BJP plans to cash in on communal polarisation in UP

[Spring Onion]

Rioter 2 is @Spring Onion?

copy rights is distant thing in subcontinent

 

[SarthakGanguly]

copy rights is distant thing in subcontinent

In what subcontinent?

 

[SRP]

Till now how many people died in this riot?

 

[Spring Onion]

In what subcontinent?

West London

 

[SarthakGanguly]

West London

 

[he-man]

Agreed. Even in riot other castes do not join. Heck, if it was not the regular pachayats and mahapanchayats UP Jats themselves would have been isolated. If it was not fear of reprisal from Jats from Haryana, Rajasthan and possibly even Punjab - things would have been different from what they are now.

Funny how these panchayats are castigated year-on-year on basis for their views/farmaans. Yet it is these panchayats who are keeping Hindu/Jat resistance against Muslims (much like Bal Thakre in Maharashtra) when the $hit hits the fan. This is what will happen if you break the social fabric in name of modernity.

punjab has no muslims except in one town malerkotla

 

[doppelganger]

People don't see the benefits of secularism because its most visible and audible propagators are the politicians and NOT the people. Considering that the said politicians then bend the concept to their ends, it maligns and completely distorts what secularism means. Lack of an ability to understand nuances causes issues too, for example no one is actually secular in terms of their diet, or their personal preference, or who they are going to marry and how the marriage ceremony is to be conducted etc. They don't need to be either- there is no law which states that that is necessary- secularism is required in matters of policy, implementation and laws- not personal life.

Why? Well its simple- Secular:- That which is removed from religion, is not related to religion and not influenced by it. An individual would have to be an atheist to be secular in his personal life.

Ergo when a Mantri says, "ki mai secular hoon"- he can only be truthful if he is implying that his political/professional/policy related views and actions are not based on religious tenets of wrong and right. AND that he is not a religious fanatic.

Every US congressman claims to be devoutly religious, in fact one wouldn't be capable of winning a senate seat there without burnishing one's "religious credentials". So, is the said Congressman secular?

The answer is simple- the same Congressman is NOT secular when he says that his religious views stand against birth control and abortion and ergo a law must be made to render them unlawful. The very same Congressman, if he states that yes personally he may find certain activities to be unacceptable according to his religion but he will not enforce his views upon the people through legislature is indeed secular- after that he can go and spend the rest of the day in a Church, Mosque, Mandir, Synagogue it doesn't matter. Being religious does not make a leader communal or not secular- letting his/her religion/religious prejudices seep into his/her politics does.

In fact by the above parameter the erstwhile RSS member and ex-PM of the nation Vajpayee jee was the MOST secular leader we've had. One needs to understand what secularism means in the context of governance, politics and legislature.

In India the form of secularism that prevails is at best inter-communal tolerance in its benign form (as found in the general communities, and no this does not mean hugging and clapping each other on the backs- it means sharing the same space with compromises on BOTH sides and sans conflict) while on the other hand of the spectrum we have the politicization of the term secularism in order to propagate vote-bank politics- this is the sinister form.

Agree with all that you have said.

Now will you agree that India could not have been secular if 850 million Indians did not want to be secular?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Make that 900 million

Agree with all that you have said.

Now will you agree that India could not have been secular if 850 million Indians did not want to be secular?

 

[Dillinger]

Agree with all that you have said.

Now will you agree that India could not have been secular if 850 million Indians did not want to be secular?

The common man shouldn't have to care for secularism- don't kill people on basis of religion- don't discriminate on said bass either should be as natural as breathing lekin taali ek haath se nahi bajti.

Why should the common man have to promote anything? Religion is a personal matter. Example:- Ideally building a Ram Mandir shouldn't have been a political issue at all- agar yahaan ke log bomb blasts, poverty, bad infra, corruption pe babuon ke saath compromise kar saktein hain to then they should learn to compromise with each other. A significant percentage of the population wanted ONE temple and that is considered communal. But as I said taali ek haath se nahi bajti, IF the BJP used it for votes then who forced their hand in the first place? Which government interceded and rendered a SC verdict null and void proving that they would intercede on behalf of a vocal section of one particular minority- proving that they would do the same on other issues as well? Create such a scenario and you lose the right to then complain that oh that party is communal or divisive.

There are enough fringe elements that populate both sides of the political spectrum- from maoists to Owaisi to Togadia. All these dodos are convenient tools to create issues and ergo cover the larger structural issues that plague the country. Providing a viable cover for the politcos to hide the fact that they do not have the appetite to engage in serious work and providing the masses with an excuse to hide their lethargy and inability to understand that externalizing problems by stating that their only job is to vote in the right person is a fallacy.

On and on it shall continue. Secular and communal labels bandied about to hide the issues that matter.

Modi is nothing more or less than any right wing politician worth his salt all over the world in terms of his ideology- he isn't going to start a pogrom if that's what people think.

The Congress is nothing more or less than any populist party with a conservative (in terms of being opposed to being dynamic) leadership base which centers around a personality cult and lionization of past leaders.

Everything else is just rhetoric.

 

[doppelganger]

The common man shouldn't have to care for secularism- don't kill people on basis of religion- don't discriminate on said bass either should be as natural as breathing lekin taali ek haath se nahi bajti.

Why should the common man have to promote anything? Religion is a personal matter.

I again ask you.

Would India have been secular in 1947, and continued to be secular through then to 2013 if India's Hindus did not want to be secular?

You cannot differentiate between the common man and the polity or the sarkar bro.

It is after all of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The people decide. Who makes the rules and which rules are made. Or followed. Or done away with, should they go against the popular sentiment.

 

[he-man]

The common man shouldn't have to care for secularism- don't kill people on basis of religion- don't discriminate on said bass either should be as natural as breathing lekin taali ek haath se nahi bajti.

Why should the common man have to promote anything? Religion is a personal matter. Example:- Ideally building a Ram Mandir shouldn't have been a political issue at all- agar yahaan ke log bomb blasts, poverty, bad infra, corruption pe babuon ke saath compromise kar saktein hain to then they should learn to compromise with each other. A significant percentage of the population wanted ONE temple and that is considered communal. But as I sais taali ek haath se nahi bajti, IF the BJP used it for votes then who forced their hand in the first place? Which government interceded and rendered a SC verdict null and void proving that they would intercede on behalf of a vocal section of one particular minority- proving that they would do the same on other issues as well? Create such a scenario and you lose the right to then complain that oh that party is communal or divisive.

There are enough fringe elements that populate both sides of the political spectrum- from maoists to Owaisi to Togadia. All these dodos are convenient tools to create issues and ergo cover the larger structural issues that plague the country. Providing a viable cover for the politcos to hide the fact that they do not have the appetite to engage in serious work and providing the masses with an excuse to hide their lethargy and inability to understand that externalizing problems by stating that their only job is to vote in the right person is a fallacy.

On and on it shall continue. Secular and communal labels bandied about to hide the issues that matter.

Modi is nothing more or less than any right wing politician worth his salt all over the world in terms of his ideology- he isn't going to start a pogrom if that's what people think.

The Congress is nothing more or less than any populist party with a conservative (in terms of being opposed to being dynamic) leadership base which centers around a personality cult and lionization of past leaders.

Everything else is just rhetoric.

my perspective is this

1)I am a bjp supporter and totally anti-congress

2)Still i know the details of babri masjid demolition and it was bjp mainly with kalyan singh as chief minister of UP and some help from pv narasimha rao at the centre(PM) that led to its demolition.Its the undisputed fact

3)I don't think it should have happened,,,but nevertheless it did happen,even muslims are to be blamed for not forgetting this thing for like 25 years??
Sikh riots happened but still ppl in punjab,many sikhs still vote for congress as we understand it was a political riot.Muslims must understand that this place was actually the place of a temple before babur came and razed it to ground,they should let hindus construct the temple and they can always make another mosque some distance away!!

4)I don't absolve the bjp for the babri destruction,no one can but ppl need to move on and muslims have sadly been stuck to 1991 like a broken tape and this needs fixing.

5)On the last note ppl can claim all they want that riots are always political but majority of rioters really believe in total hatred toward the other community concerned and thats the sad truth.Till the time ppl stop hating other religion and stop glorifying their own,these things will continue

 

[Tshering22]

Other religious bigots do not do it because they do not get adequate funding.. With sufficient amount of money every religious fundoos can do the same amount of damage mate..

SO!?

You justify their actions of those who are doing it?

Wow! I am impressed.

Actions matter not words, bro. On paper, even the civil laws of India are the best. But in reality it is not. People see what is the reality and not what is on the paper.

People here are talking about what is being seen in actions. Not in words.

 

[Dillinger]

I again ask you.

Would India have been secular in 1947, and continued to be secular through then to 2013 if India's Hindus did not want to be secular?

You cannot differentiate between the common man and the polity or the sarkar bro.

It is after all of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The people decide. Who makes the rules and which rules are made. Or followed. Or done away with, should they go against the popular sentiment.

What I am saying is that people do want it and that is why it largely prevails in terms of our laws and policies BUT the people shouldn't have to care for this.

This should be the basic bread and butter that already exists- the people should not have to contend with it.

What I am pointing at is that people need to stop putting these issues up as political factors and instead focus on the tangible things that matter. On any given day MOST people don't give two hoots to any such issues, the important thing is ki bhai inflation kitni chal rahi ha- household saving rate gir raha hai ki bad raha hai.

The people have always wanted harmony, but by elevating it to a political issue the babus use it to cover the essentials- to restrain your expectations and divert focus from the issues that matter. Momentum and stamina are limited- let the people exhaust themselves catching chickens and no one will catch the the big game.

Why else do you think the whole campaign against Modi is reduced to single point agenda that he is divisive?

Only in our country can the demand for one temple be considered communal- ironic that I would concede that since I would never go to that temple myself being an atheist.

 

[he-man]

SO!?

You justify their actions of those who are doing it?

Wow! I am impressed.

Actions matter not words, bro. On paper, even the civil laws of India are the best. But in reality it is not. People see what is the reality and not what is on the paper.

People here are talking about what is being seen in actions. Not in words.

We need to call a spade a spade.This bullshit of terrorism having no religion is nonsense.

1)Khalistanis were religious group and not some idealogical people(i am a sikh btw)

2)All the seperatists in kashmir are against india as india is predominantly hindu,,the day they get free(actually it will never be,but just for hypothetical reasons).........they will merge with pakistan

3)Majority of bomb blasts are by muslim extremists,brainwashed jihadis

4)Ltte was an exception,,,it was not based on religion

5)Even colonel purohit , sadhvi pragra and swami aseemanand who have been arrested for mecca masjid blasts are hindu extremists and were driven by religion.

so where is the question of terrorists having no religion??

 

[doppelganger]

We need to call a spade a spade.This bullshit of terrorism having no religion is nonsense.

Again this is the "politically correct" response expected from the vast majority of India in an effort to be seen as Holier than the Pope.

Let the day come (never will so hypothetical) that Hindus start blowing things and themselves up and hacking minorities to death left right and center, and believe you me, then terrorism will have a religion, and it will then be saffron/hindu/hidutva/hindu fascism terrorism