Crookbond Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 A village in India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh recently got electricity for the first time - 65 years after independence. The BBC Hindi's Nitin Srivastava visits Chibaukhera to find out how the lives of more than 100 families have changed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-22679692?OCID=fbbbcindia
Tiger80 Posted June 3, 2013 Posted June 3, 2013 its wrong' date=' this is exactly what sardar patel warned us against. ghettoization will lead to a fractured india[/quote'] As long as there are religious people it is impossible that ghetoization will not happen.you cannot have four religious families , strict veggies jain , Hindu's , beef eating muslims and pork eatin g christians live side by side. even if you ban public display of religion , all these will prefer to live in their localities as the strict veggies may not like smell of meat.
zumi Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 As long as there are religious people it is impossible that ghetoization will not happen.you cannot have four religious families , strict veggies jain , Hindu's , beef eating muslims and pork eatin g christians live side by side. even if you ban public display of religion , all these will prefer to live in their localities as the strict veggies may not like smell of meat. happens all the time, with blatant societies named after their religious or caste background and new ones being built with billboards outlining the type of people who should apply only.
Muloghonto Posted June 4, 2013 Posted June 4, 2013 As long as there are religious people it is impossible that ghetoization will not happen.you cannot have four religious families ' date= strict veggies jain , Hindu's , beef eating muslims and pork eatin g christians live side by side. even if you ban public display of religion , all these will prefer to live in their localities as the strict veggies may not like smell of meat. Happens in the western world and in the Indian cities these days just fine. In my old neighbourhood of Kolkata, we have marwari hindus, bengalis, bengali & bihari muslims, tamil brahmin, gujju jain all living in the same 'para'. Its pretty much been the same since the 1950s when my parents were young. As for veggie Indians who dont like the smell of meat so much that they want to move, i say LOL. First get rid of the smell of gobar before we whine about how food smells, shall we ? If i ever wanted one thing changed about India, it would be getting rid of the random days you wake up smelling gobar outside your window. It doesnt matter where you live in India, if you grew up in a 3-4 storey building or smaller, you grew up smelling gobar.
someone Posted June 5, 2013 Author Posted June 5, 2013 As long as there are religious people it is impossible that ghetoization will not happen.you cannot have four religious families ' date=' strict veggies jain , Hindu's , beef eating muslims and pork eatin g christians live side by side.[/quote'] Wrong. The issue is tolerance. And one religion group certainly has great elements of intolerance and have proved themselves of big incompatibility of living aboard.
FischerTal Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 As long as there are religious people it is impossible that ghetoization will not happen.you cannot have four religious families , strict veggies jain , Hindu's , beef eating muslims and pork eatin g christians live side by side. even if you ban public display of religion , all these will prefer to live in their localities as the strict veggies may not like smell of meat. what does the state exist for? if you dont like me being a veggie, tough luck. i have right to live wherever i want, and the same rule applies vice versa. The state is entrusted with law and order responsibility to make sure all citizens rights are protected as long those rights do not infringe on the rights of others. here in america, i live next to a pakistani family, really nice people btw. they eat meat, we dont. simple :dontknow:
Tiger80 Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 what does the state exist for? if you dont like me being a veggie' date=' tough luck. i have right to live wherever i want, and the same rule applies vice versa. The state is entrusted with law and order responsibility to make sure all citizens rights are protected as long those rights do not infringe on the rights of others. here in america, i live next to a pakistani family, really nice people btw. they eat meat, we dont. simple :dontknow:[/quote'] It is not as simple. Had it been that simple then majority of Indian states would never banned sale of beef.Govt should had asked people those who don't like beef should stay away from it. Religous taboos in India are quite strong and they can even spark riots
FischerTal Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 It is not as simple. Had it been that simple then majority of Indian states would never banned sale of beef.Govt should had asked people those who don't like beef should stay away from it. Religous taboos in India are quite strong and they can even spark riots i used to be against the beef thing too, but i gave up on that now. Education is the only hope for India to have a more sane polity, but for the time being i think India does just fine in this regard. You will have riots in places like UP and the other BIMARU states constantly on the basis of religion, but as a country, we are much better than our neighbors, and as far as I believe, the only way forward is a much more tolerant nation
Rocky Balboa Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 No party wants to lose Muslim votes. Esp. regional parties like BSP, SP, TMC and RJD. They will go to any extent to please them. By the rate Muslims are reproducing, I don't blame them either.
someone Posted June 5, 2013 Author Posted June 5, 2013 No party wants to lose Muslim votes. Esp. regional parties like BSP' date=' SP, TMC and RJD. They will go to any extent to please them. By the rate Muslims are reproducing, I don't blame them either.[/quote'] There is nothing wrong in giving seats to "capable" candidates irrespective of religion. But there is everything wrong in giving seats to candidates who have proven to be anti - Indian.
coffee_rules Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 What is your opinion on Jain "only" buildings/apartments being built? Didn't know the Government built those apartments/buildings? It's one thing for the government to indulge in the appeasement of the minorities, and a totally different issue of how private organizations and communities operate.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 It is not as simple. Had it been that simple then majority of Indian states would never banned sale of beef.Govt should had asked people those who don't like beef should stay away from it. Religous taboos in India are quite strong and they can even spark riots It's never too late to correct oneself.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Didn't know the Government built those apartments/buildings? It's one thing for the government to indulge in the appeasement of the minorities' date=' and a totally different issue of how private organizations and communities operate.[/quote'] I don't see a difference in the state and the people. The state is a representation of the people. So the very fact that such practice was allowed to go on for years without any objection is testimony to what I say.
ganeshran Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 It is not as simple. Had it been that simple then majority of Indian states would never banned sale of beef.Govt should had asked people those who don't like beef should stay away from it. Religous taboos in India are quite strong and they can even spark riots They shouldnt have brought about the ban in the first place.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 I don't see a difference in the state and the people. The state is a representation of the people. So the very fact that such practice was allowed to go on for years without any objection is testimony to what I say. The state ia secular. A person can follow any religion.The state cannot and shouldnot favour any religion a person can. Secularism means that the state will not br partial to any religion.It doesnt mean that the state will be appeasing a certain community.This appeasement policy is creating more hatred among the people.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 The state ia secular. A person can follow any religion.The state cannot and shouldnot favour any religion a person can. Secularism means that the state will not br partial to any religion.It doesnt mean that the state will be appeasing a certain community.This appeasement policy is creating more hatred among the people. You missed my point. I want the state to be secular too. 'coffeerules' said that it's a different thing for a private entity to discriminate on grounds of religion. I say that it is NOT because the thought process is as much same for the people, as it is for the state. In general, for a person X even a wrong becomes a right as long as it is favoring his family, wife, kids, community. However, even a right becomes a wrong when it doesn't favor him. We reap what we sow.
someone Posted June 5, 2013 Author Posted June 5, 2013 Had a question, assume one has a party/organization. Suppose all their members are Hindus, will they be branded as non-secular? I would say Yes , not because it is all Hindus but because there is no Muslims. There is a simple yet big difference between both statements. On how the percentage of Muslims decides if one can be seen as secular. Below that certain %, you will be branded otherwise. The Christians and other minorities hold little in the "secular" debate.
Crookbond Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 ^ Poore secular definition ka kooda kar diya! :facepalm:
Stuge Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 What is your opinion on Jain "only" buildings/apartments being built? I hate this segregation.I've no clue on what basis all this is allowed.This is all done for votes .. period !
coffee_rules Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 You missed my point. I want the state to be secular too. 'coffeerules' said that it's a different thing for a private entity to discriminate on grounds of religion. I say that it is NOT because the thought process is as much same for the people' date=' as it is for the state. In general, for a person X even a wrong becomes a right as long as it is favoring his family, wife, kids, community. However, even a right becomes a wrong when it doesn't favor him. We reap what we sow.[/quote'] You don't see the difference between a government promoting minorities for the purpose of getting votes and a local community enforcing some rules in their apartment complex, then you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Every condo board comes up with their own set of rules like no pets, no non-veg cooking, no-skate boarding etc. They have rights whatever it might be to enforce them. Equating that to the government pro-minority appeasement policies is stupidity.
Recommended Posts