What's new

Are you Hindu first or Indian first?

I was referring to clashes in religious riots in India where countryman never thought themselves Indian before Hindu or Muslim when got blinded by emotion because of religion so in such conflicing situation sense send of being Hindu weer stronger than sense of being Indians. Why you guys are bringing Pakistan in here. Eeven your giving refugee to Hindu of pakistan for political scoring or using as propaganda tool suggest that you Hindu first before Indians otherwise what was the point of giving asylum to Pakistani if they were not Hindu so yes HIndu first indian later :D
We tried being a secular nation. Our education and every system is secular. Hindus are also taught to be cowards.
Riots are a different matter. Riots are instigated by a spark and religion evokes fear and passion. Both are base instrincts. Rationality - Hindu or Indian first, goes out of the window. Survival becomes the primary motive for a Hindu. The Hindu vs Muslim death ratios are roughly equal. Muslims are always able to kill more, except in isolated cases of Hindu/Sikh counterattacks - like the Nellie massacre.
 
Babri Masjid issue has more to do with cold war problem and that time India was going through a very delicate period.



what you are claiming as an valid argument in reality its the half side . You are forgetting regarding the Cold war problem.

Babri Masjid Chabutra was the same place in which the unity was exhibited during the 1857 war of Independence.
It was not unity. Even Marathas collaborated with the Nizam against Tipu Sultan. It was a strategic alliance. Besides, Mughal inspired Islam was a very Hinduized religion by 1850s. They even worshiped and prayed in Holi together. It did not last.
 
India is a Hindu only nation. Minorities should leave when they have a chance.
 
We tried being a secular nation. Our education and every system is secular. Hindus are also taught to be cowards.
Riots are a different matter. Riots are instigated by a spark and religion evokes fear and passion. Both are base instrincts. Rationality - Hindu or Indian first, goes out of the window. Survival becomes the primary motive for a Hindu. The Hindu vs Muslim death ratios are roughly equal. Muslims are always able to kill more, except in isolated cases of Hindu/Sikh counterattacks - like the Nellie massacre.
Everyone can claim to be secular or Indian first but these are the situation which actually decide . I am not saying you are all Hindu bigots who will go for killing Indian Muslim in revenge or will never think twice for killing Indian Muslim for defending Hinduism but i started this debate because everyone was claiming to be Indian before Hindu sas they said all Indian have this thought process which is not true as all society have liberal, moderate and extremist element and commitment to religion vary from person to person so where you have people who think themselves Indian first then you also have people there who will kill fellow country man for religion if any conflict arise
 
Everyone can claim to be secular or Indian first but its are these situation which actually decide . I am not saying you are all Hindu bigots who will go for killing Indian Muslim in revenge or will never think twice for killing Indian Muslim for defending Hinduism but i started this debate because everyone was claiming to be Indian before before Hindu s as they said all Indian have this thought process which is not true as all society have liberal, moderate and extremist element and commitment to religion vary from person to person so where you have people who think themselves Indian first then you also have people there who will kill fellow country man for religion if any conflict arise
No. Riots are an aberration. You can't take that as a parameter while deciding the conclusion. A better idea will be to compare a fight between a Hindu Indian soldier facing a Hindu Pakistani soldier IN COMBAT. That will be a better, if theoretically correct, parameter.
 
No. Riots are an aberration. You can't take that as a parameter while deciding the conclusion. A better idea will be to compare a fight between a Hindu Indian soldier facing a Hindu Pakistani soldier IN COMBAT. That will be a better, if theoretically correct, parameter.
Riots happen because your sense of religious identity get stronger than this sense of country otherwise i dont find any other valid reason for killing Hindu/Muslim for revenge of Hindu/Muslim when they both Indian. Its like i say i love my two brothers equally and then go for killing one for other and they boht dead at the end lol Hindu Indian soldier fighting with Hindu Pakistan soldier are not right example as they boht following orders even if they dont agree with it so that's different thing

Lol. Is there any other way you will stop arguing?
mere arguments kyoon stop karwana chata hoo..i think i am debating in civilised manners .
 
Okay I have a question. All of my grandparents were from Bhuj, India. They moved to Malawi before the partition. After the partition; my dad's family started identifying themselves as Pakistanis due to obvious religious majority and security. Although they had some relatives there but, they themselves had never even been to Pakistan. When; some of my mother's side of family went on to identify themselves as Indians.

'Indian' is just an umbrella term for people from subcontinent. You can be Muslim and be Indian, heck you can be Pakistani and still be Indian. It is just a co-incidence that present day Republic of India has the word India in its' name because of being a de facto successor of British Raj.

Just like the fact that Canadians, Mexicans, Brazillians and everyone is 'American'. Just because USA has 'America' in it, doesn't mean the rest are not Americans.
 
No. Riots are an aberration. You can't take that as a parameter while deciding the conclusion. A better idea will be to compare a fight between a Hindu Indian soldier facing a Hindu Pakistani soldier IN COMBAT. That will be a better, if theoretically correct, parameter.

Yep exactly.

I was referring to clashes between HIndus vs Muslims/Sikhs.Christians in religious riots in India where countryman never thought themselves Indian before Hindu or Muslim when got blinded by emotion

Religious riots within a country does not include the nationalism factor.
 
Better off being an Indian than a hindu .. Else expect nothing but cockups ..
Learn from thy neighbours
 
Riots happen because your sense of religious identity get stronger than this sense of country otherwise i dont find any other valid reason for killing Hindu/Muslim for revenge of Hindu/Muslim when they both Indian. Its like i say i love my two brothers equally and then go for killing one for other and they boht dead at the end lol Hindu Indian soldier fighting with Hindu Pakistan soldier are not right example as they boht following orders even if they dont agree with it so that's different thing

Nope. In a house, two sibling don't suddenly stop fighting just because their father is same.
 
Riots happen because your sense of religious identity get stronger than this sense of country
Wrong. Riots happen in India for two reasons -

i. Muslims kill Hindus - Hindus fight back. What choice does an average Hindu have other than to defend himself?
ii. Hindus insult Muslims, Muslims kill/abduct etc. Then point i follows.

Country does not come in between. And I will agree, for many Muslims religion comes first. That's why in a country with less than 15% Muslims, there are so many riots - because many Muslims want to enforce their identity as separate from an average Indian. This may manifest itself in waving Pak flags, burning Indian flags etc etc.

karwana chata hoo..i think i am debating in civilised manners .
Your argument is fine. Pls continue.
 
Okay I have a question. All of my grandparents were from Bhuj, India. They moved to Malawi before the partition. After the partition; my dad's family started identifying themselves as Pakistanis due to obvious religious majority and security. Although they had some relatives there but, they themselves had never even been to Pakistan. When; some of my mother's side of family went on to identify themselves as Indians.

'Indian' is just an umbrella term for people from subcontinent. You can be Muslim and be Indian, heck you can be Pakistani and still be Indian. It is just a co-incidence that present day Republic of India has the word India in its' name because of being a de facto successor of British Raj.

Just like the fact that Canadians, Mexicans, Brazillians and everyone is 'American'. Just because USA has 'America' in it, doesn't mean the rest are not Americans.
Well its true for many Indians as well who migrated from Pakistan and are now Indian national ..some of their well known bollywood actors/actress have origin in Pakistan then they should also be label as Pakistani because they have origin in this land/area which is called Pakistan Now. I was reading about saif ali khan and was quiet surprsied that his paternal great uncle sher ali khan patudi was major genral in Pakistan military and even awarded Halal e jurat for Indo par war in 1947. Its quiet strange how land divided loyalty of same families. Border of present India and Pakistan were decided in 1947 so i dont know how your post is reelavnt to this topic

Wrong. Riots happen in India for two reasons -

i. Muslims kill Hindus - Hindus fight back. What choice does an average Hindu have other than to defend himself?
ii. Hindus insult Muslims, Muslims kill/abduct etc. Then point i follows.

Country does not come in between. And I will agree, for many Muslims religion comes first. That's why in a country with less than 15% Muslims, there are so many riots - because many Muslims want to enforce their identity as separate from an average Indian. This may manifest itself in waving Pak flags, burning Indian flags etc etc.


Your argument is fine. Pls continue.
You again cannot comprehend a simple point. I was not discussing the reason of riots or who was right or wrong or how they actually started. I was discussing the reaction on these coflicts which decide your loyalty towards country men or towards religion. If Indian A consider himself Indian first before Hindu then he will not kill Indian B simply because of taking revenge of Indian C. If you do this then it suggest you did not care about lives of your fellow country men because you were blinded by emotion of revenge for religious reasons so here your religion win as it killed the lives of fellow innocent Indian even when he was not directly responsible for riots. Its like i kill you for crimes of your brother. If you kill your Indian fellow because of his religion and then claim to be Indian first and Hindu later would not make any sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom