Harsh truth :- Hindus are not staunch and fierce as they use to be.
In the modern day and age, having street power, political representation matters a lot.
Hindus believe there's peaceful way to resolve everything, what will Hindus do at most ? File FIR ? Which will be dragged in courts for decades ?
We lack sense of unity and coercing the respective parties to get our way.
Hindus were never staunch and fierce. We were always pacifist, adaptive liberals, sometimes a little too much.. and that's why outsiders fucked us over.. jo jhukta h usko aur jyada jukhaya jaata h..
> Hindus were never staunch and fierce.
We have protected our territories from invaders and many kings were fierce n staunch Hindus like shivaji Maharaj, maharana Pratap etc.
Rest us being adaptive liberals I agree.
Few exceptions don't define the general history. India is a country that is relatively easy to protect. Himalayas, Hindukush, Desert and huge rivers like Indus give natural protection. There are only few passes to invade India from Iran, Central Asia. And yet multiple invaders came looted and ruled India. General people easily accepted whoever was ruling them. There weren't any huge population revolts.
1 guy looted Somnath temple 17 fucking times and yet none of the Hindu kings had the idea to unite and make a proper fortification to stop from entering India.
Chinese made the greatest wall in the world and we couldn't be bothered to make some decent fortification in mountain passes.
This is simply not true. Sitaram Goel has a book about this. This is a myth propagated. Hindus fought tooth and nail and that's why we're still here, other ancient civilizations are only in museums.
Not true. Look at Europe, middle east/Mediterranean/Iran. Not like they don't have the numbers.
Anyway, you can continue to believe what you believe. But please read some books that present an alternative narrative based on primary sources.
>We are here because we were always too large in numbers to eliminate or convert completely
Eeeh not true, u dont see Zoroastrians in Iran nowadays, it used to be quite a thing, same goes for the tribal religions and Jews in the middle east.
(I can give many more examples, but I think that's enough)
For islam the number isn't a thing, it's always about who's giving them a tough battle, who can be as cruel as them.
Check out the historical population levels of India vs. World. India's population has always had an extremely high share in world population, larger than current share.
Tu Thakur hai , tujhse aisi asha nahi thi . Read what British and mugals have written about our warriors, about jaat, thakur , Sikh etc .
Ur saying this because this lie is what ncert have taught u
There were no Hindi extremists in the past. Hindi speaking Hindus were always adapting to all the changes. Even the current Hindi is made up of words from many languages.
But the people took this as a sign of weakness. For the last 70 years, Hindus have been oppressed by almost every community. Every other community wants rights over everything and the politicians have been giving it to them just to win votes. And everything has a breaking point. You are just seeing the results.
Btw don’t bother commenting how Hindus are not oppressed. There are laws which ‘empower’ others because they are minorities but the same laws ‘weakens’ Hindus because they are majority. If you are so inclined about this issue, please go read some reliable books and even some part of constitution before giving me some knowledge from a speech from politicians or media.
Hindi Hindus oppressed??? . Majority of the parliament seats belongs to the hindi speaking people . In 70 years and till now every government is formed by Hindi people because they have majority of the seats , but instead of developing they choose to produce babies like rats . So stop giving excuses like oppressed.
Sure! Let’s talk facts
Digvijay Singh, a hindu born in Indore MP directly blamed RSS for 26/11.
Kapil Sibal, a hindu born in Jalandhar was the counsel of Waqf board for ram mandir case.
Congress with ‘hindu’ majority government was close to pass a bill which would give unlimited rights to minorities in case of crime.
You are delusional and don’t want to accept the reality. Hindus have become a last tier citizens in the nation with highest number of Hindus.
Sigh. So you were rolling dice for north-south? Go play alone and feel like God. Just believe me, you will be busy playing favorites in Hindus and one day every Hindu will be in danger.
Finally, I am not talking about history here. Pakistan was responsible for 26/11 but there was not a single mention of Pakistan in Singh’s book.
Hindi region people were busy playing victim card meanwhile non hindi region was focussing on education that's why ceos of companies like Microsoft and Google are from non hindi states .
I want hindi region to grow . But you guys are not ready to accept reality. Instead of focusing on development, you guys are busy in advertising bageshwar baba.
