Secular India

[randomGuy]

Look, you got the right to hold whatever opinion you want. For me, these are unreasonable. I will reply to following as of now.

That leaves India - Modi's number is 77% compared to the national average of 66% coupled with the pathetic record in HDI development, which you have admitted. Do you think India can survive on the Gujarat model of 77% debt to GDP ratio and ignoring HDI?

HDI was 8th(excluding goa, delhi and little N-E states excluding assam) in 2011 based on old data frm 2007. That needs improvement via improvement in nutrition and literacy, work is underway from what I rather. Other things which are good, I've mentioned. Regarding debt %age - 1.loans given to states are relatively small anyways, I dont think you can necessarily judge how they are performing by the %age spent on paying debt. 2. how this %age varies yearwise is also great, for ex for india debt to gdp ratio (in %age) - 84, 84, 81, 78, 74, 75, 69, 68, 68 respectively from 2004 to 2013. growth rate is lower now when ratio is 68%, was higher when it was 80%. so one cant co-relate. 3. You havent given data for other states for comparison.

[King Tendulkar]

KT care to list out the 'loads of perks and advantages' and that Muslims get? Read the Sachar Committee Report. Muslims are at the bottom of most of the socio-economic and health related indices.

Totally self inflcited due to religious/community reasons meaning they always are behind educationally/finicially etc etc. This is not just a situation for muslims in India but for muslims world over. Look at muslims in UK and France and other western countries. Bottom of the pile in terms of all social indicators in these countries as well. Guess what, muslims in the west also balme the state for their poor state as well. I say look in the mirror!

[King Tendulkar]

Can you list some of these "loads of perks" that Muslims of India get?

They get their own god dammn laws seperate to others in India. Want 4 wives, convert to Islam in India and suddenly its allowed. Pathetic politicians falling over themselves to give them quotas upon quotas for jobs. Pathetic. reservations all over the place for muslims. O and they get their own god dammn terminal at airport. Haj Terminal at Delhi!!! I mean WTF.

[gs]

Totally self inflcited due to religious/community reasons meaning they always are behind educationally/finicially etc etc. This is not just a situation for muslims in India but for muslims world over. Look at muslims in UK and France and other western countries. Bottom of the pile in terms of all social indicators in these countries as well. Guess what' date=' muslims in the west also balme the state for their poor state as well. I say look in the mirror![/quote'] +1

[gs]

They get their own go dammn laws seperate to others in India. Want 4 wives, convert to Islam in India and suddenly its allowed. Pathetic politicians falling over themselves to give them quotas upon quotas for jobs. Pathetic. reservations all over the place for muslims. O and they get their own god dammn terminal at airport. Haj Terminal at Delhi!!! I mean WTF.

+1

[Hiro Nakamura]

I thought we banned religious topics.

[someone]

I thought we banned religious topics.

Topics are banned based on one admin's agenda. Thus, wouldn't surprise me to save face, this gets removed by that admin. Wrong people with power will always misuse it to suit their bias. Congress is a prime example btw.

[someone]

Totally self inflcited due to religious/community reasons meaning they always are behind educationally/finicially etc etc. This is not just a situation for muslims in India but for muslims world over. Look at muslims in UK and France and other western countries. Bottom of the pile in terms of all social indicators in these countries as well. Guess what' date=' muslims in the west also balme the state for their poor state as well. I say look in the mirror![/quote'] +1 The very idea that it is Muslims and then rest of Indians is wrong. and about time, that gets corrected. There are plenty of examples which I can put forward on that but provided this thread doesn't locked. Else, it would then be a waste of time.

[Mariyam]

Totally self inflcited due to religious/community reasons meaning they always are behind educationally/finicially etc etc. This is not just a situation for muslims in India but for muslims world over. Look at muslims in UK and France and other western countries. Bottom of the pile in terms of all social indicators in these countries as well. Guess what' date=' muslims in the west also [b']balme the state for their poor state as well. I say look in the mirror!

Who exactly is blaming the state? The condition of Muslims in the UK and France has naught to do with India and discussions on Indian secularism.

[nikred]

They get their own go dammn laws seperate to others in India. Want 4 wives, convert to Islam in India and suddenly its allowed. Pathetic politicians falling over themselves to give them quotas upon quotas for jobs. Pathetic. reservations all over the place for muslims. O and they get their own god dammn terminal at airport. Haj Terminal at Delhi!!! I mean WTF.

Get out of here. :ohmy:

[Mariyam]

Whats' with all the degenerate usage of Bushspeak? Them? They? Their? Shouldn't you guys be using the word our? After all you are talking about your fellow countrymen/women.

Reason is their own mistakes' date= from more children to not enrolling in schools to falling for vote bank politics and not development politics. How do you know 'they' aren't trying? Not being a majority means injustice to Muslims? Do you even yourself believe what you've typed?

Politics is not my forte, but I can tell that you've to be really naive to think that BJP = development politics and Congress = vote bank politics. I'm sure if you look around thoroughly, you'll find ample instances of BJP playing their vote bank and Congress getting elected on the basis of the work they've done ( ok, that might be difficult to find :P) Elections in India are won and lost on anything but ideology. From my line of work, I an give you instances: A party promises to waive off a tariff for importing certain machines ( which reduce dependence on labour) and the entire private ownership of that industry ( steel/metal works in this case) en-masse sponsor and lobby for that party. Irrespective of religious denomination. Lets not simplify things with sweeping generalizations on community voting patterns. Your statement/analysis is eitherways very superficial. The Sachar Committee Report doesn't cite reasons but is a statistical treatise on how Muslims fare vis a vis others. What you've mentioned can be the reaosons for falling behind in health or household income related metrics. But share of Muslims in government jobs, the armed forces, the local police and the IAS has been abysmal. And this share been constantly low, since 1947.

[velu]

Mariyam aunty.. He has a valid point.. Muslims shld be blamed more for their poor condition than anyone else .. Another reason why Indian muslins r relatively poor is that majority of the indian Muslims r from economically backward states like up n Bihar .. Christians r doing better than Hindus just because majority of them r from relatively prosperous states like malluland , Goa etc..

[Mariyam]

Mariyam aunty.. He has a valid point..

Do you generally address people younger to you as uncle/aunty? My wisdom belies my age. Don't let it fool you. In all likelihood, I am younger to you.

Muslims shld be blamed more for their poor condition than anyone else .. Another reason why Indian muslins r relatively poor is that majority of the indian Muslims r from economically backward states like up n Bihar .. Christians r doing better than Hindus just because majority of them r from relatively prosperous states like malluland , Goa etc..

Ofcourse Muslims are to be blamed for the state they are in. Where have I shifted blame? Have you even read what I've typed? Though the reasons for relative backwardness of the Muslims vis a vis other communities have nothing to do with their alleged voting patterns.

[randomGuy]

Mariyam - The politicians do exploit exploitable issues to their advantage(be it from congress, sp or bjp). The point is about the welfare and reform of Indian muslims society which will bring upon religious harmony in India...for that they should do more family planning, value education more and not fall for vote bank politics(where as in reality they have been doing exactly the opposite and so, there's competitive appeasement going on). I am not against -> a reasonable minority welfare quota(in primary education, haj subsidy etc) -> reservations for muslim dalits(coz hindu dalits also get reservations) -> even separate laws for diff. religions. Like I would probably not oppose(depending on the details) if the law was - both men and women can have multiple spouses. But current muslim marriage law discriminates against women and must not be had in a country which claims to treat its men and women as equals.

[someone]

Our Vice Pres of India, Ansari refuses to do aarti at a Dusshera event. So What happened to secularism?

[Detonator]

Whats' with all the degenerate usage of Bushspeak? Them? They? Their? Shouldn't you guys be using the word our? After all you are talking about your fellow countrymen/women.

The divide started when different yardsticks given to majority and minority. "Our" and "we" can be used the day when the country provides same law /reservations for all communities.

How do you know 'they' aren't trying? Not being a majority means injustice to Muslims? Do you even yourself believe what you've typed?

Again, since they thought being a minority cound be an "injustice" and a common thought (even some posters here claim that) "majority can take care of themselves" , some long ropes are given to them everywhere.

[Yoda-esque]

Our Vice Pres of India, Ansari refuses to do aarti at a Dusshera event. So What happened to secularism?

Didn't know the Vice presidents name, thanks

[ravishingravi]

"In India, politicians are expected to be “secular”, at least as far as demonstrations go, in the Nitish Kumar way of things, much more than they are expected to efficient or to be honest. And the thing about Modi, he is not secular. After all, if he was, he would have worn that skullcap. But wait. Let’s go back and look at that skullcap incident once again. If secularism is the equal treatment of all religions, then we should be able search-replace, as we do in MS Word, the individuals concerned and the religions, and the conclusion “Oh My God, that is so communal” should stay the same. So I am going to do it. Let us say that Manmohan Singh was put in the same situation, would he be expected to wear the skull-cap? If Mehbooba Sayed was asked to wear sindoor, would she be expected to honor that request? Let us say Hamid Ansari was asked to wear a tilak, and he refused, would that be held against him? If I was asked to wear a Chennai Super Kings, would I have to, at the cost of being assigned a pejorative label, even though I am as big a cricket enthusiast as…well you know who. Some people would say, and not without reason, that the person foisting off the item of his religion should be seen as the guilty party since he is trying to actively impose his way of life on someone else (in this case, to make a political point). At the very least, we should accept, if we go by the conventional definition of secularism, that Modi has every right to his personal beliefs and the right to set his own personal boundaries, and not be judged for them But he is. Many would say “Oh but the real problem is Gujarat 2002.” Well if it is, one should just keep at it instead of using this incident as proof of Modi’s communal dark heart. The reason this apparent non-issue is important, is because it exposes a somewhat non-obvious assumption. That the Nehruvian legacy, which is still very much alive in our current government and in our mainstream media discourse, does not allow secularism to be defined as the equal treatment of all religions. That dictates, that in the interests of pragmatism and national unity, one has to lean more towards minorities, and that strict equivalence between majority and minority in a complex country like India is not practicable. (The same logic is given for “freedom of speech”, in India, one must be more “sensitive” but that’s a discussion for another day.)This is why Dr. Singh says that Muslims have the first right to national resources. This is what drives, at least on principle (the use of “principle” here is intentional, the “real reason” of course is politics) legislation like the Communal Violence Bill, which defines “minorities” in an absolute way (on the basis of religions) and not on the basis of numerical minority in a particular place (A Hindu in a Muslim-majority area would not be considered a minority). As per this concept of secularism, it stands to logic that anyone who wants to be the leader of the nation and is a Hindu, has to be held to a different standard behavior than someone who is not, so that minorities do not feel embattled or threatened. The supporters of this definition of secularism point to Pakistan as an example where this Nehruvian ideal was not followed, and, well they say, look where it is today. While this notion of secularism definitely has its adherents among urban Indians, those that talk about the “Muslim veto”, there are also many others who want to define secularism in terms of equal obligations. In other words, no slant. No special treatment for minorities. No special treatment for castes. They reject the example of Pakistan as the only possible outcome for an alternate notion of secularism, pointing to a substantial difference between what Modi proposes and “the religious theocracy” which Pakistan is. Instead, they consider another country as an ideal, sometimes without even realizing it. The United States of America. This requires some explaining. And the introduction of another word. Nationalism. In a interview which garnered significant attention (As an aside, everything Modi says gets attention. He has to say “Kumar Gaurav” and people will start watching his movies.) Modi said. I am nationalist. I’m patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I am born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I’m a Hindu nationalist. So yes, you can say I’m a Hindu nationalist because I’m a born Hindu. This has of course led to much outrage because of the words “nationalism” and “Hindu”. Before, I delve into the “nationalism” part, allow me to post an extract below of what Maulana Abul Kalam Azad said. I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited Islam’s glorious tradition of the last fourteen hundred years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. The history and teachings of Islam, its arts and letters, its culture and civilization are part of my wealth and it is my duty to cherish and guard them. But, with all these feelings, I have another equally deep realization, born out of my life’s experience which is strengthened and not hindered by the Islamic spirit. I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup, without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. I don’t think anyone has a problem with the tract above. Let’s turn Muslim into Hindu (that search-replace thing again) It becomes: I am a Hindu and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited Hinduism’s glorious tradition of thousands of years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. The history and teachings of Hinduism, its arts and letters, its culture and civilization are part of my wealth and it is my duty to cherish and guard them. But, with all these feelings, I have another equally deep realization, born out of my life’s experience which is strengthened and not hindered by the Hindu spirit. I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup, without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. If Modi had said this above, which is definitely a more clear attempt to separate out the two identities than his more terse statement (which still says more or less the same thing), I am pretty sure there would still have been a national fecalstorm. Much of it is of course because of the person saying it, both his past history and his present significance, but some of it is definitely due to two very loaded words, namely “Hindu” and “nationalism” , present in Modi’s sentences and not in the Maulana’s" http://greatbong.net/2013/10/27/deconstructing-modi-part-3/ Had posted this before.But seemed relevant to the thread. So posting it again. Or maybe I just want to rub it in for non jaahil.

[Yoda-esque]

Off late, Arnab had become stale.But this one is his best.

[Mariyam]

Our Vice Pres of India, Ansari refuses to do aarti at a Dusshera event. So What happened to secularism?

You are posting about what happened at an Dussehra event now? :P What point are you trying to drive home? "Hey look here guys, a Muslim in one of the highest (albeit ceremonial) posts in the country doesn't perform an aarti. If he is like this, we can only imagine that the rest would be like.Dem evil non secular Muslims" Lets go over it once again. The VP refused to do an aarti. Does that offend the sentiments of the Hindus? Should that offend the sentiment of the Hindus? Is our secularism reduced merely to tokenism where a VP has to do an aarti to make him acceptable and appear secular? Abdul Kalam = sholka mumbling aarti performing BJP nominated scientist =good Muslim. Hamid Ansari= non aarti performing Congress nominated person = Bad Muslim. Look at it the other way. The VP refusing to perform the aarti because it contravenes ( or at least he thinks) his religious beliefs is what secularism should be all about. Why should we judge him on the basis of that? As a counter example: Narendra Modi refused to wear a skull cap at some event. Should that change my opinion of the guy? Was Modi offending the sentiments of Muslims by doing that? Should I hold Akhilesh Yadav in higher esteem because he dons a skull cap? What you are talking about is tokenism and subservience. Not secularism.