What's new

In favor of Hindutva; by a Pakistani muslim

I dont give a damn about India if it becomes a Hindu Nationalist country

(1.) it will make Pakistanis finally understand who we "are" and break the "we are the same" bs with the Indians

(2.) as long as India does not cross the LOC and pursue a expansionist policy of subjecting smaller countries like us no probs even with the harsh statements India sucks at that tbh
 
I want to believe there is still hope. This is based on practical sociological analysis. Not here , but somewhere after I have discharged my duties towards the war history thread, I would like to take this up with you once again.

The vast majority of well-meaning Hindus also share your thoughts. They think this is a phase that will pass. We should debate this once you are done with your other duties.
 
Whatever the future, people like you and I will need to keep raising our voices and fighting for what we believe to be right for human values and consequently for our respective countries.

That, sadly, is a given.

However, on a very personal note, one of the unsettling features of today's situation is that there is a section of the forum's membership, distorted though the representation of the Pakistani population might be in here, who believe that polite and courteous behaviour means that I must abandon everything that my country stands for, that standing up for those, with or without reasoning to back it up, amounts to counterfeit behaviour, a kind of covert religion-based xenophobia that has to be detected and stamped out. I am told that the spit-flecked contributions of the BJP supporter are preferable to my approach.

That is as it may be. It is one of the hazards, an unexpected one perhaps, of taking an independent stand and holding on to one's beliefs and standards without undue display even in difficult circumstances. As, I am sure, you have yourself realised and have adopted as your own standard.

They are more Hindus than any upper cast. They are the primary foor soldiers. Modi for example is an OBC

Yes, true, but the OBC would react with horror and revulsion if anyone clubbed them with the Dalit. They prey on the Dalit, more than the 'forward' castes do.

what did you mean ?

theek to bola

I actually got confused when someone invited me over to their place once, name was officially Sushil R* let's say, but then he was clearly Christian.. which kind of took me by surprise but didn't matter any, so...

We have a long way to go, then. Some other time.

I think Xuess here has a point. A lot of us think just that. That it would be a state religion just like here... None have taken the time to actually learn what it is. Frankly couldnt be bothered other than taking a potshot once in a while.

You are making a mistake in ignoring it. It is a problem not for Indians alone. But some other time, some other day.

The vast majority of well-meaning Hindus also share your thoughts. They think this is a phase that will pass. We should debate this once you are done with your other duties.

I really hope you will raise the matter. I want to explain why I think so, why I am so hopeful, in spite of all the alarming signals that we see all around.

I have three tasks on hand: the 1965 narrative, and two other topics. It might take one more week. Please let us not lose track of this.
 
Well, I may sound crazy, but yes, I fully support the idea of constitution of a Hindu national country in our neighborhood.
At the time of partition, muslims were 23% of the total population, yet they demanded a separate country. My forefathers supported that idea, I also stick to it.
However, Hindus were 76 percent, and even today, they are 80%(if I may consulider bodh, jains as Hindus as well) in India. And yet they are not allowed to declare India as a Hindu country.

My question is why not?

If USA can write : In god(christian god) we trust, why can't a Hindu do the same? If top leadership in USA and Germany and even in Russia today declares themselves Christians, Pakistan and Iran can use the name Islamic republic, why only Hindu is pushed to declare themselves as secular? Why can't Hindus also write Hindu republic or Sanatana Republic?

I kick this bigotry and superlative hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, Hindus reserve full right to declare India as Hindus Rashtra.

Individual thoughts please.

You are probably the few Pakistanis who essentially admit the hypocrisy of Pakistan's position on both secularism and being an ideological state. Pakistan insists on India be a secular state yet it is an ideological state. Even its National Assembly has clearly said that non-Muslims cannot be leaders of the country. I can only imagine what Pakistan would say if India's parliament declared a Hindu Rastra and said non-Hindus cannot be leaders of India. There would be hell to pay.

This is why Pakistan claims about BJP and Modi being a fascist government falls on such deaf ears. They really need to look in the mirror on this score.

Finally, if Pakistan insists on being an ideological state, why complain about Israel being a Zionist state?

You don't sound crazy. Just hostile to the idea of a secular nation, that demands that religion should not determine the rights of our citizens.

Living in the US for most of my life, India does not practice the secularism I'm used to. In the US, religion and politics are clearly separate. Each citizen is equal under the law. India, on the other hand, has separate laws if one is Christian, Hindu, or Muslim. As we have seen, Muslim law boards have caused serious problems, especially the issue of triple talaq.

If India truly wants to be secular, these law boards should be eliminated and each citizen is treated equally. I support the implementation of UCC to make this possible.

History is replete with examples of why mixing religion and politics is a bad idea. Religion should be banished to the private sphere.
 
You are probably the few Pakistanis who essentially admit the hypocrisy of Pakistan's position on both secularism and being an ideological state. Pakistan insists on India be a secular state yet it is an ideological state. Even its National Assembly has clearly said that non-Muslims cannot be leaders of the country. I can only imagine what Pakistan would say if India's parliament declared a Hindu Rastra and said non-Hindus cannot be leaders of India. There would be hell to pay.
We at leat declared long ago what we think suits us.
So now it's your turn. And see, at least someone from Pakistan is supporting you guys.
 
History is replete with examples of why mixing religion and politics is a bad idea. Religion should be banished to the private sphere.
And worship the state instead? This will form a better humanity? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? They banished evil religion from their states too and killed more people than every pseudo-religious nutjob combined.
 
Living in the US for most of my life, India does not practice the secularism I'm used to. In the US, religion and politics are clearly separate. Each citizen is equal under the law. India, on the other hand, has separate laws if one is Christian, Hindu, or Muslim. As we have seen, Muslim law boards have caused serious problems, especially the issue of triple talaq.

If India truly wants to be secular, these law boards should be eliminated and each citizen is treated equally. I support the implementation of UCC to make this possible.

History is replete with examples of why mixing religion and politics is a bad idea. Religion should be banished to the private sphere.

Those 'Law Boards are private enterprise. Self-declared, self-certified, self-satisfied.
 
Well, I may sound crazy, but yes, I fully support the idea of constitution of a Hindu national country in our neighborhood.
At the time of partition, muslims were 23% of the total population, yet they demanded a separate country. My forefathers supported that idea, I also stick to it.
However, Hindus were 76 percent, and even today, they are 80%(if I may consulider bodh, jains as Hindus as well) in India. And yet they are not allowed to declare India as a Hindu country.

My question is why not?

If USA can write : In god(christian god) we trust, why can't a Hindu do the same? If top leadership in USA and Germany and even in Russia today declares themselves Christians, Pakistan and Iran can use the name Islamic republic, why only Hindu is pushed to declare themselves as secular? Why can't Hindus also write Hindu republic or Sanatana Republic?

I kick this bigotry and superlative hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, Hindus reserve full right to declare India as Hindus Rashtra.

Individual thoughts please.
@Joe Shearer dont kill me for my thoughts, but I really think that Hindus are victim here.
@Nilgiri @pothead @Soumitra @jamahir

Their country, their rules, but then they have to forego all Muslim majority areas.
 
Nah that can't be right.By the way what have the southerns converted to? I've met a fair few here in the UK, strong Hindus. But they don't get involved in the indo/pak stuff.

At least 30% of HIndus in Andhra. Telangana, Tamil Nadu & Kerala are hindus only on paper, to get caste benefits.
They have already converted to Christianity.

One positive is, Hindus who have emigrated tend to be more religious Hindus than ones back home, comparing the same social circles here.
 
Well, I may sound crazy, but yes, I fully support the idea of constitution of a Hindu national country in our neighborhood.
At the time of partition, muslims were 23% of the total population, yet they demanded a separate country. My forefathers supported that idea, I also stick to it.
However, Hindus were 76 percent, and even today, they are 80%(if I may consulider bodh, jains as Hindus as well) in India. And yet they are not allowed to declare India as a Hindu country.

My question is why not?

If USA can write : In god(christian god) we trust, why can't a Hindu do the same? If top leadership in USA and Germany and even in Russia today declares themselves Christians, Pakistan and Iran can use the name Islamic republic, why only Hindu is pushed to declare themselves as secular? Why can't Hindus also write Hindu republic or Sanatana Republic?