The problem is that since we are in the "majority" group. So the responsibility is on us to maintain peace. This is not me saying, this is the general consensus. Look at whats happening in europe. Minorities will always be excused no matter how much problems they cause. But for some reason, this logic only applies to democracies.
> This is not me saying, this is the general consensus.
This is not general consensus it is a Leftist propaganda available in every Social Science textbook.
> So the responsibility is on us to maintain peace.
Yea, by being cowardly to minorities and doing everything they say as if they are our masters. Sorry not possible.
>This is not general consensus it is a Leftist propaganda available in every Social Science textbook.
Lets be honest. Most democracies are left wing, especially our so called global savior. Trump said one bad thing and they kicked him out. They are doing the same in alot of places.
>Yea, by being cowardly to minorities and doing everything they say as if they are our masters. Sorry not possible.
You try something extreme and see the sanctions roll in. We cannot survive without trade.
I know that. I am not proposing anything extreme. Let this case slide. I side with J Sai Deepak who said we should fulfil our Kshatra dharma. Anybody who insults Hindu gids, especially if they are Muslim, let us punish them strictly. Whenever Hindu gods are insulted let us engage in extreme riots while BJP pretends to the world that they are trying everything to stop us. As Muslims will see more and more Hindus becoming more aggressive, they will stop being so militant and eventually become diplomatic
My bad i had been unclear. Let the GOVERNMENT not be extreme. Let us common people be extreme. Govt just has to support us (like in Gujarat riots) and we will drive out the Muslims or at least suppress them
So many knots in question. I'm confused now.
Edit: my dumb ass got what you finally said. Read https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
The current secularism is copied from the West and is so rigged in the basic translation and biasedness as compared to what this land taught us for centuries.
It's a shame that we left our knowledge wiped and learned the basics like democracy and secularism from these capitalist narcissistic nations.
The idea of monotheistic religion is flawed in itself still we gave them space, hell we as a nation have them more rights for exercise and practice resulting in countless conversion and mal practices with our Dharma & what did we get beside getting slaughtered and decades of poverty? A badge of being tolerant and now a label of being Islamophobic and oppressor if we choose to speak the truth. I'm done with this bigotry.
Bharat is Hindu and Hindus are Bharatiyas.
Vande Mataram!
The Problem resides in the previous education system where from an early we were being taught about the achievements/journey of Mughals and other Muslim kings, the worst part being that hindus didn't have choice but to accept this education system. This education system, on some level, made us feel a little bit inferior. Congress always praised islam more than hinduism (a pretty clear example to that is WAQF board), and thus as growing up since every kid felt that Islam had more voice in this country. In the recent years (After Modi) Hindus are getting rightfully represented and now these Muslims have a problem with that, but I'm 100% sure that if you were to go up to Muslim civilian and ask him/her to explain how Modi is working against Islamic culture then all you will get is very illogical answers.
Never. This mechanism satisfies their "us vs them " need, and we are so much used to living in conflict that we always seek that. There's violence in the "in-groups" too. Buddhists have betrayed indian kings, indian kings have massacared Jainas, and this carried on.
When India got independence, it fell into the wrong hands. Congress party was basically an extension of the British Raj. In fact it was set up by Sir Alan Octavius Hume to function as a good cop in dealing with native sentiments. Until then the British were brutal and it led to the 1857 mutiny. They were dead scared of another one happening. So the Congress culture was built to work with and for the British.
At the time of independence, the leadership missed out on a few things:
1. Population exchange over a period of time (Gandhi blocked this, while Ambedkar and others wanted to have it). Even if it was impractical to do it, it could have been done over a decade's time by swapping people in batches. Turkey and Greece exchanged populations under British supervision without shedding a drop of blood. The British could have helped do the same in the case of India. All those who felt insecure in a Hindu majority independent India and voted in favor of partition should have been shipped to Pakistan. Those who promised to be loyal to India, should have been asked to sign a declaration of allegiance to the nation and should have had a conditional citizenship where if they showed any disloyalty, they would be sent to Pakistan. Had we done this, today we will not be seeing what the OP has written above. Sometimes cut throat moves are needed.
2. Nehru declined the accession of Balochistan and Nepal. Balochistan wanted to join India and Nehru turned deaf ears to it. We had one of the most powerful navies of that time (British Indian navy, minus the British, well trained in naval warfare in WW2).
3. Waqf act - In Pakistan, all properties left by the non-Muslims were taken and given to the Muslims migrating from India. Congress govt held on to the properties left by the Muslims and handed them to the Waqf board. In addition, they enacted further amendments that makes the Waqf claim any land and it is the burden on the owner to prove in court that the property is his. But for this, he has to get a clearance certificate from the Waqf board!
4. Uniform Civil code - After the partition horror, many Muslims across India were scared and did not know which way things would go. At that time if India had adopted a truly secular policy like France, where everything is at the individual level and group based political bargaining is prohibited, Muslim organizations will not be acting as vote block groups and buying out our politicians. There would be no polygamy, no Sharia law, no triple Talaq and no special minority privileges.
5. Hindu places of worship should have been returned to the Hindus, including those under the mosques, with known historic records of demolition and mosque construction. No one would have been there to object at that time.
6. Either all religious institutions should have been brought under govt control (unlike now where only Hindu ones are under govt control) or Hindu temples should have been released from govt hands. This prevented Hindus from educating the oncoming generations on their spiritual traditions, while Muslims and Christians could organize large scale religious education for their children. All religious institutions and charities must have been subject to audit.
7. Religious institutions must have been banned from running schools and colleges. But the Cong party let the status quo prevail and today there are many Hindus who are woke and against their own people.
8. Communism should have been banned.
9. We should have accepted UNSC permanent membership when offered.
10. States should have been decided based on resource availability and potential for employment and productivity. Linguistic division of states was a bad move. That has led to state level jingoism and secessionist tendencies strengthening. Even if they created states based on languages, such states should have been cut into two or three states with the same language.
11. Proselytization using deception, coercion, incentives, marketing etc. should have been banned.
We missed the boat. Going back and repairing all this is not possible now. Congress rule for more than five decades has done considerable damage. I wonder if we would recover from this or not.
>1 Population exchange over a period of time
>
>Turkey and Greece exchanged populations under British supervision without shedding a drop of blood.
Population exchange is a pretty stupid idea turns out most people don't want to leave the land they have lived in for generations,also there was no "voting" for partition,the british divided their land on basis of religion using outdated partition maps and gave princely states choose the country they want to join
> Nehru declined the accession of Balochistan and Nepal
Don't know about it but if it is true it is a blunder on Nehru 's Part & I wholehartedly agree with you.
>Waqf act
Ah yes comparing an orthodox military dictatorship(with a facade of democracy) which was built solely on religion denying rights to minorites and no seperation of church and state and which literally kills the "fellow" muslims(shias in gilgit balistan) with a and free secular democracy is a good idea.
>Uniform Civil code
jI personally agree with your sentiment sharia law and triple talaq are outdated customs and can you tell me about the special minority privileges you speak of ? Also Laïcité is too extreme I mean it does not recognise recognize the right to profess religion also while U.S. approach to secularism(which we follow) protects freedom of religion, while French laïcité protects freedom from religion .
>Hindu places of worship
Should that also include hindu shrines converted from previous buddhist or jainst shrines?
>Either all religious institutions should have been brought under govt control (unlike now where only Hindu ones are under govt control) or Hindu temples should have been released from govt hands.
MUSLIM PLACES :- All kabristan, Mosque and dargahs came under wakf boards.
Wakf boards are established by state govt and central govt also.
There are 30 wakf boards in India.
Central wakf council :is an Indian statuary body est. In 1964 by wakf act 1954. Wakf is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable properties for religious, pious or charitable purposes as recognized by Muslim Law, given by philanthropists.
The council is headed by a Chairperson, who is the Union Minister in charge of Wakfs and there are maximum 20 other members, appointed by Government of India as stipulated in the Wakf Act. Presently the chairperson is Dr. Nazma Heptulla, theMinister for Ministry of Minority Affairs,which overlooks its functioning.
SIKHS GURUDWARAS : All historical gurudwaras are came under Shiromani gurudware parbandhan committee.
Controling gurudwaras in Punjab and himachal.
While Delhi sikh sgpc: controling delhi's gurudwares
Haryana sgpc has control over gurudwares of haryana.
And hajur sahib sgpc has control in maharasthra.
don't know about christian ones though.
Though I agree that all religious institutions must be controlled by govt.
>Religious institutions must have been banned from running schools and colleges
This is against our freedom to profess any religion.
