watch this below clip by Dr. Anand Ranganathan who truely explains what is Islamophobia ( no one else in India or otherwise has explained it more brilliantly)

 

Please tell me how one can possibly have a progressive mindset if the holy book divides the world into believers and non-believers - speaking extremely lowly of non believers.  
This is propagated even in the madrasas in India. 
 

After all Dr Ranganathan  - is quoting the holy book with  chapter and verse. He has mentioned these points on many TV shows and not one Muslim scholar has been able to counter it. 

 

If one recommends not to teach the holy book to young kids who dont understand lets say the context - it will be construed as being islamophobic.

 

If one recommends amending content in the holy book that is extremely inciteful and hateful towards "non-believers"   - it will be blasphemy and Fatwa worthy.

 

Who is to blame for this ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rangeelaraja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

.

 

between appeasement and freebies/hand outs/reservations. Those are distinct issues which you've clubbed as instances of appeasement.

Agree , handouts are not mainly appeasement that is distinctive for Muslims. Even Dalits , OBCs are appeased with handouts which is not the same as the appeasement of Muslims.

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

If there is so much 'appeasement' why then are Muslims laggards on almost every HDI metric?

 

Tell me why? All the rich and privileged Muslims went to Pakistan  and the majority of Muslims left behind were poor. 
successive congress govts and the Muslim elite used them as a voting bloc and to generate a veto power pawn. That is the appeasement that we should talk about in the OP

 

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

To begin with, what you cite as a 'perception issue' is magnified IMO and quite frankly a product of an echo chamber that is perpetuated by consuming very biased and dubious sources of news/information

Because  there is no space for samvaad as each chamber doesn’t trust the other. From the Dharmic POV, any voice like Arif Khan or Abdul Kalam is seen as a Mukhbir by even moderate Muslims like Javed Akhtar it Ghulam Azad and we have lost trust on Hindu seculars 

 

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:


 

 

. There is a lot of chatter against extremism in the mainstream Muslim society. In the print media and online. By established Muslim voices.

Since you mentioned the Hijab related controversy in Karnataka, one of the judges passing the Judgement is a Muslim lady. The verdict by the Kerala HC Judgement which set a precedent of sorts for this ruling, was also by a Muslim judge . The lawyer arguing on behalf of the State of Kerala ( and in a related case for the CBSC) was also a Muslim. I'd much rather we have people like these than those who 'condemn' violent acts by extremists. Mouthing platitudes never solved anything.

Speaking of condemnation, I think its a given that most people are against all these acts of violence on the basis of religion. That is the default state of most Muslims. To question why abc doesn't condemn every terrorist act is very condescending.  And can be hurtful. Its not that the violent act has our sanction. We never supported them in the first place. Also, what would mere condemnation do? A terrorist is not going to change his view point based on what some 'moderate' said as a sound-byte on twitter. 
 

Agree that sound bytes and lip service from mainstream Muslims is not effective, boots on the ground and judicial activism is the best way to reform the quom as seen in the caste issue. 
 

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

Re: History and reconciliation.

In my opinion, history has become in India a tool used by groups to push a sense of victim hood. What exactly is reconciliation? Say the NCERT introduces a chapter that says Akbar wasn't a great but a tyrant. What does that solve? These are faux-emotional issues which should have zero relevance in modern India. Instead there would be a million of people celebrating stuff like this and some other million protesting this and taking the issue to court. Wasting precious court time over what is essentially nonsense. I ask again, does it really matter if Akbar were a tyrant or a saint? 

I am, fair to say, a lot more plugged into the Muslim community than most others on this website. I've never seen people glorify Aurangzeb or who ever. Most people ( me included) won't even be able to name the Mughals in chronological order. They aren't our heroes. Strangely its on ICF that I find a lot of people who claim to ( and possibly do) know a lot about medieval Indian history.  Most who know the history are generally unhappy about it.

Look, I am not denying that there were atrocities that invading Muslim armies or rulers engaged in centuries before. But what has this to do with people living in India today? If on page 55 of chapter 8 of your 6th grade text book, you had 2 lines which said Akbar were a tyrant what tangible difference would it make to your existence today?

IMO, Muslims (or at least religious leadership) should denounce the invaders. They should have handed over the Babri Masjid before the demolition. All of this would go a long way in reconciliation. Much more than ' historical' irredentism.

This is the crux of the problem. Historical wrongs were never accepted and seculars want to move on. For any reconciliation, at first, Truth has to be accepted. Let Muslims in general accept their Hindu ancestry (Like Ghulam Nabi Azad did), We are like the west. We believe in an identity much like the west. The main issue with Hindu seculars and Muslims feel that this reality will remove their significance in Modern India. This mindset  has to be eradicated. What is the priority to move forward- HDI or pride in the Islamic rule of the region. It already caused two nations, do we want to create more such partitions? 
 

That is why revisionism of History will save India!


 

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

 

Re: Reservation.

Don't think this has much to do with religion. I have been quite privileged, and my comments here may lack the necessary depth that the topics requires. Reservations, for communities, should be time bound. Otherwise, they become election gimmicks like they are today in India. Has there even been a community for whom reservations were rescinded, once accorded. We are essentially killing merit.

We have entire groups who were rulers in the past ( Jaats, Marathas) who are claiming to be backward. In most societies of the world, the rush to falsify history consists of groups that want to move up the social ladder by claiming higher birth/caste/family name. Its only in India that communities claim 'lower' status.

Don't know why you claim Muslims get the better of it? That isn't the case. In my view, changing your religion doesn't immediately change who you are from a socio-economic point of view. In India reservations are for castes and most castes are professions. Those professions that traditionally did the heavy lifting and were ostracised need reservation. That should be irrespective of what religion they belong to now.  You aren't right on OBC reservations. They are available for all communities not just Muslims.

 

Re: Haj Subsidy. I had once written a long post on this. Which I can't find. In a nutshell, Haj subsidy was GoI funding Air India and giving it monopoly over the Haj route. And the Haj Committee was an extremely corrupt and nepotistic entity. As an experiment, ask your not so well off or middle class friends what they think about the Haj Committe and what they had to pay to advance their 'ziyarat number'. Pretty much offsets the subsidy benefit for most people.

 

Re: Waqf board: Why do you say there is no government inference? Its a statutory body of the GoI. Its books are audited regularly and they are answerable to the CAG's office under the respective State's submission of consolidated funds. It is also an extremely corrupt body ( but which isn't). But think of it this way, unlike temples where there is an active culture of donation for aeons, aside of dargahs there is no culture of donations. In many cases, it is shirked upon. The Waqf board also has the unenviable task of maintaining 1000s of religious structures, graveyards, libraries and now obsolete buildings like granaries/baths/jharokas with views of masjids erc. Many of these are no longer able to generate any income. Most state WAQF boards pay no taxes because they don't have an income. They are generally in the red. Only a few Waqf boards have been self sustaining. All of this is public domain information.

 

I  think the Waqf board gets a lot of hate because they were litigants in the Babri Masjid case. But that is their stated job!

A better question is why aren't many of these structures under the purview of the ASI?  Especially to do with structures where prayers aren't offered.

 

Re: Personal Law. There is a Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu Succession Act. Hindu Guardianship Act. Hindu Adoption Act. Your point here isn't structured well. What are you trying to ask.

Personally, I'm in favour of the UCC. Had it happened years earlier there would have been so much lesser to study! Could have trolled more on ICF :icflove:

 

 


Too tired and will take up on the rest. Glad that Muslims accepted TT and Haj Subsidy, but the main issue is the veto power they are perceived to hold. Will talk more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Lets start with what we understand as appeasement. And the difference between appeasement and freebies/hand outs/reservations. Those are distinct issues which you've clubbed as instances of appeasement.

 

If there is so much 'appeasement' why then are Muslims laggards on almost every HDI metric? 

 

To begin with, what you cite as a 'perception issue' is magnified IMO and quite frankly a product of an echo chamber that is perpetuated by consuming very biased and dubious sources of news/information. There is a lot of chatter against extremism in the mainstream Muslim society. In the print media and online. By established Muslim voices.

Since you mentioned the Hijab related controversy in Karnataka, one of the judges passing the Judgement is a Muslim lady. The verdict by the Kerala HC Judgement which set a precedent of sorts for this ruling, was also by a Muslim judge . The lawyer arguing on behalf of the State of Kerala ( and in a related case for the CBSC) was also a Muslim. I'd much rather we have people like these than those who 'condemn' violent acts by extremists. Mouthing platitudes never solved anything.

Speaking of condemnation, I think its a given that most people are against all these acts of violence on the basis of religion. That is the default state of most Muslims. To question why abc doesn't condemn every terrorist act is very condescending.  And can be hurtful. Its not that the violent act has our sanction. We never supported them in the first place. Also, what would mere condemnation do? A terrorist is not going to change his view point based on what some 'moderate' said as a sound-byte on twitter. 

 

Re: History and reconciliation.

In my opinion, history has become in India a tool used by groups to push a sense of victim hood. What exactly is reconciliation? Say the NCERT introduces a chapter that says Akbar wasn't a great but a tyrant. What does that solve? These are faux-emotional issues which should have zero relevance in modern India. Instead there would be a million of people celebrating stuff like this and some other million protesting this and taking the issue to court. Wasting precious court time over what is essentially nonsense. I ask again, does it really matter if Akbar were a tyrant or a saint? 

I am, fair to say, a lot more plugged into the Muslim community than most others on this website. I've never seen people glorify Aurangzeb or who ever. Most people ( me included) won't even be able to name the Mughals in chronological order. They aren't our heroes. Strangely its on ICF that I find a lot of people who claim to ( and possibly do) know a lot about medieval Indian history.  Most who know the history are generally unhappy about it.

Look, I am not denying that there were atrocities that invading Muslim armies or rulers engaged in centuries before. But what has this to do with people living in India today? If on page 55 of chapter 8 of your 6th grade text book, you had 2 lines which said Akbar were a tyrant what tangible difference would it make to your existence today?

IMO, Muslims (or at least religious leadership) should denounce the invaders. They should have handed over the Babri Masjid before the demolition. All of this would go a long way in reconciliation. Much more than ' historical' irredentism.

 

Re: Reservation.

Don't think this has much to do with religion. I have been quite privileged, and my comments here may lack the necessary depth that the topics requires. Reservations, for communities, should be time bound. Otherwise, they become election gimmicks like they are today in India. Has there even been a community for whom reservations were rescinded, once accorded. We are essentially killing merit.

We have entire groups who were rulers in the past ( Jaats, Marathas) who are claiming to be backward. In most societies of the world, the rush to falsify history consists of groups that want to move up the social ladder by claiming higher birth/caste/family name. Its only in India that communities claim 'lower' status.

Don't know why you claim Muslims get the better of it? That isn't the case. In my view, changing your religion doesn't immediately change who you are from a socio-economic point of view. In India reservations are for castes and most castes are professions. Those professions that traditionally did the heavy lifting and were ostracised need reservation. That should be irrespective of what religion they belong to now.  You aren't right on OBC reservations. They are available for all communities not just Muslims.

 

Re: Haj Subsidy. I had once written a long post on this. Which I can't find. In a nutshell, Haj subsidy was GoI funding Air India and giving it monopoly over the Haj route. And the Haj Committee was an extremely corrupt and nepotistic entity. As an experiment, ask your not so well off or middle class friends what they think about the Haj Committe and what they had to pay to advance their 'ziyarat number'. Pretty much offsets the subsidy benefit for most people.

 

Re: Waqf board: Why do you say there is no government inference? Its a statutory body of the GoI. Its books are audited regularly and they are answerable to the CAG's office under the respective State's submission of consolidated funds. It is also an extremely corrupt body ( but which isn't). But think of it this way, unlike temples where there is an active culture of donation for aeons, aside of dargahs there is no culture of donations. In many cases, it is shirked upon. The Waqf board also has the unenviable task of maintaining 1000s of religious structures, graveyards, libraries and now obsolete buildings like granaries/baths/jharokas with views of masjids erc. Many of these are no longer able to generate any income. Most state WAQF boards pay no taxes because they don't have an income. They are generally in the red. Only a few Waqf boards have been self sustaining. All of this is public domain information.

 

I  think the Waqf board gets a lot of hate because they were litigants in the Babri Masjid case. But that is their stated job!

A better question is why aren't many of these structures under the purview of the ASI?  Especially to do with structures where prayers aren't offered.

 

Re: Personal Law. There is a Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu Succession Act. Hindu Guardianship Act. Hindu Adoption Act. Your point here isn't structured well. What are you trying to ask.

Personally, I'm in favour of the UCC. Had it happened years earlier there would have been so much lesser to study! Could have trolled more on ICF :icflove:

 

 

@Mariyam

I still didn't understand how you differentiate appeasement and freebies/handouts. Would be good to establish what you think it means. 

 

Regarding HDI metrics - During the time of partition - most of the affluent muslims moved to Pak (East and West). Apart from a few that didn't believe in the partition - the vast majority were those who were extremely poor and couldn't afford to move. Also - proselytising typically targets the poorest of the society for whom their current religion makes no difference which means that Muslims keep adding ppl who are already at the worst end of the HDI stats. 

 

Another reason for the lag is that in most Muslim families (esp ones with already poor HDI stats) women are not expected to be earning members of the family. The families also tend to be rather large which causes an additional burden on the family. Education also does not seem to be a key focus for a lot of these folks leading to poor prospects of employability in higher paid jobs etc. Muslims do tend to dominate the vocational, unorganized industries in India. 

 

The perception issue cannot be just an echo chambers. I am yet to come across Muslims talking against extremism on a consistent basis. If you could point me to those that do so - would be happy to check them out.

 

About the condemning part ... it is not for every Muslim. Most people have nothing to do with what is happening. However, there is a very vocal crowd that acts like they are constantly under threat from the society that they live in. They are quick to blow up issues if it involves a Muslim. However, they are extremely quiet when the victims are not muslim. The reason why this is important is that these people are influencers in society. They are examples and role models. When they constantly disparaging of the society that they live in there is a constant feeling of victimhood and persecution even where it may not exist. 

 

Reg the history bit - that needs a long answer - so will push it for a later post. 

 

The Waqf board is the 3rd largest landowner in India! Just behind the Railways and Dept of Defence. How do they come to acquire so many lands? They own more land than almost all central bodies that operate across India. There is 0 accountability that the Waqf board has to face. The very fact that a religious body controls so much land in India is alarming! Any disputes again can only be decided upon by them. If tomorrow they decide my land is religious land and take it over - I can do zilch to dispute that - other than appeal to their sense of fairplay. A body with that kind of power for a religious is ludicrous!

 

Reservation and religion have to go hand in hand. Why do you say it doesn't? Muslims are given reservations as being OBC in a secular country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is appeasement politics is at all time high in India.  It's happening right in front of our eyes.  CAA NRC are nowhere to be seen.  No one's even talking about it.  Lol at thinking UCC is coming any time soon. 

Government does nothing to persuade SC despite multiple petitions to offer minority status to Hindus in so many states.  BJP has matched Congress step by step in terms of appeasement in reality.  Hindus are just to dumb to see this.  We are being taken for a ride. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always found this question interesting and I try to avoid binaries because it's convenient  Before jumping on appeasement question, one can reflect on   nature of our relationship as a nation with Muslims who decided to stay in India. 

 

Its complicated but if one avoids the polemic stuff and just sticks to constitution and community specific laws, it present a definite picture. 

 

If you have to game this out from Nehru's position in 1946, what can you do differently  Now it is fact that majority of Muslims in India did vote for a separate Pakistan or Islamic state. Now one could delve over nature of this mandate and what it meant. But we essentially found ourselves in a place where we had new nation with sizeable portion which was on the edge and not sold on this project. In that sense, we had two options. Homogenization or Pluralization. Both routes could have been justified to varying degrees. But with Muslims the situation was bit more complex. One, bloody partition. Two, the insecurity of Muslims who chose to stay back. Three, many prominent Muslims were close to power centre in Congress. Four, this 20% of your population.  If they are disgruntled, the fragile nation state could fragment. 

 

It's not an easy situation and there are no correct answers here. Not everyone can anticipate the second and third order effects that will. Appeasement was the path chosen because the founder thought this is path that can get us through this vulnerable period with injection of socialism to dilute religious identities. What he did not understand that this appeasement will become a tool in electoral politics where this section will used and abused to consolidate votes. They will kept uneducated and secluded to be made to feel victims in this country and these politicians can assuage them for their purpose. 

 

Integration was always going to be difficult project. I am not sure if anybody could have foreseen what was to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simple.

 

Muslims are simply better at collaboration inside their group. They have better team work.  They vote for common interest. and as a united block.

 

 

So politicians are forced towards appeasement.

 

Compare that with non hindutva hindus, who vote purely based in their selfish interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kepler37b said:

Its simple.

 

Muslims are simply better at collaboration inside their group. They have better team work.  They vote for common interest. and as a united block.

 

 

So politicians are forced towards appeasement.

 

Compare that with non hindutva hindus, who vote purely based in their selfish interests.


And when Hindus do the same, it is called majoritarianism,  Hindutvadi, Anti - minority etc etc.. 

 

I have for long ( inspite having 2 very close Muslim childhood friends ), never considered 

Islam to be a religion. 
 

Any so called religion  that cannot be reformed to modern society and divides the world into believers and non-believers and has a violent history of FORCED PROSELYTIZATION  THAT CONTINUES TILL DATE is a political cult not a religion. 
 

At least we as Hindus have every right to criticize and reform the varna system - Brahmans, Vaishayas, Kshatriyas and Shudras. 100s of millions of Hindus do. This non sense does not belong to a modern egalitarian world. We are allowed to question beliefs on most things. 
 

Under Islam any questioning of practices that don’t belong to the modern society and you are subject to mortal threats. This is a clear sign of a political cult.

 

“Secular” Hindus live in a fantasy world. While sanatana dharma espouses that all spiritual practices lead ultimately to only one creator and do not discriminate. They don’t realize that Islam doesn’t propagate that - it propagates that only following the path mentioned in one holy book leads to salvation - and propagates heinous violence against non-Muslims.  

Why don’t rational Muslims question parts of the holy book that call  for violence /conversion against people who don’t wish to practice that religion ? 
 

Why don’t they question the Jaziya against non-Muslims ? 
 

You will never get an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word SECULARISM itself is ANTI the holy book which propagates only it’s way and explicitly degrades the rest. And by that definition secularism is anti Islam - which came into being on the basis of the teachings in the holy book 

 

 

Yet, the irony is that slogans of secularism are loudest in countries ONLY where Muslims are a large minority. 

 

Where Muslims are a overwhelming majority , we know what happens to the minorities. 
 

My daughters former babysitter is from Lebanon. 
 

She belongs to a small minority that is neither a sect of Islam nor Christianity norm - she said that they were given strict warnings on naming her own daughter and the name had to be front a list of names provided by the local clergy. Anything outside that would be blasphemy. 
 

Unless Islam itself is not reformed significantly , the world let alone India will never be peaceful for the long term. 
 

That is the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2022 at 8:01 AM, sergio04 said:

Modi hinduo ka badhiya se kaat raha hai :hysterical:

This is the collaboration i am speaking of. Hindus can only dream this level of mutual help. These muslim IAS folks would do everything to promote their own interests as a pay back.

 

Having said that, Christians are masters in this kinds of self-help stuff. They are ultra pro max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...