I kick this bigotry and superlative hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, Hindus reserve full right to declare India as Hindus Rashtra.

Individual thoughts please.
@Joe Shearer dont kill me for my thoughts, but I really think that Hindus are victim here.
@Nilgiri @pothead @Soumitra @jamahir

Wow 12 pages already....I am sure its the same ole for most part....so I am just going to respond to you directly.

I do not think religion is ever a good idea to found a country on. I disagree with it in all cases....and I would disagree with it for India as well. It is a foul foul thing to introduce to politics as it inherently carries/transmutes unquestioned (and inevitably faulty) authority in enough abundance given human psychology, reality and imperfection. We are already seeing the toxic accumulation of identity politics in the wealthiest and most developed countries....what chance is there for developing ones with religious identity politics as another yoke?

It gives politicians and powerbrokers (and their inevitable mobs) a most easy way to set people against each other with yet another (real or assumed) identity....and gives it to them free from the start....without them even striving for it....to add to all the other ways they already have at their disposal....to keep the underclass at each others throats, figuratively and sadly often literally.

This runs deeply contrary to my minimalist take on govt setup....i.e it should be set up as cleanly, simply with crystallised focused mandate for existence as possible in interest of it not becoming immensely unwieldy with natural force inevitable force of political entropy (after original enlightened conception). This clean simple set up then needs to be enforced as well as possible (so govt credibility might actually build up and strengthen before looking to expand into more roles)....but that is a different conversation heading.

Having studied the US constitution in depth (and its enlightened first principles it took much inspiration from), its reference to "in God we trust" and "one nation under God" does not make it a Christian nation (in say a non-secular sense). Many papers have been written on this which you can look up if interested.

Rather, it is a grand recognition that a political entity comes into being at point, when it didn't exist before...as opposed to that which always existed (God). This is very important to set up the basis for a sound legal system and setting it up in such a way that simple chronological logic can be used in that the new political entity cannot take away rights (of individuals) that existed before it (as bequeathed to them by their eternal Creator).

The concept itself is not a matter of secular/non-secular as you would put it for this topic....as even an atheist, agnostic or non-Christian can logically realise that individual rights preceded creation of any political state, and thus ought to be enshrined as such and thus can be subsumed under a great enough cultural allegory.

Any country can do the same if it chooses to (state divine allegorical inspiration), but it can simply enshrine secularism for same result...as recognition that is the citizen's right to decide upon his faith and cultural conscience...and not the state's to prefer or idealise one over others. The US is thus fundamentally secular in setup.

A country framework must be built on that which can be inherited and imbued equally in every citizen be they man, woman or child. Religion is simply not a sound case in my estimation for that (for vast majority you are simply born into it). For even within Religion there exist many identities within it, where does the splitting actually stop...and who do you empower to decide that?

The fundamental issue is that God himself does not come here to tell us these answers...and physically adjudicate and dispense the authority on the matter we assign to Him.

We operate (often quite downstream) on a larger body of good faith transmittance of the great ideals from the original (heard and written) revelations....conveyed faithfully over time by our progenitors, ancestors and most recent generations too, interpreted and applied as we seek nourishment for the ethereal part of us...all of which can not be summarily dismissed in societal relevance (for many darker forces wait to grab that psychological void left for the taking).

But
it is matter of faith (for us as individuals to believe they are as they say they are) in the end. For I cannot prove to you such things and likewise you cannot prove to me yours. It is thus not a matter for a Govt to take a stance on this in my opinion....each citizen should simply be a citizen in front of govt...to put the weight of law and justice on, period....nothing more need be added to it....and certainly nothing need be taken away.

There are a multitude of questions that open up like this when you bring up and permeate religion in the basic national law, and they all stray away from my ideal take on what a Govt should be, and what it is there for. You may ask yourself, did God create and put govt where it is....or did imperfect humans? If the latter, you see the big problem for partaking into the matters of God?

@Joe Shearer @SQ8 @Jungibaaz @saiyan0321 @T-123456 @Gomig-21 @VCheng
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom