FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/delhi-has-1000-swine-flu-cases-highest-in-country/267026 Setback for Modi, Delhi has highest number of swine flu cases.
1983-2011 Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/delhi-has-1000-swine-flu-cases-highest-in-country/267026 Setback for Modi, Delhi has highest number of swine flu cases. but the mortality rate is 1.1% compared to Gujarat's 18.34%
adi B Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 i know u are excited mate but theres a chit chat section for such a thread..mods please move it
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 :haha: OP got so excited that he missed the most important details - mortality rate % and wrong section of the forum.
Mariyam Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/delhi-has-1000-swine-flu-cases-highest-in-country/267026 Setback for Modi, Delhi has highest number of swine flu cases. Isn't that simply because there are more swine in Delhi than in other parts of the country? Especially in and around the sansad bhavan area.
adi B Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Isn't that simply because there are more swine in Delhi than in other parts of the country? Especially in and around the sansad bhavan area. :hysterical:
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Isn't that simply because there are more swine in Delhi than in other parts of the country? Especially in and around the sansad bhavan area. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 but the mortality rate is 1.1% compared to Gujarat's 18.34% gujarat population is 60,383,628 compared to NCR, which is 11, 007, 835. Big difference in the population. :two_thumbs_up:
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 :haha: OP got so excited that he missed the most important details - mortality rate % and wrong section of the forum. Delhi has 1/6 the population of gujarat.
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Delhi has 1/6 the population of gujarat. The correct metric to use is population density and not population. Delhi has 36 times higher population density than Gujarat.
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 The correct metric to use is population density and not population. Delhi has 36 times higher population density than Gujarat. delhi also has better hospital facilities in comparison to rest of India because it is our capital in a largely urban setup. Most gujaratis live in rural areas, where it is harder for health employees to reach them as quickly as possible to stop prevention of virus and its transmission.
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 delhi also has better hospital facilities in comparison to rest of India because it is our capital in a largely urban setup. Most gujaratis live in rural areas' date=' where it is harder for health employees to reach them as quickly as possible to stop prevention of virus and its transmission.[/quote'] Agreed. However, 36 times it is just too high a factor to be accounted for by blaming infrastructure. This is also offset by the higher population density, leading to the spread of virus faster in Delhi than in Gujarat. In either case, the 18.4% of mortality rate is not justified by the government (as well as you missing it in the OP and later missing the actual population density figures). There is no harm in reporting actual figures - it is NOT necessary that the people whom we like/adore/lookup to are always efficient/best.
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 Agreed. However, 36 times it is just too high a factor to be accounted for by blaming infrastructure. This is also offset by the higher population density, leading to the spread of virus faster in Delhi than in Gujarat. In either case, the 18.4% of mortality rate is not justified by the government (as well as you missing it in the OP and later missing the actual population density figures). There is no harm in reporting actual figures - it is NOT necessary that the people whom we like/adore/lookup to are always efficient/best. Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason for the nonprevention of any disease. I admit Modi can do better in this particular case, but to use this case to highlight his "lack" of efficiency is not justified. He has delivered for people through Garib Kalyan Yojana, narmada dam, 24/7 electricity, Chiranjeevi Yojana, and many more schemes for welfare of the people. Gujarati people are not just fascinated by him because of APCO, the well known bait laid my seculars all the time. They live in Gujarat and approve of his governance and thats why he is the chief minister. Even despite 2009 gujarat swine flu outbreak, people still brought him back to power.
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason for the nonprevention of any disease. I admit Modi can do better in this particular case' date= but to use this case to highlight his "lack" of efficiency is not justified. He has delivered for people through Garib Kalyan Yojana, narmada dam, 24/7 electricity, Chiranjeevi Yojana, and many more schemes for welfare of the people. Gujarati people are not just fascinated by him because of APCO, the well known bait laid my seculars all the time. They live in Gujarat and approve of his governance and thats why he is the chief minister. Even despite 2009 gujarat swine flu outbreak, people still brought him back to power. Lack of filing proper reports, lack of proactive-ness is also one of the many other reasons which you have conveniently ignored. This case proves that his government was inefficient in tackling swine flu - nothing more, nothing less. The topic you want to discuss is tangential to this topic. Also, I call it a great shame that you pride yourself being a non-secular (the way you put it leads me to believe that you are not) which is directly at odds with the constitution. Pardon me for my language but I think you can very well be a secular and be a Modi proponent. A true supporter is one who highlights the negatives as well as positives of the person whom you support. Ignoring relevant details and choosing to highlight a select few shows inherent bias.