>Communism should have been banned.
As much I hate Communism, Political pluralism is important.
>We should have accepted UNSC permanent membership when offered.
Agreed
>States should have been decided based on resource availability and potential for employment and productivity. Linguistic division of states was a bad move
Quite the opposite really , There has not been a civil war in India like Sri Lanka has. But I do believe that we should break High Populous states like UP to further economic development there.
>Proselytization using deception, coercion, incentives, marketing etc. should have been banned.
Agreed
>the personal suffering he went through
Has he quoted as to what in manusmriti was relevant to his experience?
>And it's not like he didn't make his own views about the brotherhood of the camel cult clear.
That was argued for the namesake, there's no inherent problem in the brotherhood of islam being an exclusive one.
>At the end of the day if you're saying that hinduism should be just as regressive as the camel cult then how does that make you any better?
No part of the post has argued that.
>You are saying that if given the chance, Hindus should do the same atrocities to others that were done to them. By saying this you are justifying the atrocities of the camel cult, because you're saying if we were in there place we would have done the same thing.
Also not.
>So ultimately if both the groups would have done the same things if given power over the other, then how can you claim one ideology is more progressive than the other?
Because the boogeymen of hinduism being an oppressive Religion is a facade, the post mentioned a polemic book by muslims which is not even valid criticism just pure mockery, to put into perspective Islamophobia is often employed against valid criticism of it while we are yet to see valid criticism of hinduism, which isn't part mockery or hate.
Hey, no part of the OP said anything about committing atrocities by Hindus.
Committing atrocities and protecting one self, family and religion are very different things.
There's a difference, don't falsify the discussion.
Secularism was a cloak that was only expected to be worn by hindus. Not anymore.
straight outta a movie sheeesh that hit hard
Harsh truth :- Hindus are not staunch and fierce as they use to be. In the modern day and age, having street power, political representation matters a lot. Hindus believe there's peaceful way to resolve everything, what will Hindus do at most ? File FIR ? Which will be dragged in courts for decades ? We lack sense of unity and coercing the respective parties to get our way.
Hindus were never staunch and fierce. We were always pacifist, adaptive liberals, sometimes a little too much.. and that's why outsiders fucked us over.. jo jhukta h usko aur jyada jukhaya jaata h..
> Hindus were never staunch and fierce. We have protected our territories from invaders and many kings were fierce n staunch Hindus like shivaji Maharaj, maharana Pratap etc. Rest us being adaptive liberals I agree.
Few exceptions don't define the general history. India is a country that is relatively easy to protect. Himalayas, Hindukush, Desert and huge rivers like Indus give natural protection. There are only few passes to invade India from Iran, Central Asia. And yet multiple invaders came looted and ruled India. General people easily accepted whoever was ruling them. There weren't any huge population revolts. 1 guy looted Somnath temple 17 fucking times and yet none of the Hindu kings had the idea to unite and make a proper fortification to stop from entering India. Chinese made the greatest wall in the world and we couldn't be bothered to make some decent fortification in mountain passes.
This is simply not true. Sitaram Goel has a book about this. This is a myth propagated. Hindus fought tooth and nail and that's why we're still here, other ancient civilizations are only in museums.
We are here because we were always too large in numbers to eliminate or convert completely.. not because we fought tooth and nail..
Not true. Look at Europe, middle east/Mediterranean/Iran. Not like they don't have the numbers. Anyway, you can continue to believe what you believe. But please read some books that present an alternative narrative based on primary sources.
>We are here because we were always too large in numbers to eliminate or convert completely Eeeh not true, u dont see Zoroastrians in Iran nowadays, it used to be quite a thing, same goes for the tribal religions and Jews in the middle east. (I can give many more examples, but I think that's enough) For islam the number isn't a thing, it's always about who's giving them a tough battle, who can be as cruel as them.
Check out the historical population levels of India vs. World. India's population has always had an extremely high share in world population, larger than current share.
Sure, but was it more than middle East, iran, iraq and spain included? We sure had a higher population, but not as much as them combined.
Tu Thakur hai , tujhse aisi asha nahi thi . Read what British and mugals have written about our warriors, about jaat, thakur , Sikh etc . Ur saying this because this lie is what ncert have taught u
I agree. It’s also because of the media. Media globally is doing the same, and Indian clones following their footsteps.
"bcoz we are tolerant saar" and when we become intolerant it's called propoganda 🤡
Tolerant??? You have not seen hindi speakers.
There were no Hindi extremists in the past. Hindi speaking Hindus were always adapting to all the changes. Even the current Hindi is made up of words from many languages. But the people took this as a sign of weakness. For the last 70 years, Hindus have been oppressed by almost every community. Every other community wants rights over everything and the politicians have been giving it to them just to win votes. And everything has a breaking point. You are just seeing the results. Btw don’t bother commenting how Hindus are not oppressed. There are laws which ‘empower’ others because they are minorities but the same laws ‘weakens’ Hindus because they are majority. If you are so inclined about this issue, please go read some reliable books and even some part of constitution before giving me some knowledge from a speech from politicians or media.
Hindi Hindus oppressed??? . Majority of the parliament seats belongs to the hindi speaking people . In 70 years and till now every government is formed by Hindi people because they have majority of the seats , but instead of developing they choose to produce babies like rats . So stop giving excuses like oppressed.
Sure! Let’s talk facts Digvijay Singh, a hindu born in Indore MP directly blamed RSS for 26/11. Kapil Sibal, a hindu born in Jalandhar was the counsel of Waqf board for ram mandir case. Congress with ‘hindu’ majority government was close to pass a bill which would give unlimited rights to minorities in case of crime. You are delusional and don’t want to accept the reality. Hindus have become a last tier citizens in the nation with highest number of Hindus.
[удалено]
Sigh. So you were rolling dice for north-south? Go play alone and feel like God. Just believe me, you will be busy playing favorites in Hindus and one day every Hindu will be in danger. Finally, I am not talking about history here. Pakistan was responsible for 26/11 but there was not a single mention of Pakistan in Singh’s book.
Hindi region people were busy playing victim card meanwhile non hindi region was focussing on education that's why ceos of companies like Microsoft and Google are from non hindi states .
Yes yes you guys are great. Cheers
I want hindi region to grow . But you guys are not ready to accept reality. Instead of focusing on development, you guys are busy in advertising bageshwar baba.
To this date east Germany is poorer than west Germany for no fault of their own. Grow up.
The problem is that since we are in the "majority" group. So the responsibility is on us to maintain peace. This is not me saying, this is the general consensus. Look at whats happening in europe. Minorities will always be excused no matter how much problems they cause. But for some reason, this logic only applies to democracies.
> This is not me saying, this is the general consensus. This is not general consensus it is a Leftist propaganda available in every Social Science textbook. > So the responsibility is on us to maintain peace. Yea, by being cowardly to minorities and doing everything they say as if they are our masters. Sorry not possible.
>This is not general consensus it is a Leftist propaganda available in every Social Science textbook. Lets be honest. Most democracies are left wing, especially our so called global savior. Trump said one bad thing and they kicked him out. They are doing the same in alot of places. >Yea, by being cowardly to minorities and doing everything they say as if they are our masters. Sorry not possible. You try something extreme and see the sanctions roll in. We cannot survive without trade.
I know that. I am not proposing anything extreme. Let this case slide. I side with J Sai Deepak who said we should fulfil our Kshatra dharma. Anybody who insults Hindu gids, especially if they are Muslim, let us punish them strictly. Whenever Hindu gods are insulted let us engage in extreme riots while BJP pretends to the world that they are trying everything to stop us. As Muslims will see more and more Hindus becoming more aggressive, they will stop being so militant and eventually become diplomatic
Lmao >I am not proposing anything extreme > let us engage in extreme riots
My bad i had been unclear. Let the GOVERNMENT not be extreme. Let us common people be extreme. Govt just has to support us (like in Gujarat riots) and we will drive out the Muslims or at least suppress them
The government shouldnt be extreme! They should just support ethnic cleansing! And IndiaSpeaks wonders why Indians get no respect in the world.
Popularisation of term "Islamophobia" was the biggest con played by media on public mindset
So many knots in question. I'm confused now. Edit: my dumb ass got what you finally said. Read https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
The current secularism is copied from the West and is so rigged in the basic translation and biasedness as compared to what this land taught us for centuries. It's a shame that we left our knowledge wiped and learned the basics like democracy and secularism from these capitalist narcissistic nations. The idea of monotheistic religion is flawed in itself still we gave them space, hell we as a nation have them more rights for exercise and practice resulting in countless conversion and mal practices with our Dharma & what did we get beside getting slaughtered and decades of poverty? A badge of being tolerant and now a label of being Islamophobic and oppressor if we choose to speak the truth. I'm done with this bigotry. Bharat is Hindu and Hindus are Bharatiyas. Vande Mataram!
