What is Indian Govt policy on the Rohingya Issue

[Tibarn]

On 1/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, Muloghonto said:

Repeat after me:

No

 

I need no advice from someone who thinks British rule over India was positive. Give advice to some of your cotravellers, those of your stature: Islamists, comrades, etc

Quote

India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion.

India is a constitutionally Panth nirpeksh not Dharm nirpeksh and that too only after Indiria Gandhi imposing emergency and forcefully injecting the 42nd amendment. Neither phrase means "secular". You might not understand English, Hindi, or Sanskrit,and the nuance required when translating between languages, but here is a lesson for you:

Definition of secular(as allegedly followed by most western nations)

Quote

of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:

 

or

 

not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred )

Panth nirpeksh

Quote

Sect-independent. This means not aligned to a particular Dharmic sect, not a religion. A sect, for example, is the Aghouris, Naga Sadhus, Ajivikas, Nam-Dharis(Sikh), Nirankaris, etc. 

Dharm nirpeksh

Quote

Roughly translated as "religion"-independent but more accurately Dharma-independent. Dharma would mean a version of Hinduism/Jainism/Sikhism/Buddhism. Non-Indian religions aren't Dharma.

If you have the mental faculties to see the distinction between the three phrases, you would see the dissonance. Sadly,not everyone is born with the pre-requisite ability to see nuance in language. 

 

Original constitution: no mention of "secular". Therefore the constitution wasn't "secular" at the time of design.  

 

Indira's constitutional amendment: cognitive dissonance between the Hindi/Sanskrit and the English versions of the constitution. One can no-more say India is "secular" than say it is panth-nirpeksh.  Someone uninformed about the importance of language in legal matters, and who learned a new word "sophistry" from watching SpongeBob Squarepants and therefore wants to misuse it, may not understand nuance, but civilized people do.   

 

You might not know Indian history, especially if you made the journey to this country after Mamata Bannerjee came to power and established secular sharia in W Bengal, but there is a Indian history lesson for you. For someone whose only "accomplishment" in life is their age, you should at least know that much.  That's the problem with the internet, however, any uninformed person can spout uninformed nonsense. 

 

There was no "secularism" or "secular" in the constitution as originally designed. The imposition of "Secular" was simultaneously a political ploy, against the spirit of the constitution which Ambedkar designed, and illegal. The fact that the 43rd and 44th amendments by the Janata Party failed to restore the original constitution in its entirety, doesn't change that.   

 

To argue that Ambedkar was "secular", by the western concept of the word, is both laughable and ignorant. Ambedkar argued that India would only have harmony if a complete population transfer upon independence occured:

From   BR Ambedkar’s Pakistan or the Partition of India

Quote

Some scoff at the idea of the shifting and exchange of population. But those who scoff can hardly be aware of the complications, which a minority problem gives rise to and the failures attendant upon almost all the efforts made to protect them. The constitutions of the post-war states, as well as of the older states in Europe which had a minority problem, proceeded on the assumption that constitutional safeguards for minorities should suffice for their protection and so the constitutions of most of the new states with majorities and minorities were studded with long lists of fundamental rights and safeguards to see that they were not violated by the majorities. What was the experience ? Experience showed that safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve it was for each to exchange its alien minorities within its border, for its own which was without its border, with a view to bring about homogeneous States. This is what happened in Turky, Greece and Bulgaria. Those, who scoff at the idea of transfer of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turky, Greece and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities problem lay in exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor operation. It involved the transfer of some 20 million people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations of communal peace must outweigh every other consideration.

That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give up so sure a way to communal peace.

There is one point of criticism to which no reference has been made so far. As it is likely to be urged, I propose to deal with it here. It is sure to be asked, how will Pakistan affect the position of the Muslims that will be left in Hindustan ? The question is natural because the scheme of Pakistan does seem to concern itself with the Muslim majorities who do not need protection arid abandons the Muslim minorities who do. But the point is : who can raise it ? Surely not the Hindus. Only the Muslims of Pakistan or the Muslims of Hindustan can raise it. The question was put to Mr. Rehmat Ali, the protagonist of Pakistan and this is the answer given by him :—

"How will it affect the position of the forty five million Muslims in Hindustan proper ?

" The truth is that in this struggle their thought has been more than a wrench to me. They are the flesh of our flesh and the soul of our soul. We can never forget them ; nor they, us. Their present position and future security is, and shall ever be, a mailer of great importance to us. As things are at present, Pakistan will not adversely affect their position in Hindustan. On the basis of population (one Muslim to four Hindus), they will still be entitled to the same representation in legislative as well as administrative fields which they possess now. As to the future, the only effective guarantee we can offer is that of reciprocity, and, therefore, we solemnly undertake to give all those safeguards to non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan which will be conceded to our Muslim minority in Hindustan. " But what sustains us most is the fact that they know we are proclaiming Pakistan in the highest interest of the’ Millet’. It is as much theirs as it is ours. While for us it is a national citadel, for them it will ever be a moral anchor. So long as the anchor holds, everything is or can be made safe. But once it gives way, all will be lost ". The answer given by the Muslims of Hindustan is equally clear. They say, " We are not weakened by the separation of Muslims into Pakistan and Hindustan. We are better protected by the existence of separate Islamic States on the Eastern and Western borders of Hindustan than we are by their submersion in Hindustan. " Who can say that they are wrong ? Has it not been shown that Germany as an outside state was better able to protect the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia than the Sudetens were able to do themselves ? 41[f.41]

Be that as it may, the question does not concern the Hindus. The question that concerns the Hindus is : How far does the creation of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan ? That is a very legitimate question and must be considered. It must be admitted that by the creation of Pakistan, Hindustan is not freed of the communal question. While Pakistan can be made a homogeneous state by redrawing its boundaries, Hindustan must remain a composite state. The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan—though they are mostly congregated in towns—and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan..

It is against the spirit of the Constitution to import Rohingyas.  That actions will disrupt communal harmony and would be against homogenization, another goal of Ambedkar.  Ambedkar would likelyonly accept refugees from a spiritually congruent country.

 

Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co., 1941, p.60

Quote

If unity is to be of an abiding character it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short it must be spiritual. Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed there is more spiritual unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between Pakistan and Hindustan

or

Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development

Quote

It may be granted that there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically all people are heterogeneous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture. It has not only a geographic unity, but it has over and above all a deeper and a much more fundamental unity—the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end.

Of course as part of Ambedkar's homogenization project, he would have wanted to "purify"  Hinduism (compared it to Catholicism) to Buddhism(compared it to Protestantism ), but that is neither here nor there.

 

To add to this, Ambedkar was a capitalist, but Indira inserted Socialism into the constitution with the same 42nd amendment.   

 

Call Ambedkar a Sanghi/Chaddi/Hindu Sharia etc as well. 

 

I wonder why you support the importing of Rohingya terrorists into Indian J&K? Your Rohingya brethren, after being imported into Myanmar by your British masters(those same British you were thankful for ruling India), ran an insurgency to break off from Myanmar and join East Pakistan up until the 1960s. It looks like you are getting paid by Saudi and Pakistan. Is it your grand plan to provide more foot-soldiers for the J&K terrorist organizations? 

Quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-idUSKBN1450Y7

Myanmar's Rohingya insurgency has links to Saudi, Pakistan

It looks like your double game was exposed. 

 

Quote

If we 

There is no "we". I am also not associated with anyone that thinks British rule over India was positive, which you yourself claimed. 

 

Quote

give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well.

Your "should"s are as irrelevant as your logic is poor. Should is your opinion and irrelevant in national law. Legally, refugees are governed by the  Foreigners Act of 1946. India doesn't have to accept anyone on what you claim are "secular" grounds. That is an arbitrary measure imagined by you.

 

A country whose citizens can't legally settle in another part of its own territory, in case you didn't know the rest of India can't settle in Kashmir, and one where the native inhabitants were chased out, in case you didn't know the Kashmiri Pandits are still unable to return to their homeland, has no business importing Islamists and Rioters from Myanmar and settling them in J&K. 

 

Your argument that nation policy is based off the constitution is rubbish as well. You claim India is secular and therefore that requires a secular national policy. That is your naivety and nothing more. Here's a clue for you:

 

India's domestic policies aren't secular. Aside from personal laws being different based on different religions, giving reservation based on religion, there is also this chart which shows how "secular" India is:

 

The only people that think India is "secular" after viewing that chart either: 1) learned some Orwellian definition of the word, or 2) Just repeat the word without knowing what it means. If you think domestically India is secular, well, my opinion of you already can't get any lower, so all I can do is laugh. If you don't think India is secular domestically, there is no reason to expect it to be so on a national/international level. 

 

I can name a number of countries that are secular constitutionally, but don't act in secular ways, either domestically, in terms of national policy, and international actions. Only the naive think the instance of a word in a constitution affects national/foreign policy.

 

In regards to "Hindu Chaddi Sanghi" nonsense you post as well as the ethnic attacks on Marathis, Gujaratis, and Hindi speakers you made in the other thread regarding: 

 

Don't read if easily offended

Spoiler

1) Your personal hero Ashoka is a confirmed mass murderer and religious bigot, by actual historians, confirmed by all sources of history. 

2) Your from either West Bengal, or Bangladesh. One is ruled by an Islamist and the other is a defacto Islamic state. It looks like people of your ilk love actual sharia and love hallucinating about "Hindu sharia"

3) States ruled by people of similar pseudo-secular" ideology as you,  are national leaders in political murders, riots, violent crimes, new ISIS recruits, butchering Dalits, etc. It looks like your phony secularism is really helping out.

4) To add to 3, your pseudo-secular states also seem to lead the nation is garbage economies. Of course, as someone who thinks "Scandinavia bro" is an economic policy, it is no wonder you are ignorant of economics. 

5) You are habitually dishonest. You pretend to be Buddhist or Atheist depending on the thread. Who knows what else you lie about. Evidence below:

 

Penultimately, you claim to be an empiricist, yet can't provide sources for your claims and shift burden of proof regularly. You simultaneously claim to be an Engineer/Software developer and a Scientist. I will dispel that myth right now. 

 

Source 1:

Via Boston University School of Engineering

http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/deans-welcome/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/

Quote

Engineering Is Not Science

Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists. So often the two terms are used interchangeably, but they are separate, albeit related, disciplines. Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society. While it is true that engineering without science could be haphazard; without engineering, scientific discovery would be a merely an academic pursuit.

Source 2: Via the IEEE, a 400k member Engineering Professional Organization, writen by Duke Professor of Engineering

Quote

Engineering Is Not Science

And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

By HENRY PETROSKI     

 

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

Source 3:

Literal dictionary defintion of a Scientist

Quote

1. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

 

Choose languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianBurmeseCatalanCebuanoChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianNepaliNorwegianNyanjaPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScottish GaelicSerbianShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshWestern FrisianXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu

 

 

You don't have a PhD, therefore you aren't an expert in any science. You aren't studying either of the two categories of science, thus you aren't a scientist. Your own biography you told me states:

Quote

I came to Canada in 1989, graduated in Electrical Engineering (BASc) in 1992, MASc in 1994. My specialization is in control systems and i worked in several companies- mining, pulp mill, electronics production, etc. for almost 15+ years. Then i transitioned into programming, predominantly due to a superior lifestyle ( i am a master of my own time as a coder) almost 5 years ago and since then, i've mostly been doing programming and some occasional engineering consultancy.

Where exactly is there expertise of science or spending one's life researching/studying. Programming isn't the equivalent of studying.

 

Engineering isn't a natural science. It also isn't a physical science.

By definition, a physical science is a part of this list:

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/cipdetail.aspx?y=55&cipid=88479

Quote

 Browse 

 

• 40) PHYSICAL SCIENCES.
  • 40.01) Physical Sciences.
    • 40.0101) Physical Sciences.
  • 40.02) Astronomy and Astrophysics.
    • 40.0201) Astronomy.
    • 40.0202) Astrophysics.
    • 40.0203) Planetary Astronomy and Science.
    • 40.0299) Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other.
  • 40.04) Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology.
    • 40.0401) Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, General.
    • 40.0402) Atmospheric Chemistry and Climatology.
    • 40.0403) Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics.
    • 40.0404) Meteorology.
    • 40.0499) Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other.
  • 40.05) Chemistry.
    • 40.0501) Chemistry, General.
    • 40.0502) Analytical Chemistry.
    • 40.0503) Inorganic Chemistry.
    • 40.0504) Organic Chemistry.
    • 40.0506) Physical Chemistry.
    • 40.0507) Polymer Chemistry.
    • 40.0508) Chemical Physics.
    • 40.0509) Environmental Chemistry.
    • 40.0510) Forensic Chemistry.
    • 40.0511) Theoretical Chemistry.
    • 40.0599) Chemistry, Other.
  • 40.06) Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences.
    • 40.0601) Geology/Earth Science, General.
    • 40.0602) Geochemistry.
    • 40.0603) Geophysics and Seismology.
    • 40.0604) Paleontology.
    • 40.0605) Hydrology and Water Resources Science.
    • 40.0606) Geochemistry and Petrology.
    • 40.0607) Oceanography, Chemical and Physical.
    • 40.0699) Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, Other.
  • 40.08) Physics.
    • 40.0801) Physics, General.
    • 40.0802) Atomic/Molecular Physics.
    • 40.0804) Elementary Particle Physics.
    • 40.0805) Plasma and High-Temperature Physics.
    • 40.0806) Nuclear Physics.
    • 40.0807) Optics/Optical Sciences.
    • 40.0808) Condensed Matter and Materials Physics.
    • 40.0809) Acoustics.
    • 40.0810) Theoretical and Mathematical Physics.
    • 40.0899) Physics, Other.
  • 40.10) Materials Sciences.
    • 40.1001) Materials Science.
    • 40.1002) Materials Chemistry.
    • 40.1099) Materials Sciences, Other.
  • 40.99) Physical Sciences, Other.
    • 40.9999) Physical Sciences, Other.

Taking a couple of  classes in Physics for your engineering doesn't qualify you as a scientist. Just about every university in the US requires a battery of Biology/Chemistry/Physics courses for undergraduate students, even those studying subjects like Poetry. All US Poetry undergrads who take some Bio/Chem/Physics courses aren't scientists. 

 

If you were either a Scientist or an Engineer, you would be knowledgeable about the difference between the scientific method and the engineering method or at minimum be knowledgeable about at least one of the two. The fact that you conflated the two, implies that you are neither or ignorant of the differences. (I actually do believe your an engineer)

 

In your attempts to derail this thread,based on the Triple Talaq thread, I will repost the relevant portion:

 

Muloghonto's post

Quote

Your first claim was this:

You are completely mistaken actually. We have plenty of evidence that 'nuclear family' is a relatively recent creation amongst species homo sapiens and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

 

Thereafter, this was your supporting "evidence"

We have clay seals from Sumeria, where king Urukagina of Lagash outlaws the 'widespread prevalence of polyandry' amongst the citizens of Lagash, 4400 years ago.

Many of the hyper-backwards places in India, such as tribals in Andaman, tribes in Lahul-Spiti, polyandry has been a dominant form of marriage (practice is declining in Lahul-Spiti in the last 50 years). As recently as 100 years ago, the predominant form of marriage in Bhutan is polyandry. 

The Nivkh still practice polyandry. 

Amongst the inuit, the bulk majority of amazon tribes, etc. we see polyandry as the defaut form of propagation.

 

 

For a Scientific argument, you provided a clay seal with ambiguous wording, and isolated cases of polyandry among isolated tribes, in isolated parts of the world.

 

Let me re-post what qualifies as a Scientific resource.  

If you notice, clay tablets and anecdotes don't make it on the list.

Now let me re-post the quality of Scientific resources:

Clay tablets and anecdotes don't even qualify as gray literature.  

 

To your unscientific  assertion, which I will re-post again, 

Quote

Your first claim was this:

You are completely mistaken actually. We have plenty of evidence that 'nuclear family' is a relatively recent creation amongst species homo sapiens and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). 

 

Thereafter, this was your supporting "evidence"

We have clay seals from Sumeria, where king Urukagina of Lagash outlaws the 'widespread prevalence of polyandry' amongst the citizens of Lagash, 4400 years ago.

Many of the hyper-backwards places in India, such as tribals in Andaman, tribes in Lahul-Spiti, polyandry has been a dominant form of marriage (practice is declining in Lahul-Spiti in the last 50 years). As recently as 100 years ago, the predominant form of marriage in Bhutan is polyandry. 

The Nivkh still practice polyandry. 