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 This case proves that his government was inefficient in tackling swine flu - nothing more' date=' nothing less. The topic you want to discuss is tangential to this topic. Also, I call it a great shame that you pride yourself being a non-secular (the way you put it leads me to believe that you are not) which is directly at odds with the constitution. Pardon me for my language but I think you can very well be a secular and be a Modi proponent.[/quote'] This is one case. There are many other problems he has tackled that ail the people for which he can be seen as efficient. Using one statistic to form a complete opinion on his ability/inability to administrate is highly illogical. The word secular was adopted into Indian constitution by Indira Gandhi. Even Babasaheb Ambedkar did not put it in the constitution when he was writing it. I call it a great pride that I dont believe in appeasement of minorities at the cost of denying Hindus their rights. Religious reservation, the Muslim personal law, the government control of Hindu temples, article 370 of Indian constitution, illegal migration of Bangladeshis may be acceptable to seculars but not me.
Crookbond Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 This is one case. There are many other problems he has tackled that ail the people for which he can be seen as efficient. Using one statistic to form a complete opinion on his ability/inability to administrate is highly illogical. The word secular was adopted into Indian constitution by Indira Gandhi. Even Babasaheb Ambedkar did not put it in the constitution when he was writing it. I call it a great pride that I dont believe in appeasement of minorities at the cost of denying Hindus their rights. Religious reservation' date= the Muslim personal law, the government control of Hindu temples, article 370 of Indian constitution, illegal migration of Bangladeshis may be acceptable to seculars but not me. Can you tell me any post where I have? Btw, conversely using one example to highlight him as the best thing since sliced bread is just the opposite of what you're trying to convey. You are doing the exact same thing you are fighting for and will eventually run around in circles w/o even realizing so. Appeasement of minorities is indeed deplorable. Does that make you any less a secular? No- not really. One can be a secular and oppose government control of Hindu temples, illegal immigration etc. - what is with this gross generalization over repeated posts? Yes sire, I agree with your problems and I am still a secular. A secular is one for which there are no specific rights/favoritism to a particular religion. Irrespective of who included the term in the constitution, it currently stands in the constitution and you are against it. However, your personal bias who works after "my community, my family, my religion" agenda is quite appalling. You can very well choose to highlight your problems but you can avoid spreading misinformation. Unfortunately, once again your post targets one particular religion w/o even mentioning the problems of other religions. It is time you understand to highlight the positives/negatives of each factor under discussion. Currently, it seems like a personal agenda push.
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 Can you tell me any post where I have? Btw, conversely using one example to highlight him as the best thing since sliced bread is just the opposite of what you're trying to convey. You are doing the exact same thing you are fighting for and will eventually run around in circles w/o even realizing so. Appeasement of minorities is indeed deplorable. Does that make you any less a secular? No- not really. One can be a secular and oppose government control of Hindu temples, illegal immigration etc. - what is with this gross generalization over repeated posts? Yes sire, I agree with your problems and I am still a secular. A secular is one for which there are no specific rights/favoritism to a particular religion. Irrespective of who included the term in the constitution, it currently stands in the constitution and you are against it. However, your personal bias who works after "my community, my family, my religion" agenda is quite appalling. You can very well choose to highlight your problems but you can avoid spreading misinformation. Unfortunately, once again your post targets one particular religion w/o even mentioning the problems of other religions. It is time you understand to highlight the positives/negatives of each factor under discussion. Currently, it seems like a personal agenda push. I can give you various fronts on which he succeeds in front of any politician that does indeed make him the best thing since sliced bread. I didnt give you one statistic but it is there for all to see why Gujarat under him has developed in better roads, electricity, water availability, etc. Religious reservation is intended for the benefit of all minorities, not just one in particular. It is meant to persuade more poor Hindus to convert to minority religions. The Indian seculars, especially NAC with its Communal Violence Bill, which is just a small example of what would happen if these people had their way, shows why it is important to look after Hindu interests in India. Indian seculars are hell bent on the deprivation of Hinduism from the Indian ethos. Your personal agenda lies in the complete criticism of anything Modi does, not his praise at all, which I rebuke because it is based on your personal disenchantment towards modi. You will never make a thread criticising Article 370 or Muslim personal law because its not befitting of your own secular agenda. It is quite sad that you dont understand the war against Hinduism being done at the small scale level, whether conversion of Hindus in South India, occupation of once Hindu temples into Mughal remnants. (Babri Masjid, mosque in Kashi Viswanath). I see India as the only Hindu majority country in the world and that it will be upto Hindus themselves to make sure it remains a Hindu majority country and not become another Kerala and Kashmir. If you cant swallow the bitter truth, then its not my problem.
