Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Firstly, I did not "accept" any populist scheme. I only appreciated the fact that it is non-discriminatory. Furthermore, what is a very important difference is that SS Chauhan's scheme is not a guaranteed right like the Food Security Bill, which means it can be revoked by an executive order if there is a funding problem. Also, about the UP scheme, it was not bicycles, it is Rs 30000 scholarship to poor muslim girls who pass 10th. I think it was changed to include other minorities as well (Sikhism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Jainism). But still not available to Hindu girls. It is called "Humari beti uska kal" scheme. Apparently, poor Hindu girls are not humari betis. http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/up-to-tweak-minority-girls-aid-scheme-to-add-more-beneficiaries/ Why should I vote for parties who discriminate amongst the poor on the basis of religion ? You did - read again what you said. And then the classic line of shifting goal posts by saying "at least better than ....".
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Firstly, I did not "accept" any populist scheme. I only appreciated the fact that it is non-discriminatory. Furthermore, what is a very important difference is that SS Chauhan's scheme is not a guaranteed right like the Food Security Bill, which means it can be revoked by an executive order if there is a funding problem. Also, about the UP scheme, it was not bicycles, it is Rs 30000 scholarship to poor muslim girls who pass 10th. I think it was changed to include other minorities as well (Sikhism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Jainism). But still not available to Hindu girls. It is called "Humari beti uska kal" scheme. Apparently, poor Hindu girls are not humari betis. http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/up-to-tweak-minority-girls-aid-scheme-to-add-more-beneficiaries/ Why should I vote for parties who discriminate amongst the poor on the basis of religion ? Vote for whomever you want to, you don't need to justify your choice.
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 what the BJP do is immaterial in my question. So you agree that this congress scheme in karnataka discriminates on the grounds of religion. Why? If talking about Congress in Karnataka is pertinent to a thread about SS Chauhan, so is what BJP did in Karnataka relevant too.
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 This scheme was launched by the Congress after it came to power in Karnataka. It is to be extended to all minorities the same way BJP spent Rs. 897Cr for minorities in the last 5 years.
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Frankly' date=' it should not surprise us that the Congress has such a discriminatory scheme. It sought to bring in the "Communal Violence Bill" in which the victim was assumed to be from the minority community. Thankfully, we have at least one national party which stoutly opposed this disastrous bill because of its discriminatory nature leading to it being amended.[/quote'] Of course, I'm not surprised. Congress is known for that crap.
seedhi Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 It is to be extended to all minorities the same way BJP spent Rs. 897Cr for minorities in the last 5 years.Spending 897 cr for minorities does not equate to discriminatory social schemes. That money is usually spent on their religious affairs such as travel for pilgrimage, upkeep of religious institutions, and funding aided minority schools. The government should never create a situation of outright religion based favouritism especially amongst the desperately poor sections of society - like giving only poor minority girls substantial money on marriage. This is unfair to poor Hindu women.
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Spending 897 cr for minorities does not equate to discriminatory social schemes. That money is usually spent on their religious affairs such as travel for pilgrimage, upkeep of religious institutions, and funding aided minority schools. The government should never create a situation of outright religion based favouritism especially amongst the desperately poor sections of society - like giving only poor minority girls substantial money on marriage. This is unfair to poor Hindu women. Like I said earlier, the scheme is now being made available to ALL minorities. Let me also note that is not just unfair to poor Hindu women but poor Christian, Sikh etc. women as well.
diga Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Like I said earlier' date=' the scheme is now being made available to ALL minorities. Let me also note that is not just unfair to poor Hindu women [b']but poor Christian, Sikh etc. women as well. Pardon my ignorance, dont Christians come under minorities? They are surely lesser in number compared to Muslims/Sikhs
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Pardon my ignorance' date=' dont Christians come under minorities? They are surely lesser in number compared to Muslims/Sikhs[/quote'] Yes they do and hence I said it is unfair to other minorities like X, Y, Z etc. Why? Because the "Shaadi Bhagwa" scheme launched by the minorities department initially catered only to Muslims and ignored other minorities.
diga Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Yes they do and hence I said it is unfair to other minorities like X' date=' Y, Z etc. Why? Because the "Shaadi Bhagwa" scheme launched by the minorities department initially catered only to Muslims and ignored other minorities.[/quote'] Doesnt take anything away from the crux of the argument he was making .. ie its discriminatory against certain sections of the society who are entitled to it if you only look at it economically
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Doesnt take anything away from the crux of the argument he was making .. ie its discriminatory against certain sections of the society who are entitled to it if you only look at it economically And if that was the "crux of the argument" then doling out free smartphones to every government engineering college student is also discriminatory since there is no economic guideline attached.
diga Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 And if that was the "crux of the argument" then doling out free smartphones to every government engineering college student is also discriminatory since there is no economic guideline attached. Is it govt eng college or any govt college?
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Is it govt eng college or any govt college? May be government college but the fact of the matter is that the scheme isn't based on economic status like you said it should be to avoid being discriminatory.
diga Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 May be government college but the fact of the matter is that the scheme isn't based on economic status like you said it should be to avoid being discriminatory. Is it a freebie doled out to complete college education or to make govt colleges attrractive?
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Is it a freebie doled out to complete college education or to make govt colleges attrractive? I don't see the purpose of a "smartphone" in either case.
seedhi Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 And if that was the "crux of the argument" then doling out free smartphones to every government engineering college student is also discriminatory since there is no economic guideline attached.Do you understand the meaning of discrimination ? If some facility or item or right is provided to members of a group identically and uniformly then it is by definition non discriminatory within that group. I don't know the details of the MP scheme, but if it does not take into account economic status then it is being less and not more discriminatory. Of course it can be criticized on its effectiveness and economic rationality.
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Do you understand the meaning of discrimination ? If some facility or item or right is provided to members of a group identically and uniformly then it is by definition non discriminatory within that group. I don't know the details of the MP scheme, but if it does not take into account economic status then it is being less and not more discriminatory. Of course it can be criticized on its effectiveness and economic rationality. A smartphone is provided to a government college student but not to the poor student outside the government college. Hence, discriminatory.
bulbul Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 ^ @ DM, giving smart phone is nonsesnse , so does giving free rice,water,current etc. I have condemned this despicable act in a post in reply to one of your posts regarding Shivraj implementing this.:winky:
Crookbond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 ^ @ DM, giving smart phone is nonsesnse , so does giving free rice,water,current etc. I have condemned this despicable act in a post in reply to one of your posts regarding Shivraj implementing this.:winky: Your stand is pretty much consistent even if I don't agree to it - so no issues there.
seedhi Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 A smartphone is provided to a government college student but not to the poor student outside the government college. Hence' date=' discriminatory.[/quote']That is a strange argument. It is like saying that it is discriminatory for the govt to subsidize education for students in govt schools and colleges but not do so for private schools and colleges. The smartphone can be thought of as a facility provided for being in the government college. Like books, tuition etc. And therefore they are raising the standard of education provided in the govt colleges. Furthermore, it is not based on any personal attribute like religion. It can also be thought of as an incentive for brighter students to enroll in govt colleges. Anyone well qualified is free to enroll in govt colleges. On the other hand, providing discriminatory monetary assistance to poor sections based on religion leads to a situation where implicitly the conversion from one religion to another is being encouraged. Whether providing smartphones is economically desirable or wasteful is a different debate, and perhaps more pertinent.
Recommended Posts