Pakistan and minorities

[sensible-indian]

Unfortunate situation. But Indians are in no position to moan at Pakistan. They are hardly any better. Members of this forum are a perfect example of that. Both countries have to improve in this regard.

While India has to go a long way...to be honest, its light years ahead of Pakistan in these issues. I am not a fan of constant attack on Pakistan but when you have 1. Blasphemy laws 2. Laws that prohibit non Muslims to hold top positions in Government 3. Laws which declare Ahmedis as non Muslims thereby automatically endangering all their lives due to point no 1 4. Growing radicalism (mostly exported by the Saudi dudes) 5. Shia persecution 6. Reduction of minorities from 20 to 2% from partition (yes, I am aware of Bangladesh split up which caused the numbers to be worse than it is but still its a damning stats) Its a huge mess dude. Lots of Pakistanis say it themselves and are quite frustrated with the situation. Not like I am saying something new. India on the other hand sure have BIG BIG issues in some states but I can assure you that in most states things aren't quite as bad. There are no danger to the lives of Indian Muslims in most cases except in riot prone areas where Hindu-Muslims clash regularly. Guys like Owaisi can talk about suspending law and order for 5 minutes and murdering all Hindus and still live in this country. Think about it. India has a 80% Hindu population. Modi (whom I am not a fan of) gets regularly criticized by Hindus. RSS brigade gets more criticism from Hindus than any group. The reason why BJP never won consecutive elections in India is because after coming to power and doing well...they start their Hindutva nonsense and most Hindus find it cringeworthy and dangerous for the country. Today...even a small issue against minorities gets a lot of coverage and politicians fear the backlash of the population. Take the elections of 2014. BJP was voted MAINLY for development and the fact that Congress was beyond pathetic. If Congress was even half decent, BJP would have struggled big time even with Congress having anti incumbency working against it. History proves this to be true. All this doesn't sound like a country that is intolerant towards its minorities (talking about in general from a historical point of view - not specific cases which are very saddening and need to be dealt with). Ask yourself....a country with 80% population of Hindus....if they really wanted to be intolerant or stamp out minorities...how hard is it for them? With all being said, my entire post isn't meant to present some rosy "India is awesome" picture. It has a long way to go but the society as a whole is improving. Some of the Muslim population are downtrodden and they need to be uplifted. But all these things are getting discussed and people are raising these issues. As for Pakistan, from my limited view of things, Pakistan has many people who are just as secular as Indians (and this number is growing) but the radicalization from the 80s has created too much of a dent. It will take a while (decades to be honest) for it to be undone and if Pakistan gets a visionary who can grab the bull by the horn, things can slowly but surely improve.

[jalebi_bhai]

While India has to go a long way...to be honest, its light years ahead of Pakistan in these issues. I am not a fan of constant attack on Pakistan but when you have 1. Blasphemy laws 2. Laws that prohibit non Muslims to hold top positions in Government 3. Laws which declare Ahmedis as non Muslims thereby automatically endangering all their lives due to point no 1 4. Growing radicalism (mostly exported by the Saudi dudes) 5. Shia persecution 6. Reduction of minorities from 20 to 2% from partition (yes, I am aware of Bangladesh split up which caused the numbers to be worse than it is but still its a damning stats) Its a huge mess dude. Lots of Pakistanis say it themselves and are quite frustrated with the situation. Not like I am saying something new. India on the other hand sure have BIG BIG issues in some states but I can assure you that in most states things aren't quite as bad. There are no danger to the lives of Indian Muslims in most cases except in riot prone areas where Hindu-Muslims clash regularly. Guys like Owaisi can talk about suspending law and order for 5 minutes and murdering all Hindus and still live in this country. Think about it. India has a 80% Hindu population. Modi (whom I am not a fan of) gets regularly criticized by Hindus. RSS brigade gets more criticism from Hindus than any group. The reason why BJP never won consecutive elections in India is because after coming to power and doing well...they start their Hindutva nonsense and most Hindus find it cringeworthy and dangerous for the country. Today...even a small issue against minorities gets blown up big time and politicians fear the backlash of the population. Take the elections of 2014. BJP was voted for development and the fact that Congress was beyond pathetic. If Congress was even half decent, BJP would have struggled big time even with Congress having anti incumbency working against it. Now I am not saying India is perfect or is even fine as it is. We have loads of problems and we need to rectify it. Some of the Muslim population are downtrodden and they need to be uplifted. But all these things are getting discussed and people are raising these issues. Ask yourself....a country with 80% population of Hindus....if they really wanted to be intolerant or stamp out minorities...how hard is it for them? My entire post isn't meant to present some rosy "India is awesome" picture. It has a long way to go but the society as a whole is improving. From my limited view of things, Pakistan has quite a few people who are just as secular as Indians but the radicalization from the 80s has created too much of a dent. It will take a while for it to be undone and if Pakistan gets a visionary who can grab the bull by the horn, things can slowly but surely improve.

