What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

I not watched this video but I saw one of his previous ones where he spoke to a crowd and said that if the police are removed the 200 million Indian Muslims will be ready to fight the 800 million Hindus, that is just asking for trouble and inciting communal tension such people are dangerous but he has a lot of paisa I think.
That was Akbaruddin Owaisi, the younger brother.
The one in video with beard is Asaduddin Owaisi, who was thought to be a moderate,some moderate he is :D all part of the same thing.
 
Yet they voted for him after he clearly said he would not provide them with fixed pipes and drinking water. :hitwall::hitwall:
That was old city, where there is a muslim ghetto,people there are poor, uneducated he keeps them that way and doesn't want development as those who are educated want him to perform and do development, for past 30+years those areas are the same way it was, while the rest of the city developed, they vote for him only in that area.Even banks don't give loans to people from some blacklisted areas as they take loans,default and never pay the bank, when someone is sent with notice or recovery to pay,they are beaten badly.
They harm themselves knowingly.
 
"Potential"? More like actual.

Isn't this the same Owaisi guy who was arrested for saying he would butcher all the Hindus in the country?

I'm not even sure how much more anti-national a person can get.
That was his younger brother,who is speaks openly.
This one is the elder brother, who was considered as moderate,sane thinking individual, :D

Majority can, many a times, be wrong. It is exactly why the framework of constitution cannot be changed unless it is agreed upon by the legislature and the judiciary, finally getting a green light from the President of India.
The example of Nanavati case is irrelevant here. Contrary to your argument, the majority of the people supported Nanavati and yet, when the courts found that the jury had been misled, they overturned the not-guilty verdict and finally the Supreme court upheld the guilty verdict. After this the jury system was abolished in India. Btw, that was NOT a change in the Constitution of India.

Nope. The supreme court will not allow that, and neither will the President of India. You need to understand that the three branches of the government of India (executive, legislature and the judiciary) work independently of each other, a means of keep in check the powers. Any changes, and all three have to agree.

again BS. The major issue in the elections was governance and economic development. Of course, some idiots voted on the basis of caste, but the majority voted for economic development. Else you would have seen many regional caste based parties win numerous seats. That didnt happen.

BS. Did you read and understand the BJP manifesto? Either you are really gullible believing BS being sprouted by vested interests or you are maliciously misleading general public ignorant of the true manifesto.
Btw, Congress didnt have a spectacular track record of development, compare and contrast that with Modi's track record. Period. People saw that, not some stupid (hidden or otherwise) Hindu agenda.

You do not understand what secularism really means. Fortunately, this is enshrined in the Constitution of India, and cannot be changed unless all three branches of the government agree to the amendment, with the final approval of the President of India. Also, for whatever idiotic comments this Oswani dude makes, as obnoxious and stupid as they may be, it is his viewpoint guaranteed & protected by the Constitution's Freedom of speech and expression. Deal with it, whether you like it or not. You try to take law into your own hands, you will be punished. Simple as that.
1)How are majority be wrong?They gave what was their opinion, isn't that how Courts in USA work?
The government changed laws as it feared that influencing majority of jury would be harder than a single judge who can be coerced or brought,therefore, they nipped this potential future situation in the bud.If they can remove such system without constitutional change,surely we can change it to jury system again.

2)When we get our president we can change it.If jury system is introduced then Even supreme court will have to take into account the jury verdict.

3)That's because of hindu vote consolidation,everyone was pandering for muslim votes and they left hindus,the hindus felt betrayed as not even one was talking about them,everyone was wooing minority votes.So the natural recourse was hindu vote bank consolidation cutting across caste lines.With caste lines blurring and almost over in cities and towns,in future you shall see hindu vote bank consolidation.Then all these caste based parties will become Hindu based parties.

4)BJP mentioned in its manifesto, Uniform civil code,Article 370,Ram mandir issue, These are core of bjp voters base which were loyally voting them for so long.Modi's track record along with other things became a factor.Development is also part of Hindutva,don't fall for the lies of secular parties which separate development away from hindutva and make it look only on communal lines.Hindutva is what is good for the nation, making it powerful,strong,self sufficient, can these be achieved without development?

5)Secularism was introduced by Indira Gandhi into constitution in 1974, not part of the original drafting of constitution by Ambedkar.When she can change it, why can't a majority?

6)What is your problem in declaring India as Hindu state when 85% population are hindus? and how does it make your life miserable?
 
Last edited:
Yet they voted for him after he clearly said he would not provide them with fixed pipes and drinking water. :hitwall::hitwall:


Even at his stated intent of being a Muslim leader, he is an epic fail. His vitriolic rhetoric ensures that apart from old city, BJP wins every other seat in Hyderabad which happened this time also. He won from old city seat and BJP won all other seven seats in Hyderabad.
 
Plus he is a fan of Duck Dynasty (with an appearance in the forth coming season)!! Who hoooo....


Bobby Jindal has got the chops to run effectively, if he carefully plays the field these next few months. And with a good campaign manager with a caliber of the likes of James Carville or even David Axelrod or David Plouffe, there's a pretty good chance of him getting there!! Of course the Clintons have the most formidable political machinery on their side.

Why would hard-core Democrats help a Republican win the White House?
 
@levina - No reply ! :(
I was replying back to posts whereI was mentioned and quoted.
Bibi, Modi Sahib key jaaan choruu....go & make some Chicken Karahi for Mr.Levina & Levina Jrs. - Sivaiii chatting key koi aur constructive kaaam nahin karnaa poreiii din mein ! :disagree:

Kisss biwi seh hum nei Mr.Levina key shaadiii karvaa deiii - Woh bichareiii bhook seh tarap raheiii hain aur yahan par International Relations 101 sojjj rahaa haiii Apa Jee ko ! :hitwall:
Hmmmm
So tell me what do you think of US-India -Russian equation???
(Mr levina jst finished eating his chicken fajita :D )
 
Hmmmm
So tell me what do you think of US-India -Russian equation???
(Mr levina jst finished eating his chicken fajita :D )

Mr.Levina ko meraa tou nahin batayaa ? :o:

US-India-Russia Equation - I dunno; if you play your cards right....good dividends....if you don't than you may find yourself juggling between looking out for Indian interests, looking out for Russian interests & looking out for American interest with the act not being always perfect !
 
1)How are majority be wrong?They gave what was their opinion, isn't that how Courts in USA work?
The government changed laws as it feared that influencing majority of jury would be harder than a single judge who can be coerced or brought,therefore, they nipped this potential future situation in the bud.If they can remove such system without constitutional change,surely we can change it to jury system again.
The mob does not and cannot think. Yes majority of people can and many a times are wrong. That is why you have laws and religions to control people. Ours is NOT an Anarchy, but a Democracy. Learn the difference.
And no, the courts in US dont work according to whims of the majority of people. They work based on the laws of the land, in turn based on their Constitution.
The GoI changed the jury system because if was easier to mislead jury, which consists of ordinary citizens who have, many a times, no knowledge of the legal proceedings. Withholding information or presenting bits and pieces of information is enough to mislead juries. There were no laws governing how juries are to be presented with information in India back then. It was easier to do away with them than implement corrective measures. FYI, with holding information from juries is frowned upon in US and a mistrial is declared.
2)When we get our president we can change it.If jury system is introduced then Even supreme court will have to take into account the jury verdict.
What part of consensus between three branches of the government do you not understand?
3)That's because of hindu vote consolidation,everyone was pandering for muslim votes and they left hindus,the hindus felt betrayed as not even one was talking about them,everyone was wooing minority votes.So the natural recourse was hindu vote bank consolidation cutting across caste lines.
That is your narrow perverted point of view. I hope for your sake, you learn to expand your knowledge horizon.
4)BJP mentioned in its manifesto, Uniform civil code,Article 370,Ram mandir issue, These are core of bjp voters base which were loyally voting them for so long.
Word of advice, re-read the manifesto. If you have any doubts, ask. Dont jump to conclusions without thinking.
5)Secularism was introduced by Indira Gandhi into constitution in 1974, not part of the original drafting of constitution by Ambedkar.When she can change it, why can't a majority?
6)What is your problem in declaring India as Hindu state when 85% population are hindus? and how does it make your life miserable?
Wrong. Indira Gandhi did that to usurp powers by suspending some basic rights and declaring an emergency. That didnt bode well for her, now did it? Indian Constitution, if you can read and understand doesn't need to 'add' secular into the wordings. Read the preamble to understand what it means.
As for declaring a Hindu state, even Nepal - the only Hindu Kingdom, did away with the monarchy and turned 'secular'. Why is being tolerant and secular such a pain in your arse? What exactly do you hope to achieve by becoming a Hindu state? So that you can practice and enforce the malicious caste system and dominance over other religions? To what end?
 
Why would hard-core Democrats help a Republican win the White House?
I meant people of the caliber of those managers. These guys literally stole the thunder from George Bush Sr., and McCain - one a sitting President and the other a seasoned "maverick" politician, sometimes liked by the Democrats!!
 
The mob does not and cannot think. Yes majority of people can and many a times are wrong. That is why you have laws and religions to control people. Ours is NOT an Anarchy, but a Democracy. Learn the difference.
And no, the courts in US dont work according to whims of the majority of people. They work based on the laws of the land, in turn based on their Constitution.
The GoI changed the jury system because if was easier to mislead jury, which consists of ordinary citizens who have, many a times, no knowledge of the legal proceedings. Withholding information or presenting bit and pieces of information is enough to mislead juries. There were no laws governing how juries are to be presented with information in India back then. It was easier to do away with them than implement corrective measures. FYI, with holding information from juries is considered to be illegal in US and a mistrial is declared.

What part of consensus between three branches of the government do you not understand?

That is your narrow perverted point of view. I hope for your sake, you learn to expand your knowledge horizon.

Word of advice, re-read the manifesto. If you have any doubts, ask. Dont jump to conclusions without thinking.

Wrong. Indira Gandhi did that to usurp powers by suspending some basic rights and declaring an emergency. That didnt bode well for her, not did it? Indian Constitution, if you can read and understand doesn't need to 'add' secular into the wordings. Read the preamble to understand what it means.
As for declaring a Hindu state, even Nepal - the only Hindu Kingdom, did away with the monarchy and turned 'secular'. Why is being tolerant and secular such a pain in your arse? What exactly do you hope to achieve by becoming a Hindu state? So that you can practice and enforce the malicious caste system and dominance over other religions? To what end?

1)Why does usa follow the jury system?why not single judge system?The laws for jury would be implemented, but the government alarmed over the verdict as it had potential to veto against some peoples agenda and it stopped it before it took off.

2)When time is right there will be consensus in all three, work is being done in that direction already.When the chess pieces are in position there would be checkmate.

3)Please i don't need to expand my knowledge horizon nor i need to take moral lectures from someone who is not connected to ground reality,i know what happens at grassroot level.That is what happened in UPand part of Amit shah strategy,therefore the shocks and aftershocks felt by every party be it secular,caste based.With one strike they were all crippled, that is why you shall see every party from now on to run and woo hindu voters,that is why owaisi in this video was ranting, they couldn't elect even one from UP as the hindu vote was consolidated totally in UP and Bihar.Bjp knows Muslims won't vote for them in overwhelming numbers,so they united the hindus,cutting party lines and dalit MP's were voted by in huge number by all castes of hindus.

4)I suggest you read it again,Ram mandir,Article 370,Uniform civil code are mentioned in the last pages of BJP manifesto and there were huge debates on it in Media.

5)Well Indira gandhi introduced secularism, it was not part of the original constitution.(The three branches then were unanimous, why can't it happen in future?)Yes even without her introducing the world secularism, India was already secular, so removal of that word won't harm anybody.
Nepal was overrun by Maoists who are known left wing communists who hate everything conservative and they made it secular nation.
I again ask where was intolerance in India's history ask @Tshering22 if we were intolerant we would have finished the jews,syrian christians,parsis and arab muslims who were in India long before Constitution was drafted.
The sangh stands for doing away with caste system and uniting people as one, where did you hear BJP or RSS advocating implementation of caste system?don't spout nonsense about something you don't know about.

Once, again i ask you what is your problem declaring Bharat as Hindu nation?This is the homeland of hindus after all, why do you take up cudgels when we mention the word hindu nation?what is your pain in the arse?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom