China takes cue from Gujarat Inc

[Joe Shearer]

Because Hindutvadis are not what your believe to be in your make-believe world where prejudice is the order of the day.

Right .

When their tall leaders face the consequences, no H-men. Just a curious silence on the Net. And we are the ones living in a make believe world, not the monster who said that knifing women made him feel like Rana Pratap. He is in a real world, and those who oppose him in a make believe one.

awesome.

Repost : Let me just add that a personality like Savarkar will always stand tall enough to remain unblemished by the likes of you, how much ever you try. As they say, if you try to spit on the sun.......

His cringing plea for mercy is on record.

If you read more than you spat, and if you thought more than you read, this discussion would not be necessary.

 

[Bhairava]

The State of Gujarat is not safe for anybody not a Hindu. It does not have to declare its state religion as Hindu; it is already so, in fact, if not by statute. Statutes and laws are your weak point. What have you done of note other than through a mob?

Says who ? How many years have you lived in Gujarat ? How many riots have occured in Gujarat in the past decade. How many Muslims have been killed in the past decade after that riot ? In UP, there has been six riots in 3 months. Just giving a yardstick.

Statutes may be my weak point - but reality is your weak point. As is the case with anyone so pedantic.

What nonsense! The state religion of England is not allowed to interfere with public life, with public affairs, except in the matter of the succession to the throne, which is defined by statute. Britain is secular in exactly the way that Gujarat is not, by practice. Their actions keep religion from impinging on the lives of citizens; in Gujarat, it is in the faces of citizens at all times.

No it does not.

Nobody, anywhere, stopped your political front organization, that acts as a parliamentary party to gain power, from bringing in a civil code. Nobody, anywhere, stopped Hindus from giving up their privileged position in taxation, and the laws still allow them these special privileges. Why grudge these to other communities?

Because that front party was in Govt supported by a group of so called "secular" parties who thought it would be an affront to their muslim and xtian votebank if they supported it. Moreover there was no BJP Govt..but an NDA Govt..The governance was according to the manifesto agreed by all parties some of which opposed the UCC.

How many Hindus have subjected themselves voluntarily to the civil marriage act? I have, and in Januarys, my daughter will. We live our life secular. You, bigoted.

Irrelevant and no way denies the fact that its the so-called secular parties and the Muslim/xtian orgs that are opposing any attempt to bring in UCC.

It is not a quiz competition, nor a test of knowledge. That is the trouble with all of those who live by dry-as-dust scriptural precept. If you know what secularism is, why are you asking?

I'm not the one who is handing out 'secular' certificates....It was you who is busy handing out the certificates and I just wanted to know if you are qualified to hand out one. So far no.

If you want to know, I suspect your resources are up to this very difficult task. If you do not, then you should not waste everybody's time in concealing your own inadequacies, and in resorting to diversions.

Try me.

Do you mean to say that if exclusion of religion would bring good governance, you would be for it? Testing that is fairly easy.

On the other hand, it is quite likely that you would be all for religion a priori, without the fig-leaf of good governance. You would have supported Modi originally, wouldn't you, even before your claims about Gujarat became apparent, even after the killings, when there was nothing to him but brutality?

As usual you guess wrong. I'm all for a french style secularism that brooks no **** from any religion. Are you up for the task ? Can you convince your 'secular' playmates elsewhere to do that ? No you wont/cant.

 

[Bhairava]

Right .

When their tall leaders face the consequences, no H-men. Just a curious silence on the Net.

awesome.

Are you feeling cheated that the Hindutvadis did not jump to defend the convicted thus depriving you of a golden opportunity to berate them and shattering your mental portrait of a Hindutvadi ? Are you feeling frustrated that they are not doing a "shower-rose-petal-act" on the convicted so that you could castigate on them ? Are you feeling duped by these Internet Hindus for their silence when all you expected was a cacophonous defensive rhetoric so that you could pounce on those unsuspecting parrots baring your 'secular' fangs ?

I suspect so. It seems you want them to react so that you can go all diwali guns blazing.

He is in a real world, and those who oppose him in a make believe one.

Are you as usual putting words into someone's mouth. I dare you to point at one post where I defended Babu ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Wait till reality hits you in the face.




Even those semi-literate have the right to vote. That is what matters.

I am very happy to wait. This is the part of our democracy that works. Let it work, without the Sangh Parivar taking to the streets, and the country will do fine.

 

[Android]

The topic of this thread had nothing to do with Gujarat riots

 

[mfreak]

That is a very shallow definition for secularism. Today the state religion of Gujarat is not Hinduism. So by your argument that means Gujarat is secular.

I am talking about Hindutva, which advocates Hindu Nationalism. I am against any religion being attached to identity, nationalism or politics. BTW, I wrote one sentence there, it also means India is NOT a muslim state, India is NOT a sikh state, India is NOT a christian state etc etc., India is a secular state.

Ok..that is not exactly what secularism means.

Agreed. I am talking about freedom to practice whatever religion. I am also talking about relgion being kept out of politics. That is what secularism is, and India is defined as a secular state.

Actually if you knew one bit of what 'secularism' actually is, you would not have said this. Secularism means no religion specific laws. Uniform Civil Code. One law for all citizens. Oh wait, that would be classified as 'communal' by 'secular' people like you

I will concede that point. I conflated freedom of religion with secularism. But I stand for both.

No where is the definition of 'secularism' given in the above quoted part.

Secularism itself is a principle. It does not require explicit defintion. Its like asking to define democracy in the consititution when democracy itself is a principle.

Secondly, EVEN if the constitution does not define secularism, secularism IS what should be followed.

Needless chest thumping. I just asked you if the Indian constitution defines what the word "Secularism" is and here we have hot rhetoric. Cool down,

The consititution does not need to define secularism. Secularism itself is a principle by which our constitution abides. It does not need any definition. You might say that Hindutva stands for "something else". What hindutva stands for, and who advocates it are two different things. If people like Shiv Sena, Sangh Parivar and other far right wing morons advocate it, then No Thanks. You know what comes close to their policies, lets say in the United States? The American Nazi Party.

The rest of your posts are the same thing over and over again.

BTW Gujarat, best governed state? Well, Modi is indeed good when it comes to development activities. Butl, I dont quite think that when I think about the Godhra riots.

 

[arp2041]

The topic of this thread had nothing to do with Gujarat riots

Anything that is related to Gujarat or Modi or both is riots related

U can separate a riot from Gujarat/Modi, but u can't separate a Gujarat/Modi from a riot (what have i just written???)

 

[Joe Shearer]

Criminals from the minority community. They were in a way responsible for everything that happened then and after. They should have thought what would happen if they indulged in this vile, barbaric attack.

You mean women and children in Ahmedabad, in Vadodara, in the districts can be killed because they belong to the same community? Could you just confirm that this is what you mean?

Could you also confirm that killers are no longer responsible for their actions? Does this mean the convicts of Naroda Patya should have walked free?

Are you crazy ? He reaped what he sowed.

When people in a locality don't like goras coming and converting people often through fraudulent means it is always better to leave rather than wait for **** to hit the fan. These foreign funded conversions are undermining the very root of the Indian society and upsetting the delicate social fabric and in some cases even causing people to be openly anti-national as we saw during the Kudankulam protest which was nothing but a church sponsored agitation at the behest of foreign vested interests. No religious visas should be given to Goras to come and spread their **** here. If pos like these come from Australia and openly denounce Hinduism standing right inside a temple, then the Dara Singhs are not to be blamed. And if people are expected to tolerate these vile attacks on their religion,civilization under the crucifix of being 'secular', then to hell with it.

I'm not crazy, the last time I checked with my shrink he said my only mental challenge was my habit of conversing with retards.

You might be crazy.

You just said that someone who conducts medical work, without even preaching or converting, can be burnt alive, along with his infant sons.

Again, can you confirm that this is your position?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Says who ? How many years have you lived in Gujarat ? How many riots have occured in Gujarat in the past decade. How many Muslims have been killed in the past decade after that riot ? In UP, there has been six riots in 3 months. Just giving a yardstick.

Statutes may be my weak point - but reality is your weak point. As is the case with anyone so pedantic.

Three years,Vadodara, Sales Manager Bundy Tubing, Makarpura, lived next to Surya Hotel.

And you?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Says who ? How many years have you lived in Gujarat ? How many riots have occured in Gujarat in the past decade. How many Muslims have been killed in the past decade after that riot ? In UP, there has been six riots in 3 months. Just giving a yardstick.

Statutes may be my weak point - but reality is your weak point. As is the case with anyone so pedantic.

Please clarify this latest gem.

Are you, being in your right mind, saying that killing 700 innocent men, women and children will help the forces of law and order, and prevent communal riots for at least a decade?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Because that front party was in Govt supported by a group of so called "secular" parties who thought it would be an affront to their muslim and xtian votebank if they supported it. Moreover there was no BJP Govt..but an NDA Govt..The governance was according to the manifesto agreed by all parties some of which opposed the UCC.

Then if your political front cannot bring in the uniform civil code, who can?

Irrelevant and no way denies the fact that its the so-called secular parties and the Muslim/xtian orgs that are opposing any attempt to bring in UCC.

How do I love the Hindutvavadi? Let me count the ways.

1. Without a uniform civil code, they feel like second class citizens in their own country.
2. There is a provision to adopt the civil code individually, but THAT is not the point. It is these damn' Muslims and Christians who have to be brought to heel (why? No answer). So, uniform civil code for ALL, implemented simultaneously. So who brings it in?
3. Not the Congress; they are tainted pseudo seculars, and will never offend their vote bank.
4. Not the other secularists and Marxists; they are afraid of losing their funding, or their vote bank.
5a. Not the BJP, because they are afraid of being thrown out of the government.

