Modi and the Two-Nation Theory

[PlanetWarrior]

Every election is about painting a contrast with the opposition; that's a given.

It does not change the fact that Modi made an issue of "us v/s them" -- us Hindus' rights v/s them Muslims getting special privileges.



Except that Modi specifically made it about religion: he made a distinction between illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, whom he would deport, and illegal Bangladeshi Hindus, whom he would accept.



As I explained before, when gross violations occur in a company, the CEO takes responsibility, regardless of legal technicalities. Modi didn't and was quite unapologetic about it.



Other candidates with good economic credentials? I remember Indians debating the economic performance of different Indian states.

1. The special privileges which you refer to for the minority communities of India has been a bone of contention for many years. The Hindu majority have time and again questioned the need for these privileges given that India is independent for close to 50 years. Modi, whilst being unable to unilaterally abolish the quota reservations. He however undertook to raise discussion on the issue.
   
2. Bangladeshi Hindus and a large portion of Muslims entered in large numbers into India during the 1971 war and shortly after partition. Those people [both Hindus and Muslims] cannot be repatriated to Bangladesh. That is a SC order. Those however who constantly emigrate into India seeking work after the cut-off date remain the subject of contention. It is beyond dispute that the majority if not all of them are Muslim Bangladeshi. If calling a black pot black during elections is offensive then I am at a loss to explain it any more simpler than I have.
3. A CEO whose staff went on a frolick of their own cannot face vicarious liability. That is the international norm. As I stated earlier, unless somebody can produce any evidence to the contrary, Modi remains exonerated.
4. These other candidates failed to meet the Indian expectation. People such as the leader of the AAP Party which took my hometown of Delhi by storm turned out to be a storm in a bottle. He resigned from government when he couldn't get his own way. Truth be told, apart from Modi, the Indian voters of all religions really did not have any other choice. Perhaps Modi may prove them wrong. If so, he will face their wrath in five years time just like the Gandhis and the Yadavs and the Kejriwals did in 2014

 

[Tshering22]

Once again ET where bunch of liberal retards rejected by 98 % off Pakistanis work and write crap and only crap Modi is proving why we created Pakistan a techie is killed whole India media even goes crazy but Modi doesn't bother to give any statement Muslims are now shaving of their beards attacks on them are increasing and no word from Modi led government but still dumbo like these think that two nation theory is not validated Mr when ever we eat cow even than it gets validated and here it is getting validated on daily bases and Modi continued on this path he would put such a huge dent to Indian communities that it would get impossible to mend it back

Calm down mate! Sheesh!

Why would the Prime Minister of the nation give a statement out? What is his fault? See I don't know how it runs in Pakistan but the management of crime, safety and law and order is the state government's responsibility. The centre's role is to ensure that the national strategic and internal issues like budget, economy, security etc are in place.

The state looks at micro-level issues like law and order, crime, employment, businesses created, investment in the state etc.

Why is it so difficult to get it?

Media will say a thousand things daily. Crime is a problem all over India. If the PM sits to address everything, how will he solve bigger issues?

Think.

Except that Modi specifically made it about religion: he made a distinction between illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, whom he would deport, and illegal Bangladeshi Hindus, whom he would accept.

So what's wrong in that? Those Hindus and Buddhists who entered India from Bangladesh are not exactly rioting and destroying our property in border states. They are not killing, raping and attacking our people. Then why should we not accept them? If they don't come to India facing persecution, where will they go?

It is our country and we have the right to choose whom we admit and whom we kick out. What's that got to do with your 2 nation theory?

 

[Developereo]

The special privileges which you refer to for the minority communities of India has been a bone of contention for many years. The Hindu majority have time and again questioned the need for these privileges given that India is independent for close to 50 years. Modi, whilst being unable to unilaterally abolish the quota reservations. He however undertook to raise discussion on the issue.

The biggest beneficiaries of these special programs are lower caste Hindus, not Muslims, yet Modi personally instituted preferential schemes for Dalits in Gujarat temples.

Let's not kid ourselves: the whole hype about special privileges was an attack on Muslims. Modi and his people weren't too concerned about special privileges for lower caste Hindus.

Bangladeshi Hindus and a large portion of Muslims entered in large numbers into India during the 1971 war and shortly after partition. Those people [both Hindus and Muslims] cannot be repatriated to Bangladesh. That is a SC order. Those however who constantly emigrate into India seeking work after the cut-off date remain the subject of contention. It is beyond dispute that the majority if not all of them are Muslim Bangladeshi. If calling a black pot black during elections is offensive then I am at a loss to explain it any more simpler than I have.

It's not a question of calling anything black. If Modi was against illegal immigration, he should have taken a principled stance. The moment he differentiated between Muslim illegals and Hindu illegals, he exposed himself as being just as communal as he accuses others to be, and the subtext of anti-Muslim agenda came through.

A CEO whose staff went on a frolick of their own cannot face vicarious liability. That is the international norm. As I stated earlier, unless somebody can produce any evidence to the contrary, Modi remains exonerated.

As I wrote, this is not about legal charges but moral accountability. When a corporation behaves this badly, the CEO takes the fall, regardless of his personal involvement.

These other candidates failed to meet the Indian expectation. People such as the leader of the AAP Party which took my hometown of Delhi by storm turned out to be a storm in a bottle. He resigned from government when he couldn't get his own way. Truth be told, apart from Modi, the Indian voters of all religions really did not have any other choice. Perhaps Modi may prove them wrong. If so, he will face their wrath in five years time just like the Gandhis and the Yadavs and the Kejriwals did in 2014

I was talking about leaders of other states. There was definitely debate about the performance of other states compared to Gujarat.

So what's wrong in that? Those Hindus and Buddhists who entered India from Bangladesh are not exactly rioting and destroying our property in border states. They are not killing, raping and attacking our people. Then why should we not accept them? If they don't come to India facing persecution, where will they go?

It is our country and we have the right to choose whom we admit and whom we kick out. What's that got to do with your 2 nation theory?

Of course you have the right to decide whom to take but, when you make the distinction based on religion, then it is legitimate for others to point it out.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

The biggest beneficiaries of these special programs are lower caste Hindus, not Muslims, yet Modi personally instituted preferential schemes for Dalits in Gujarat temples.

Let's not kid ourselves: the whole hype about special privileges was an attack on Muslims. Modi and his people weren't too concerned about special privileges for lower caste Hindus.



It's not a question of calling anything black. If Modi was against illegal immigration, he should have taken a principled stance. The moment he differentiated between Muslim illegals and Hindu illegals, he exposed himself as being just as communal as he accuses others to be, and the subtext of anti-Muslim agenda came through.



As I wrote, this is not about legal charges but moral accountability. When a corporation behaves this badly, the CEO takes the fall, regardless of his personal involvement.



I was talking about leaders of other states. There was definitely debate about the performance of other states compared to Gujarat.



Of course you have the right to decide whom to take but, when you make the distinction based on religion, then it is legitimate for others to point it out.

His campaign had to also satisfy his Hindutva supporters. However his emphasis on the economy was the most widely received accolade. Simply put, you cannot compare Gujarat's overall performance to that of the other states. Congress tried desperately to create a differing scenario from the reality during the elections but the BJP debunked their myths time and time over again. Bad comparison I know, but just as you have your ultra conservative Muslim votebank which is critical in Pakistan, Modi leaned on the ultra-conservative Hindu votebank here whilst Congress went for the Muslim vote as usual, hoping that it will be the deciding factor. Both parties were wrong. Whilst Modi couldn't discard his votebank, the Muslims also turned on Congress indicating that they like the rest of India were only interested in a vibrant economic model for the nation. Modi is hopefully smart enough to realize that his Hindutva promises are the furthest thing which brought him into office. He may as well start planning his retirement if he doesn't deliver on his economic promises. The same can't be said for his Hindutva promises

 

[MilSpec]

You can call whatever you like and I have no time to waste going in circles with you.

What you fail to understand is that just because you keep repeating Modi propaganda won't change the documented facts on Modi's campaign.

Once again, all the above statements are DOCUMENTED as part of Modi's campaign.

He DID make communalism (us v/s them) one of the central aspects of his campaign.
He DID make an issue of illegal (Bangladeshis) in the eastern states.
He WAS chief executive of Gujarat when the massacres occured.

He DID make communalism (us v/s them) one of the central aspects of his campaign. No he didn't- Central aspect of his campaign was development and good governance.... us was his brand of gevernance, them was congress utter failure to provide policy reform.