I agree with the core sentiment of your post except for the bold. That is blatantly incorrect. There reason why BJP lost in 2004 was not excessive Hindutva. Far from it.

[sensible-indian]

I agree with the core sentiment of your post except for the bold. That is blatantly incorrect. There reason why BJP lost in 2004 was not excessive Hindutva. Far from it.

While 2004 may be due to a combination of reasons, it all adds up. In villages, its either about issues or people simply vote for their caste members. But among educated groups, it does play a role. I would be interested to know your viewpoint cos you present well reasoned arguments. Do you not think BJP is hampered by over reliance on Hindutva? Sure it put them on the map and helps them have some strongholds...but do you not think Hindutva and the RSS loons hamper BJP big time?

[ravishingravi]

While 2004 may be due to a combination of reasons, it all adds up. In villages, its either about issues or people simply vote for their caste members. But among educated groups, it does play a role. I would be interested to know your viewpoint cos you present well reasoned arguments. Do you not think BJP is hampered by over reliance on Hindutva? Sure it put them on the map and helps them have some strongholds...but do you not think Hindutva and the RSS loons hamper BJP big time?

No. Actually you are mixing 2 or 3 things here.

[Texan]

Unfortunate situation. But Indians are in no position to moan at Pakistan. They are hardly any better. Members of this forum are a perfect example of that. Both countries have to improve in this regard.

India and Pakistan are not even in the same league for comparison. India is way way ahead of Pakistan in having diverse religions. While in Pakistan, minorities have been oppressed to the point that they hardly exist in minuscule numbers and declining every day, minorities in India have thrived and are growing at a much rapid rate than the majority. So, don't even think about comparing Pakistan and India in this regard. It is a no-contest. You might want to compare the deplorable state of minorities in Pakistan with other like minded Islamic nations in the Middle East and North Africa on which is the worst at treating its minorities and how you can get to the top of that list (if not already).

[jalebi_bhai]

Do you not think BJP is hampered by over reliance on Hindutva?

Nope. Not at all. It's the right card to play at present. Infact, they were not Hindutva enough in NDA 1. There is a definite renaissance in Hindu Nationalism at present.

Sure it put them on the map and helps them have some strongholds...but do you not think Hindutva and the RSS loons hamper BJP big time?

Present day BJP is more or less the RSS. The link has been there since BJS days. The RSS karsevaks are essentially the BJP cadre now. Personally, I have no problem with that. NDA 1 was not a populist regime, hence why they lost in 2004. They carried on with the liberalization reforms and did a good job of bringing the economy on track. There was emphasis and work done on infrastructure development (roads & highways, bridges, irrigation, telecom, opening the flood gates for the creation of silicon valley). There was some serious modernization during this time. However, all this meant lesser benefits for rural junta i.e. no immediate benefits. So reform policies were deemed too urban-centric. NDA tried to play politics by trying to fast track a few agricultural schemes few months off LS dissolution, but it didn't work. NDA was deemed to be too business friendly. This sentiment was exploited. UPA swooped in with its usual reservation based non-sense, 'crony-capitalism' yadda yadda.... This was the major setback. Irrespective of religion, rural India collectively rejected NDA 1. This was compounded further by some canny coalition politics by the Congress, who were well prepared and played the communal card well with Gujarat 2002. The big failure of NDA 1 was its inability to consolidate the Hindu vote (seats and vote share decreased) in particular, and the rural vote in general. They actually needed more Hindutva, if anything, to offset the minority backlash. The UPA carried on with the reforms, the foundations of which had been laid by the NDA. Those healthy GDP figures during UPA 1 ultimately provided the cover needed for carrying out the scams they did. UPA 2 mein raita phel gaya. Once the black money issue came to the fore front in 2011, the need to form AAP arose, who are even more populist than Congress.

[Texy]

Unfortunate situation. But Indians are in no position to moan at Pakistan. They are hardly any better. Members of this forum are a perfect example of that. Both countries have to improve in this regard.

Unfortunate situation? This is state sanctioned murder. Expected better from an educated Pakistani like yourself.

[BeautifulGame]

Nope. Not at all. It's the right card to play at present. Infact, they were not Hindutva enough in NDA 1. There is a definite renaissance in Hindu Nationalism at present. Present day BJP is more or less the RSS. The link has been there since BJS days. The RSS karsevaks are essentially the BJP cadre now. Personally, I have no problem with that. NDA 1 was not a populist regime, hence why they lost in 2004. They carried on with the liberalization reforms and did a good job of bringing the economy on track. There was emphasis and work done on infrastructure development (roads & highways, bridges, irrigation, telecom, opening the flood gates for the creation of silicon valley). There was some serious modernization during this time. However, all this meant lesser benefits for rural junta i.e. no immediate benefits. So reform policies were deemed too urban-centric. NDA tried to play politics by trying to fast track a few agricultural schemes few months off LS dissolution, but it didn't work. NDA was deemed to be too business friendly. This sentiment was exploited. UPA swooped in with its usual reservation based non-sense, 'crony-capitalism' yadda yadda.... This was the major setback. Irrespective of religion, rural India collectively rejected NDA 1. This was compounded further by some canny coalition politics by the Congress, who were well prepared and played the communal card well with Gujarat 2002. The big failure of NDA 1 was its inability to consolidate the Hindu vote (seats and vote share decreased) in particular, and the rural vote in general. They actually needed more Hindutva, if anything, to offset the minority backlash. The UPA carried on with the reforms, the foundations of which had been laid by the NDA. Those healthy GDP figures during UPA 1 ultimately provided the cover needed for carrying out the scams they did. UPA 2 mein raita phel gaya. Once the black money issue came to the fore front in 2011, the need to form AAP arose, who are even more populist than Congress.

The 2004 elections were mainly influenced by the results in Tamil Nadu and Andra .UPA won nearly 80 seats in these 2 states alone which was a shift of nearly 60+ seats from NDA to UPA The results in TN and AP were solely influenced by Anti incumbency against Jayalalitha and Naidu and not against NDA or Vajpayee 2014 is the first time since 1992 national elections being fought on National issues .Congress just got lucky in 2004 by sweeping 2 states with local issues.TN and AP alone contributed 1/3 rd seats to both UPA and Congress .Can't just attribute this as rejection of NDA by rural population

[veer]

Indians need to stop comparing us to Pakistanis... They are not DA benchmark we need to aim... It will only drag us down to their level

[jalebi_bhai]

The 2004 elections were mainly influenced by the results in Tamil Nadu and Andra .UPA won nearly 80 seats in these 2 states alone which was a shift of nearly 60+ seats from NDA to UPA The results in TN and AP were solely influenced by Anti incumbency against Jayalalitha and Naidu and not against NDA or Vajpayee

I'd say it was more like the difference in hindsight. The thrashing AIADMK received was a statistical anomaly, I mean, highest vote share but not a single seat? What are the odds? Congress were simply better prepared in 2004. It allied with the correct parties. BJP were definitely over-confident. I mean, if you can't consolidate the Hindu vote after running a RW-led union govt., you don't deserve to win.

2014 is the first time since 1992 national elections being fought on National issues .Congress just got lucky in 2004 by sweeping 2 states with local issues.TN and AP alone contributed 1/3 rd seats to both UPA and Congress .Can't just attribute this as rejection of NDA by rural population

I also mentioned that Congress played the coalition game well. Rural and Hindu backlash were the biggest factors though. What was the UPA's campaign mainly about in 2004? Portraying incumbent govt. as anti-poor/farmer and anti-minority. What were their poll promises? Tribal, women's reservation, curbing crony capitalism, communalism etc. Nothing ground-breaking really.

[BeautifulGame]

I'd say it was more like the difference in hindsight. The thrashing AIADMK received was a statistical anomaly, I mean, highest vote share but not a single seat? What are the odds? Congress were simply better prepared in 2004. It allied with the correct parties. BJP were definitely over-confident. I mean, if you can't consolidate the Hindu vote after running a RW-led union govt., you don't deserve to win. I also mentioned that Congress played the coalition game well. Rural and Hindu backlash were the biggest factors though. What was the UPA's campaign mainly about in 2004? Portraying incumbent govt. as anti-poor/farmer and anti-minority. What were their poll promises? Tribal, women's reservation, curbing crony capitalism, communalism etc. Nothing ground-breaking really.

It wasnt a statistical anomaly though .DMK only contested in 16 seats whereas ADMK contested in 33 seats so ADMK has highest vote shares . Despites contesting twice the no of seats Amma only got 5% more votes .The backlash for the 3 year rule and the anti-incombency were so visible that the results were well predicted before the elections .So it wasnt really hindsight . BJP didn't have any choice when it came to alliance in either TN or AP .They joined the only parties (TDP/ADMK) who were ideologically accommodating . Agree with the congress campaign and other points .But just don't think that was the major factor in reversal of fortunes .If there was even a 50-50 split in seats in these 2 states BJP would have formed govt again IMO.