CSK Fan Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 . I see India as the only Hindu majority country in the world and that it will be upto Hindus themselves to make sure it remains a Hindu majority country and not become another Kerala and Kashmir. If you cant swallow the bitter truth' date=' then its not my problem.[/quote'] You have clearly no idea what our fore-fathers envisoned India as. Our identity is not as a hindu majority country, our identity is as a secular country and it will remain so. I know some people (particularly NRIs) see India as some last bastion of hinduism but thats not what our country stands for. You just want to turn India into the hindu version of Pakistan. Never going to happen. Also, i dont care if India is hindu majority or muslim majority or chrsitian majority. I care only that India becomes presperous, all citizens stay united and we become a super-power one day with poverty eliminated. Nothing else matters.
FischerTal Posted March 29, 2013 Author Posted March 29, 2013 You have clearly no idea what our fore-fathers envisoned India as. Our identity is not as a hindu majority country' date=' our identity is as a secular country and it will remain so. I know some people (particularly NRIs) see India as some last bastion of hinduism but thats not what our country stands for. You just want to turn India into the hindu version of Pakistan. Never going to happen. Also, i dont care if India is hindu majority or muslim majority or chrsitian majority. I care only that India becomes presperous, all citizens stay united and we become a super-power one day with poverty eliminated. Nothing else matters.[/quote'] It depends on which forefather you believe in. I believe in Savarkar, you may believe in someone else. Despite the fear mongering from seculars, the rise of BJP and NDA did not result in deprivation of minorities from India. We want India to be a prosperous nation that acknowledges its Hindu identity and doesnt discard it
CSK Fan Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Religious reservation is intended for the benefit of all minorities, not just one in particular. It is meant to persuade more poor Hindus to convert to minority religions. The Indian seculars, especially NAC with its Communal Violence Bill, which is just a small example of what would happen if these people had their way, shows why it is important to look after Hindu interests in India. Indian seculars are hell bent on the deprivation of Hinduism from the Indian ethos. . When the blacks were prosecuted in the US, the country came up with special minorities rights to stop them from being prosecuted. We had white red-necks who had all the luxury, complaining about being discriminated and that blacks are going to take over the country and ruin it. Guess what happened? They stuck with it and today they have a black President When women were prosecuted for centuries and today when they are given special rights and laws in some country, the men, who had all the luxuries, for centuries, started crying about discrimination and mis-use of these laws. Guess what happened? Countries stuck with them and today those countries see women equality and have prospered as a result A country can only be as strong as its weakest link, i.e, its minorities. Every secular country everywhere have always provided special rights to their minorities because in a large country, its very easy for the rights of the minorities to be down-trodden. The majority, by the very fact of them being majority, can take care of themselves. Yeah, almost every time, any country tries to help its minorities, people like you try to spread the fear of majority discrimination and the wiping out of majority. But that never happens, a strong minority, only makes the nation stronger History is rife with examples of countries who prospered after giving special status to and enpowering their minorities. Blacks had to be given special status (hate laws, etc). Women had to be given more rights. On the other hand, countires which tried to follow your example, tried to first ensure the rights of the majority, suffered big time. The splitting of Bangladesh from Pakistan being the best example. Your agenda will only make all minorities feel more insecure and India will break into a 100 pieces There is no depravation of hinduism from the Indian ethos. We are in the majority and can take carfe of ourselves without any special laws. Minorities do require special laws because our enemies are always going to target those who feel insecure. Its our job to make them secure. You cannot run a group race with some members left behind. Yes often times these laws are mis-used but in the end the payback is still worth it
Recommended Posts