He DID make an issue of illegal (Bangladeshis) in the eastern states.: Because it is a valid issue, immigration reform has been an issue which congress has swept under the rug, and thus was able to generate traction in eastern states.

He WAS chief executive of Gujarat when the massacres occured; yeshe was, COAS of pakistan was Yahya Khan during EP massacre? Governor of california was Pete Wilson, were Yahya Khan or Pete Wilson indicted?

On the flipside I would like to ask; to people who subscribe to the notion of TNT Validation by modi being elected, would TnT be invalid if congress came to power?

 

[shuntmaster]

Theories are proven or disproven.
What has Modis election to PMship of India anything to do with the two nation theory? If the Pakistanis are feeling that it vindicates their country's existence, what was the reasoning for their country's existence from 1947 until now?
The veracity of two nation theory will ever be questioned until majority of Indian Muslims peacefully coexist with their neighbors. That is a big problem to Pakistanis today. They cannot get their head around the fact that Muslims in India live more peaceful and prosperous lives than Muslims in Pakistan. Or, even the fact that Indian Muslims can even support a Hindu nationalist like N. Modi. This goes completely against their worldview.
Didn't the Two nation Theory get dumped into the dustbin of history in 1971?
If religion is the basic foundation for a nation state, why are there 50+ independent Islamic states stretching from Morocco to Malaysia, most having contiguous borders with each other?
The basic premise on which the two nation theory was founded on was the Muslims and Non-Muslims cannot coexist peacefully, and Pakistan was created based on this theory to safeguard the interests of all Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent. Saying that Indian Muslims should coexist with non-Muslims in the Republic of India is negating the Two Nation Theory.
The basic premise the Two Nation Theory is that Muslims and Non-Muslims cannot coexist as one nation and Islamic religion can define the nationhood. This theory stands disproven based on the following three facts:

1. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims, which forms the 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population in the world, are coexisting peacefully with non-Muslim Indians. As long as even 10% of Indian Muslims can live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors in the secular republic of India, the Two Nation Theory stands disproven.
2. The fact that over 50+ Muslim majority independent country's exist in this world also disproves the theory that religion defines the nation. Even Islamic republic of Pakistan shares a border with 2 other Islamic republic, which are very independent. There are dozens of Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Pakistan sharing contiguous borders, but still staying independent. Even in the middle-east, there are over a dozen independent nations, kingdoms and emirates, even though they share a common religion, Arabic culture and history. As long as there are dozens of Independent Muslim nations and not one united Ummah, the two nation theory stands disproven.
3. The presumption that Islamic religion can keep a nation united as one unit was disproven in 1971 by the creation of Bangladesh after its separation from Pakistan. Islam didn't prevent the West-Pakistanis from looking down with contempt their fellow Bangla Muslims and didn't prevent them from committing untold atrocities on them. As long as Bangladesh remains a sovereign independent nation, the Two Nation theory stands disproven.

However, having said the above, irrespective of whether the two nation theory is proven or not, the overwhelming majority of Indians accept the reality of Pakistan and are happy that Pakistan is a separate country. The majority of Indians are indifferent to the current affairs in Pakistan. Their only concern is Pakistan's meddling in Indian affairs and for being a constant pain in the rear.

I hope the Pakistani's are aware of the theory of unintended consequences.. Even if they somehow were to win the Kashmir valley someday by using religion as a tool, they would end up loosing a lot more than they bargained for...
Some of it we are already seeing in the amount of violence we are seeing inside Pakistan today..

 

[Developereo]

He DID make communalism (us v/s them) one of the central aspects of his campaign. No he didn't- Central aspect of his campaign was development and good governance.... us was his brand of gevernance, them was congress utter failure to provide policy reform.

He DID make an issue of illegal (Bangladeshis) in the eastern states.: Because it is a valid issue, immigration reform has been an issue which congress has swept under the rug, and thus was able to generate traction in eastern states.

He WAS chief executive of Gujarat when the massacres occured; yeshe was, COAS of pakistan was Yahya Khan during EP massacre? Governor of california was Pete Wilson, were Yahya Khan or Pete Wilson indicted?

On the flipside I would like to ask; to people who subscribe to the notion of TNT Validation by modi being elected, would TnT be invalid if congress came to power?

My earlier post Modi and the Two-Nation Theory | Page 5 answers these points.

 

[Sergi]

Dear lord !!!! electing Modi has made India a Hindu state I didnt know that.