[bulbul]

Agree with BG..2004 was mainly due to those 2 states.

[BeautifulGame]

Agree with BG..2004 was mainly due to those 2 states.

Yeah .BJP were mainly done in by swinging fortunes of 2 states they didn't have any influence on .Can't just read it a vote against NDA or for wanting Congress govt centrally as a whole in 2004

[Muloghonto]

This is a fact not a shameless comment. Indians have no right to cry foul of treatment of minorities in Pakistan when in India the conditions of minorities are even worse.

They are not and no amount of pakistani propaganda and ignorance will say otherwise. Had things been bad for minorities in india on the same level as pakistan, our minorities too would've vanished in numbes as Pakistan's have since 1947.

[Kalia_Test]

Pak Christians - They will kill us

One morning in 2013, a warning signed by an militant group was slipped under the door of the school office. “Stop giving missionary education to Muslim children. Otherwise, we will shoot you and your children,†said the threat, which was viewed by The Associated Press. Ten days later, the school received another warning, only this time it was with bullets.

They said that sometimes the Muslim kids would hang around, hear the prayers and recite them at home. Pakistan’s religious minorities are increasingly persecuted – not only Christians but Hindus and Ahmadis.

An estimated 12,000 religious minorities have fled Pakistan since 2009, according to Farrukh Saif, who heads a minority advocacy group that supports asylum-seekers in Bangkok.

The Pakistani father says they have no choice but to wait. He has no doubt what extremists will do if he returns: “I know they will kill both of us, my wife and me, and they won’t spare my children.“ So he waits and dreams of a life where they don’t need to hide and where his children can freely attend school. “We just want to go where our lives are safe,†he says with a sigh, “and we have some freedom.â€

------------------------- What a worst nation it must be if people actually try to run away from the country for their lives :(( They dont get looked after well as refugees but still are happy just to be alive.

[sensible-indian]

Nope. Not at all. It's the right card to play at present. Infact' date= they were not Hindutva enough in NDA 1. There is a definite renaissance in Hindu Nationalism at present.

I don't think so bud. Didn't this Yogi Aditya guy campaign for BJP for some by elections post their general election victory with his vitriolic speeches? BJP did very badly considering they were expected to sweep stuff. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/by-poll-lesson-for-bjp-ditch-yogi-adityanaths-brand-of-rabid-hindutva-1715253.html

In Rajasthan, where the party had got a three-fourth majority less than a year ago and had scored 100 percent in the Lok Sabha polls, the BJP lost three of the four seats to the Congress. In Gujarat too the BJP lost two Assembly seats. Ironically the only good news comes from West Bengal where it has debuted in the state assembly.

Contrast the fiery Yogi Adityanath, a five-time MP from Gorakhpur with Sidharthnath Singh, the unsung party national secretary in-charge of West Bengal. Singh and the West Bengal unit of the BJP, led by Rahul Sinha, carried out a systematic campaign against Mamata Banerjee, sticking to basic issues of misgovernance and corruption and managed to do what the BJP aspired for long - open an account in the West Bengal Assembly.

This Hindutva spouted by RSS and their loons is a bunch of garbage. In fact, in general election 2014, BJP won because of 3 things: 1. Congress was garbage and faced incredible anti incumbency 2. Development agenda 3. Modi's charisma Hindutva and all works in some pockets but not everywhere at a national level. The same Hindu nationalism couldn't win anything in Delhi where almost every BJP bigwig came and gave rallies for Delihi assembly election. Didn't Amit Shah say "Jo Desh Ka Mood Hai, Wahi Delhi Ka Mood Hai" and got owned big time. Now one can say AAP made crazy promises and won. While that may have played a part, to win 67 out of 70 seats is not possible with just that. Or else all political parties would promise the moon and try to come back. If India has to progress as a nation, we have to move away from religion and not towards it.

[jalebi_bhai]

It wasnt a statistical anomaly though .DMK only contested in 16 seats whereas ADMK contested in 33 seats so ADMK has highest vote shares . Despites contesting twice the no of seats Amma only got 5% more votes .The backlash for the 3 year rule and the anti-incombency were so visible that the results were well predicted before the elections .So it wasnt really hindsight.

Oh I forgot the bit in bold happened. Thanks for reminding me.

BJP didn't have any choice when it came to alliance in either TN or AP .They joined the only parties (TDP/ADMK) who were ideologically accommodating . Agree with the congress campaign and other points .But just don't think that was the major factor in reversal of fortunes .If there was even a 50-50 split in seats in these 2 states BJP would have formed govt again IMO.

Ok. We are having a classic clash of perspectives here. You're saying that failure of BJPs alliance partners was the main reason for their loss. I'm saying that it was the backlash in the cow-belt region, as well as sizable swings in places like Haryana in 2004. Reality is, it was a bit of both. 40 seat swing in Bihar and Jharkhand. Completely routed in Haryana. 50 seats right there. Here, unlike in AP & TN where they were not the chief alliance partner, BJP was more in control of things, specially in UP. They failed to consolidate and build on their vote banks. Had they retained even half of what they lost in these states, NDA would've emerged as the largest coalition.

[jalebi_bhai]

I don't think so bud. Didn't this Yogi Aditya guy campaign for BJP for some by elections post their general election victory with his vitriolic speeches? BJP did very badly considering they were expected to sweep stuff. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/by-poll-lesson-for-bjp-ditch-yogi-adityanaths-brand-of-rabid-hindutva-1715253.html

They were by-polls. By-polls usually have a very low turn out, so it is hardly an accurate barometer.

This Hindutva spouted by RSS and their loons is a bunch of garbage.

It is majority appeasement. The thing is, when BJP started out in the 80s, they were a Gandhian Socialist party. You already have INC that uses that gimmick, plenty of other socialist parties. They needed a gimmick of their own. Hence the shift to Hindutva by around 1986. If INC can indulge in minority appeasement, is it a crime for BJP to do the opposite of that?

In fact, in general election 2014, BJP won because of 3 things: 1. Congress was garbage and faced incredible anti incumbency 2. Development agenda 3. Modi's charisma

No arguments.

Hindutva and all works in some pockets but not everywhere at a national level.

Not yet. It will. It is slowly happening in states like Telangana, Andhra & WB.

The same Hindu nationalism couldn't win anything in Delhi where almost every BJP bigwig came and gave rallies for Delihi assembly election. Didn't Amit Shah say "Jo Desh Ka Mood Hai, Wahi Delhi Ka Mood Hai" and got owned big time.

By that logic, I guess Hindu nationalism worked in states like Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Jammu, Haryana and secularism failed.

Now one can say AAP made crazy promises and won. While that may have played a part, to win 67 out of 70 seats is not possible with just that. Or else all political parties would promise the moon and try to come back.

The BJP ran a negative, shoddy campaign in Delhi. Hangover from other victories I guess. AAP ran a much better campaign. There is a difference between winning an election and running a govt. Let AAP run a govt. smoothly for 1 year, then we'll all do bhangra to 5 saal Kejriwal.

If India has to progress as a nation, we have to move away from religion and not towards it.

For this to happen, we need a UCC, so that every citizen is equal in the eyes of this country's judiciary. Hindus have more or less been living under a UCC since the mid 50s. So why do we still not have UCC in India? Take a wild guess :winky: True secularism will never come around as long as Muslims and Christians don't agree to enforce UCC. I myself am a minority (Christian), I know how people from my community are and how they think in general. This won't happen anytime soon. Neither does NDA have the numbers in the Rajya Sabha to enforce it. Minorities will keep continuing to vote in blocks for those parties who appease them. This is the result of pampering since during the freedom struggle. So, as long as minorities keep claiming benefits on the basis of their religion a.k.a the basis of pseudo-secularism, you will have to deal with religion in politics. What are your takes on the below? http://www.livemint.com/Politics/BPA0nRTa8MQKq41xDGDDCK/Row-over-St-Xaviers-principals-advice-to-students-on-votin.html http://www.anhadin.net/article216.html As long as you have rubbish like the above ^^, lunatic RW fringe will always be relevant.

[Vilander]

This is a fact not a shameless comment. Indians have no right to cry foul of treatment of minorities in Pakistan when in India the conditions of minorities are even worse.

This is prime example of Dunning-kruger effect, you do not have any understanding that you are absolutely wrong when defending pakistani maltreatment of minorities by mentioning often uncorroborated and always unrelated events in India. 1, Indian conditions are irrelevant, 2, Even if you substantiate that conditions are worse in India, you still have not answered why conditions are bad to start with in Pakistan. I am just wondering if Islamic education system introduces a degree of illusory superiority into some of its subjects,added to that you guys are thick many a time and do not want to learn, too many such instances. Theoretically since you wont learn as fast as others majority of the instances, you will evolve less in general and so would cease to exist as a system eventually.

[YUSER]

When a Pakistani Muslim applies for a passport or national ID card, they are asked to sign an oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign. The oath goes like this: "I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims." These guys are seriously sick