Amongst the inuit, the bulk majority of amazon tribes, etc. we see polyandry as the defaut form of propagation.

I retorted with this:

Quote

Now for some actual evidence. The mutation rate, based off the cycles of recombination of human chromosomes in meiosis, was examined over half a decade ago. Based on the comparative rates of meiotic mutation between sex chromosomes of X and Y and the autosomes. Geneticists were able to prove modern human mating structure. This is known as the breeding ratio. The number of women to men breeding in 3 different regions.

 

The values by region were

Africa: 2.792

Europe: 2.048

East Asia: 1.168

 

Thus they concluded, based on DNA evidence, over hundreds of thousands of years, that humans were either Monogamous or Polygamous in all three major regions of the world. If you want, I can send some of the data.

 

To add to this, our closest common ancestor is the Chimpanzee, which, like humans, has shown to have its evolution male-driven. This means that reproductive strategies were patriarchal. Once again, polyandry has no evidence. 

My argument was backed by these three Scientific research journals

1)Am J Hum Genet. 2010 June 11; 86(6): 982.

2)Makova, K.D., and Li, W.H. (2002). Strong male-driven
evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature
416, 624–626.

3)Frost, P. (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation.
Journal of Social. Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology
2, 169–191.

 

All three of which fall under the categories of Scholarly publications and Primary Literature. Only 1 person used "science" in that thread, the other used pieces of clay. 

 

Your false bravado is cute, but, it is meaningless at the same time. Quote me again, without providing sources, and I will report you for trolling. Back up your claims with data/citations, or continue your disingenuous, unproductive discussions with someone who tries to derail every thread with their personal issues/agendas.  I don't have interest in TimesNow style opinion "shouting" matches. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

No

 

I need no advice from someone who thinks British rule over India was positive. Give advice to some of your cotravellers, those of your stature: Islamists, comrades, etc

First up, congratulations- first post of yours where you've been able to present a coherent argument. 

 

However, this still is sophistry. I said i can see the good in British Rule. I also clarified multiple times that I don't want to pass judgement/do not consider British rule to be a good thing necessarily. I simply see it as a mixed bag- some positives, some negatives. I don't consider you, me or anyone else for the matter- to be qualified enough to pass judgement on such a multi-dimensional topic as 'was British Rule net positive or net negative', especially when we can see that there were clear, categoric horribly negative consequences to british rule as well as some remarkably positive consequence to it too.

Even if you want to see it as a narrow-minded few issues, thats your prerogative, but misrepresenting my position as someone who sees it as a mixed bag, is sophism at its best.

 

Quote

India is a constitutionally Panth nirpeksh not Dharm nirpeksh and that too only after Indiria Gandhi imposing emergency and forcefully injecting the 42nd amendment. Neither phrase means "secular". You might not understand English, Hindi, or Sanskrit,and the nuance required when translating between languages, but here is a lesson for you:

Definition of secular(as allegedly followed by most western nations)

......

Indira's constitutional amendment: cognitive dissonance between the Hindi/Sanskrit and the English versions of the constitution. One can no-more say India is "secular" than say it is panth-nirpeksh.

Sure. Both are official languages. Get a supreme court judgement. Logic would dictate that whichever language was actually used to pass the bill would hold sway in the 'spirit of the law' aspect, but we shall not know this till it happens i suppose, as its a matter of professional legal opinion.

 

Quote

 

You might not know Indian history, especially if you made the journey to this country after Mamata Bannerjee came to power and established secular sharia in W Bengal, but there is a Indian history lesson for you. For someone whose only "accomplishment" in life is their age, you should at least know that much.  That's the problem with the internet, however, any uninformed person can spout uninformed nonsense. 

Ok Bacchu. dream on. When you grow up a bit and get kids, marry etc. and oh i dunno, you may still have plenty of passions on this planet, you may value the concept of 'master of my own time' as more important than your fancy degree works. Which of course, you won't know yet, but in a decade or two, you most probably will also stop caring about them.

Quote

To argue that Ambedkar was "secular", by the western concept of the word, is both laughable and ignorant. Ambedkar argued that India would only have harmony if a complete population transfer upon independence occured:

Strawman. I have not implied that Ambedkar's secularism == western secularism. India and the west are fundamentally different models of secularism. But that is still irrelevant to the discussion.

As per implying that Amberkar was automatically against secularism, because he proposes population transfers- well, i happen to agree with him and i am still a secular. However, India missed the boat and it is not 1947. Cannot kick people out of India who are born to India. Again, basic legalism of citizenship act of India.

Quote

 

I wonder why you support the importing of Rohingya terrorists into Indian J&K? Your Rohingya brethren, after being imported into Myanmar by your British masters(those same British you were thankful for ruling India), ran an insurgency to break off from Myanmar and join East Pakistan up until the 1960s. It looks like you are getting paid by Saudi and Pakistan. Is it your grand plan to provide more foot-soldiers for the J&K terrorist organizations? 

Another bit of sophism. I actually oppose Rohingyas in Kashmir. That doesnt mean i oppose Rohingya refugees in rest of India. We are talking about insignificant amounts over time that make no dent to our population growth figures, selected on individual basis.

Like normal, civilized people. 

 

Quote

You don't have a PhD, therefore you aren't an expert in any science. You aren't studying either of the two categories of science, thus you aren't a scientist. Your own biography you told me states:

....

aking a couple of  classes in Physics for your engineering doesn't qualify you as a scientist. Just about every university in the US requires a battery of Biology/Chemistry/Physics courses for undergraduate students, even those studying subjects like Poetry. All US Poetry undergrads who take some Bio/Chem/Physics courses aren't scientists. 

Thats funny. 

We engineers spend 20-25% more time than you lame science grads in class & doing homework, in science & math, defend thesis and we are not 'scientists'. 

Sure bacchu.

Yes, we are not 'technically a scientist. But too bad for you, My degree says Bachelor of Applied SCIENCE. 

The only difference between your 'SCIENCE' and my 'APPLIE SCIENCE' is that mine will make 2x the money at 21 than yours will at 24. Its no coincidence that our marks in science courses for admissions purposes is higher than your departments on average.

Here is a tip for you bacchu: one day when you are bored with the monotony of life and wish you could just go off and enjoy life 2 months from now, with your wife or family or alone, you may lose some sense of attachment for your shiny degrees and do something that makes you MASTER OF YOUR OWN TIME.

That day, you will remember good old Muli. 
If you'd bothered to ask WHY an engineer would bother to become a coder, you'd realize that to many of us grown ups (and by that, i mean people who have ticked off the major boxes in life- career, marriage, kids, house, etc), being the master of our own time, doing what i want to do, when i want to do and not be stuck at 9-5 is the ULTIMATE career choice.

I can take my work with me and go wherever i want. My trustly laptop comes and " I need ze internet. Ya" And i make money sitting in a tropical paradise in December. Comparable money to my good old six figures and benefits.THATS why an engineer would choose to be a 'code coolie' as you may call it. I can do what you can't : Go * off to wherever i want, whenever i want or atleast, with 1000x more flexibility than your sorry 9-5 behind.

 

Quote

 

For a Scientific argument, you provided a clay seal with ambiguous wording, and isolated cases of polyandry among isolated tribes, in isolated parts of the world.

 

For a scientist it also provides greater prevalence rate than currently, which is the crux of the original argument.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Mariyam]

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Mariyam

[chewy]

5 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. 

You will be surprised how many actors, musicians, sportsperson and even super models come from science / engineering background

 

[Tibarn]

13 hours ago, Mariyam said:

I always looked down upon scientists and engineers as the necessary dregs of the society. We need em, but don't really like em at all. Kind of like ear wax.

Can't believe that people here are trying to 'outscientist' each other. 

Scientists  are the reason the world is where it is today(the good parts not the bad). The winds of progress. 

 

I'm not trying out scientist Muloghonto. I'm showing him he is a engineer, so he shouldn't fake expertise in a field he isn't qualified to comment on. 

 

The earwax of society are you normies.  

Science> All

Edited January 21, 2017 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

First up, congratulations- first post of yours where you've been able to present a coherent argument. 

 

However, this still is sophistry. I said i can see the good in British Rule. I also clarified multiple times that I don't want to pass judgement/do not consider British rule to be a good thing necessarily. I simply see it as a mixed bag- some positives, some negatives. I don't consider you, me or anyone else for the matter- to be qualified enough to pass judgement on such a multi-dimensional topic as 'was British Rule net positive or net negative', especially when we can see that there were clear, categoric horribly negative consequences to british rule as well as some remarkably positive consequence to it too.