No, that doesn't sound right.

5b. Not the BJP, because they were all alone.

So, no Civil Code, and it's all the fault of the Muslims!

 

[Bhairava]

I am talking about Hindutva, which advocates Hindu Nationalism. I am against any religion being attached to identity, nationalism or politics. BTW, I wrote one sentence there, it also means India is NOT a muslim state, India is NOT a sikh state, India is NOT a christian state etc etc., India is a secular state.

^ That would have made sense, if I said anywhere India IS a Hindu state.

Agreed. I am talking about freedom to practice whatever religion. I am also talking about relgion being kept out of politics. That is what secularism is, and India is defined as a secular state.

Secularism is keeping religion and the state different. Not just governance. But even the laws. India is secular only in the Preamble. Not in reality.

I will concede that point. I conflated freedom of religion with secularism. But I stand for both.

The problem is you stand for 'secularism' without actually knowing what it is. Half knowledge is dangerous than no knowledge.

Secularism itself is a principle. It does not require explicit defintion. Its like asking to define democracy in the consititution when democracy itself is a principle.

Secondly, EVEN if the constitution does not define secularism, secularism IS what should be followed. The consititution does not need to define secularism. Secularism itself is a principle by which our constitution abides. It does not need any definition.

The difference is people are not confused as to what democracy is. But people are most certainly confused as to what secularism - as practised in India - is, especially when we have bigots like Asaduddin Owaisi preaching on the values of secularism. So a definition as to what it is becomes very urgent.

Does having separate religious laws for different religions constitute secularism ?

Does having discriminatory laws like Article 30 constitute secularism ?

Does having a state ministry for maintaining/appropriating temple assets while leaving out waqf and parish properties constitute secularism ?

Does supporting freedom of speech in one case when the victim is a Hindu and opposing it when the victim is a Muslim constitute secularism ?

Does making laws over-riding the Supreme court because of the demands of the Mullah constitute secularism ?

Does being a proponent of minority-ism make one automatically secular ?

Does saying that Muslims have the first right to national resources make one secular ?

Many such questions. Unfortunately no answers. So my question to you - what is secularism ? Is what is practised in India, secularism ?

You might say that Hindutva stands for "something else". What hindutva stands for, and who advocates it are two different things. If people like Shiv Sena, Sangh Parivar and other far right wing morons advocate it, then No Thanks. You know what comes close to their policies, lets say in the United States? The American Nazi Party.

The rest of your posts are the same thing over and over again.

What is Hindutva is irrelevant here. The question is - what is secularism ?

BTW Gujarat, best governed state? Well, Modi is indeed good when it comes to development activities. Butl, I dont quite think that when I think about the Godhra riots.

Do you think of Partition riots when you think of Nehru or the subsequent good work he did ? (He did some fuckups also. Lets leave that for a moment here)

 

[Bhairava]

Then if your political front cannot bring in the uniform civil code, who can?

If the political front comes on its own or with the help of its old/trusted allies it will.

Anyway the point is BJP is not opposing the UCC. Its the so-called secular parties along with the Mullah/pastor combo.

Three years,Vadodara, Sales Manager Bundy Tubing, Makarpura, lived next to Surya Hotel.

And you?

You are not a Hindu. So were you tortured on the cross ? Are you not safe and sound to spin your yarns now ?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Says who ? How many years have you lived in Gujarat ? How many riots have occured in Gujarat in the past decade. How many Muslims have been killed in the past decade after that riot ? In UP, there has been six riots in 3 months. Just giving a yardstick.

Statutes may be my weak point - but reality is your weak point. As is the case with anyone so pedantic.




No it does not.





Because that front party was in Govt supported by a group of so called "secular" parties who thought it would be an affront to their muslim and xtian votebank if they supported it. Moreover there was no BJP Govt..but an NDA Govt..The governance was according to the manifesto agreed by all parties some of which opposed the UCC.



Irrelevant and no way denies the fact that its the so-called secular parties and the Muslim/xtian orgs that are opposing any attempt to bring in UCC.



I'm not the one who is handing out 'secular' certificates....It was you who is busy handing out the certificates and I just wanted to know if you are qualified to hand out one. So far no.



Try me.




As usual you guess wrong. I'm all for a french style secularism that brooks no **** from any religion. Are you up for the task ? Can you convince your 'secular' playmates elsewhere to do that ? No you wont/cant.

If you are ready for French style secularism why not try for it rather than supporting Hindu fundamentalist politics ? Or do you see it as a first stepping stone towards French style secularism ?

 

[Bhairava]

Please clarify this latest gem.

Are you, being in your right mind, saying that killing 700 innocent men, women and children will help the forces of law and order, and prevent communal riots for at least a decade?

Nahhh..saying..One swallow does not make a summer

That there is more to Modi than what you see through your unidimensional, tunnel vision