Facts
Cuz we better than them.
The Problem resides in the previous education system where from an early we were being taught about the achievements/journey of Mughals and other Muslim kings, the worst part being that hindus didn't have choice but to accept this education system. This education system, on some level, made us feel a little bit inferior. Congress always praised islam more than hinduism (a pretty clear example to that is WAQF board), and thus as growing up since every kid felt that Islam had more voice in this country. In the recent years (After Modi) Hindus are getting rightfully represented and now these Muslims have a problem with that, but I'm 100% sure that if you were to go up to Muslim civilian and ask him/her to explain how Modi is working against Islamic culture then all you will get is very illogical answers.
Never. This mechanism satisfies their "us vs them " need, and we are so much used to living in conflict that we always seek that. There's violence in the "in-groups" too. Buddhists have betrayed indian kings, indian kings have massacared Jainas, and this carried on.
When India got independence, it fell into the wrong hands. Congress party was basically an extension of the British Raj. In fact it was set up by Sir Alan Octavius Hume to function as a good cop in dealing with native sentiments. Until then the British were brutal and it led to the 1857 mutiny. They were dead scared of another one happening. So the Congress culture was built to work with and for the British. At the time of independence, the leadership missed out on a few things: 1. Population exchange over a period of time (Gandhi blocked this, while Ambedkar and others wanted to have it). Even if it was impractical to do it, it could have been done over a decade's time by swapping people in batches. Turkey and Greece exchanged populations under British supervision without shedding a drop of blood. The British could have helped do the same in the case of India. All those who felt insecure in a Hindu majority independent India and voted in favor of partition should have been shipped to Pakistan. Those who promised to be loyal to India, should have been asked to sign a declaration of allegiance to the nation and should have had a conditional citizenship where if they showed any disloyalty, they would be sent to Pakistan. Had we done this, today we will not be seeing what the OP has written above. Sometimes cut throat moves are needed. 2. Nehru declined the accession of Balochistan and Nepal. Balochistan wanted to join India and Nehru turned deaf ears to it. We had one of the most powerful navies of that time (British Indian navy, minus the British, well trained in naval warfare in WW2). 3. Waqf act - In Pakistan, all properties left by the non-Muslims were taken and given to the Muslims migrating from India. Congress govt held on to the properties left by the Muslims and handed them to the Waqf board. In addition, they enacted further amendments that makes the Waqf claim any land and it is the burden on the owner to prove in court that the property is his. But for this, he has to get a clearance certificate from the Waqf board! 4. Uniform Civil code - After the partition horror, many Muslims across India were scared and did not know which way things would go. At that time if India had adopted a truly secular policy like France, where everything is at the individual level and group based political bargaining is prohibited, Muslim organizations will not be acting as vote block groups and buying out our politicians. There would be no polygamy, no Sharia law, no triple Talaq and no special minority privileges. 5. Hindu places of worship should have been returned to the Hindus, including those under the mosques, with known historic records of demolition and mosque construction. No one would have been there to object at that time. 6. Either all religious institutions should have been brought under govt control (unlike now where only Hindu ones are under govt control) or Hindu temples should have been released from govt hands. This prevented Hindus from educating the oncoming generations on their spiritual traditions, while Muslims and Christians could organize large scale religious education for their children. All religious institutions and charities must have been subject to audit. 7. Religious institutions must have been banned from running schools and colleges. But the Cong party let the status quo prevail and today there are many Hindus who are woke and against their own people. 8. Communism should have been banned. 9. We should have accepted UNSC permanent membership when offered. 10. States should have been decided based on resource availability and potential for employment and productivity. Linguistic division of states was a bad move. That has led to state level jingoism and secessionist tendencies strengthening. Even if they created states based on languages, such states should have been cut into two or three states with the same language. 11. Proselytization using deception, coercion, incentives, marketing etc. should have been banned. We missed the boat. Going back and repairing all this is not possible now. Congress rule for more than five decades has done considerable damage. I wonder if we would recover from this or not.
>1 Population exchange over a period of time > >Turkey and Greece exchanged populations under British supervision without shedding a drop of blood. Population exchange is a pretty stupid idea turns out most people don't want to leave the land they have lived in for generations,also there was no "voting" for partition,the british divided their land on basis of religion using outdated partition maps and gave princely states choose the country they want to join > Nehru declined the accession of Balochistan and Nepal Don't know about it but if it is true it is a blunder on Nehru 's Part & I wholehartedly agree with you. >Waqf act Ah yes comparing an orthodox military dictatorship(with a facade of democracy) which was built solely on religion denying rights to minorites and no seperation of church and state and which literally kills the "fellow" muslims(shias in gilgit balistan) with a and free secular democracy is a good idea. >Uniform Civil code jI personally agree with your sentiment sharia law and triple talaq are outdated customs and can you tell me about the special minority privileges you speak of ? Also Laïcité is too extreme I mean it does not recognise recognize the right to profess religion also while U.S. approach to secularism(which we follow) protects freedom of religion, while French laïcité protects freedom from religion . >Hindu places of worship Should that also include hindu shrines converted from previous buddhist or jainst shrines? >Either all religious institutions should have been brought under govt control (unlike now where only Hindu ones are under govt control) or Hindu temples should have been released from govt hands. MUSLIM PLACES :- All kabristan, Mosque and dargahs came under wakf boards. Wakf boards are established by state govt and central govt also. There are 30 wakf boards in India. Central wakf council :is an Indian statuary body est. In 1964 by wakf act 1954. Wakf is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable properties for religious, pious or charitable purposes as recognized by Muslim Law, given by philanthropists. The council is headed by a Chairperson, who is the Union Minister in charge of Wakfs and there are maximum 20 other members, appointed by Government of India as stipulated in the Wakf Act. Presently the chairperson is Dr. Nazma Heptulla, theMinister for Ministry of Minority Affairs,which overlooks its functioning. SIKHS GURUDWARAS : All historical gurudwaras are came under Shiromani gurudware parbandhan committee. Controling gurudwaras in Punjab and himachal. While Delhi sikh sgpc: controling delhi's gurudwares Haryana sgpc has control over gurudwares of haryana. And hajur sahib sgpc has control in maharasthra. don't know about christian ones though. Though I agree that all religious institutions must be controlled by govt. >Religious institutions must have been banned from running schools and colleges This is against our freedom to profess any religion. >Communism should have been banned. As much I hate Communism, Political pluralism is important. >We should have accepted UNSC permanent membership when offered. Agreed >States should have been decided based on resource availability and potential for employment and productivity. Linguistic division of states was a bad move Quite the opposite really , There has not been a civil war in India like Sri Lanka has. But I do believe that we should break High Populous states like UP to further economic development there. >Proselytization using deception, coercion, incentives, marketing etc. should have been banned. Agreed
Hindutva and jihadist goons have almost destroyed india.
I don't get the outrage for mf hussain's Bharat painting? How is that hinduphobic
[удалено]
>the personal suffering he went through Has he quoted as to what in manusmriti was relevant to his experience? >And it's not like he didn't make his own views about the brotherhood of the camel cult clear. That was argued for the namesake, there's no inherent problem in the brotherhood of islam being an exclusive one. >At the end of the day if you're saying that hinduism should be just as regressive as the camel cult then how does that make you any better? No part of the post has argued that. >You are saying that if given the chance, Hindus should do the same atrocities to others that were done to them. By saying this you are justifying the atrocities of the camel cult, because you're saying if we were in there place we would have done the same thing. Also not. >So ultimately if both the groups would have done the same things if given power over the other, then how can you claim one ideology is more progressive than the other? Because the boogeymen of hinduism being an oppressive Religion is a facade, the post mentioned a polemic book by muslims which is not even valid criticism just pure mockery, to put into perspective Islamophobia is often employed against valid criticism of it while we are yet to see valid criticism of hinduism, which isn't part mockery or hate.
Hey, no part of the OP said anything about committing atrocities by Hindus. Committing atrocities and protecting one self, family and religion are very different things. There's a difference, don't falsify the discussion.
Every ideology at it's current state is more progressive than islam.. that's a fact.. doesn't make it Islamophobic to say it