Even if you want to see it as a narrow-minded few issues, thats your prerogative, but misrepresenting my position as someone who sees it as a mixed bag, is sophism at its best.

 

Sure. Both are official languages. Get a supreme court judgement. Logic would dictate that whichever language was actually used to pass the bill would hold sway in the 'spirit of the law' aspect, but we shall not know this till it happens i suppose, as its a matter of professional legal opinion.

 

Ok Bacchu. dream on. When you grow up a bit and get kids, marry etc. and oh i dunno, you may still have plenty of passions on this planet, you may value the concept of 'master of my own time' as more important than your fancy degree works. Which of course, you won't know yet, but in a decade or two, you most probably will also stop caring about them.

Strawman. I have not implied that Ambedkar's secularism == western secularism. India and the west are fundamentally different models of secularism. But that is still irrelevant to the discussion.

As per implying that Amberkar was automatically against secularism, because he proposes population transfers- well, i happen to agree with him and i am still a secular. However, India missed the boat and it is not 1947. Cannot kick people out of India who are born to India. Again, basic legalism of citizenship act of India.

Another bit of sophism. I actually oppose Rohingyas in Kashmir. That doesnt mean i oppose Rohingya refugees in rest of India. We are talking about insignificant amounts over time that make no dent to our population growth figures, selected on individual basis.

Like normal, civilized people. 

 

Thats funny. 

We engineers spend 20-25% more time than you lame science grads in class & doing homework, in science & math, defend thesis and we are not 'scientists'. 

Sure bacchu.

Yes, we are not 'technically a scientist. But too bad for you, My degree says Bachelor of Applied SCIENCE. 

The only difference between your 'SCIENCE' and my 'APPLIE SCIENCE' is that mine will make 2x the money at 21 than yours will at 24. Its no coincidence that our marks in science courses for admissions purposes is higher than your departments on average.

Here is a tip for you bacchu: one day when you are bored with the monotony of life and wish you could just go off and enjoy life 2 months from now, with your wife or family or alone, you may lose some sense of attachment for your shiny degrees and do something that makes you MASTER OF YOUR OWN TIME.

That day, you will remember good old Muli. 
If you'd bothered to ask WHY an engineer would bother to become a coder, you'd realize that to many of us grown ups (and by that, i mean people who have ticked off the major boxes in life- career, marriage, kids, house, etc), being the master of our own time, doing what i want to do, when i want to do and not be stuck at 9-5 is the ULTIMATE career choice.

I can take my work with me and go wherever i want. My trustly laptop comes and " I need ze internet. Ya" And i make money sitting in a tropical paradise in December. Comparable money to my good old six figures and benefits.THATS why an engineer would choose to be a 'code coolie' as you may call it. I can do what you can't : Go * off to wherever i want, whenever i want or atleast, with 1000x more flexibility than your sorry 9-5 behind.

 

For a scientist it also provides greater prevalence rate than currently, which is the crux of the original argument.

 

Gappu is triggered. Inbreeding IQ depression is lethal for him. Still no sources or references. 

 

Looks like he's pulling stuff out of thin air again.

 

He pretended to be a scientist, but was just a sad code coolie living in an igloo in Canada

 

Now he is trying to explain his career decisions to someone half his age. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Tibarn

[Gollum]

Army wants check on Hyderabad Rohingyas

 

About 4,000 Rohingya refugees stay in the city with a sizeable number residing near defence establishments.

 

Whose bright idea was it to settle them near defence installations ? Most of them might be innocent but even a few bad eggs can spoil the broth, after all they have indulged in terror attacks on Indian soil, btw ARSA is headed by a Pakistani and backed by LeT...so Army is cautious with a valid reason. Please shift them to the outskirts far away from these sensitive places.

 

https://deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/090718/army-wants-check-on-hyderabad-rohingyas.html

 

[Stradlater]

Army should be given a free hand in dealing with these cretins. Dare I say we need a Serbian approach here.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Army should be given a free hand in dealing with these cretins. Dare I say we need a Serbian approach here.

Serbian approach gets our 'generals' branded as war criminals and tried in ICJ. Not great for Indian diplomacy which is already on the backfoot against the Chinese in our quest to be the dominant power in our own backyard.

 

[sandeep]

Some shameless bigotry on this thread.   Unsurprising, but still disappointing.  

[Muloghonto]

On 2/7/2019 at 4:42 AM, Gollum said:

Our policy with Rohingyas should be to kick them out. If Myanmar/Bangladesh doesn't accept them put them in labor camps, sterilize the women and make them regret the day they entered India. *ing rats. 

 

Rohingyas held for theft of copper wires from metro stations and tracks in Delhi and Noida

 

LINK

 

Multiple thefts and crime records against them, they carry UNHCR cards !!!! 

R u trying to audition for a Hitler role somewhere ? forced sterilization for petty theft ? heaven forbid if one of them commits murder...should then be burnt alive, right ?

[Gollum]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

R u trying to audition for a Hitler role somewhere ? forced sterilization for petty theft ? heaven forbid if one of them commits murder...should then be burnt alive, right ?

They have committed murders, rapes, violent crimes and aided Pak terrorists in carrying out strikes on our army camps....this is just a continuation of their activities here. And they breed like toads. 

 

And India does have a policy of state sponsored sterilization for the tribals, rampant in Central India LINK. Why should Rohingyas be left out? 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Gollum

[Straight Drive]

On 2/7/2019 at 6:12 PM, Gollum said:

Our policy with Rohingyas should be to kick them out. If Myanmar/Bangladesh doesn't accept them put them in labor camps, sterilize the women and make them regret the day they entered India. *ing rats. 

 

Rohingyas held for theft of copper wires from metro stations and tracks in Delhi and Noida

 

LINK

 

Multiple thefts and crime records against them, they carry UNHCR cards !!!! 

Pathetic people really. Spit in the dish which they eat from. Giving them shelter is now affecting India.

[Muloghonto]

33 minutes ago, Gollum said:

They have committed murders, rapes, violent crimes and aided Pak terrorists in carrying out strikes on our army camps....this is just a continuation of their activities here. And they breed like toads. 

 

And India does have a policy of state sponsored sterilization for the tribals, rampant in Central India LINK. Why should Rohingyas be left out? 

 

 

So instead of saying the government shouldn't be forcing people to sterilize, particularly on casteist lines, you want refugees to be sterilized. 

Have you ever heard of the whole ' collective punishment vs individual guilt' concept ? And you wonder why India is a third world country with such third world mentality. 

 

[Gollum]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So instead of saying the government shouldn't be forcing people to sterilize, particularly on casteist lines, you want refugees to be sterilized. 

Have you ever heard of the whole ' collective punishment vs individual guilt' concept ? And you wonder why India is a third world country with such third world mentality. 

 

Third world mentality or not, we don't want troublesome refugees in India. There are Afghan refugees in India, and there are Sri Lankan Tamils/Tibetans/Pak Hindus, they never get bad air-time. And our army/IB/NIA is against these Rohingyas because of their involvement in terror (army camp attack, Bodh Gaya blasts, Chennai blast)...would take their word over that of a Canadian. Heard Mamata is eager to host them, let Bengal carry the load of these people. 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Gollum

[Muloghonto]

25 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Third world mentality or not, we don't want troublesome refugees in India. There are Afghan refugees in India, and there are Sri Lankan Tamils/Tibetans/Pak Hindus, they never get bad air-time. And our army/IB/NIA is against these Rohingyas because of their involvement in terror (army camp attack, Bodh Gaya blasts, Chennai blast)...would take their word over that of a Canadian. Heard Mamata is eager to host them, let Bengal carry the load of these people. 

So IMPROVE law and order. Each and every troublesome refugee needs to be deported/incarcerated. But in 2019, we are calling for collective punishment ?! Thats ridiculous and nonsense. I don't care if its 3% of Rohingyas, 30% or 99%. The ones who did nothing wrong are fully deserving of their refugee status. Period. 

[MechEng]

On 1/15/2017 at 1:27 PM, Vilander said:

Why more bangaldeshis?  Let them stay in Bangladesh sonar bongal.. 

I know that Bangladesh is a very low lying country compared to sea level. So if it drowns someday then they will need sonar for everything. So it will literally be sonar bongal...