«12. . .194195196197198199200. . .3,3783,379»
This is not my personal opinion against Muslims or minorities in India.However,the issue of rights for Muslims should be at the discretion of the other inhabitants including Hindus and the other ethno-linguistic and religious groups because the India(Congress) accepted the two-nation theory in late 1947 and so did Muslim League,which was the spokesperson of all the Muslim groups in India at the nation level atleast in 1947.Now,compulsory rights to Muslims should have been the thing if they had stuck onto their earlier demand of separate states within the Indian framework of nation.So,if we accept the existence of Pakistan we are not bound to give compulsory rights to Muslims since the general notion of carving out India was that Muslims are a separate state.Now,if we do not accept the existence of Pakistan,I guess Muslims surely deserve equal rights as all other groups in India.
PICS OF NATIONAL SEALS
Post self-deleted by The socialist union of india.
No group doesn't deserve rights. By this logic, immigrants in the US are not entitled to rights simply because they can "go back to their own countries". Hindu nationalists are quick to deny rights to Muslims when they fail to realize that overcoming racism is how their counterparts in the US became so successful.
I am not familiar with Indian laws; if you have more familiarity, I would love to hear a potential redraft.
Also, I based this bill on the US Civil Rights Act and UN Declaration of Human Rights, which I believe are strong precedents. What do you find vague about it specifically? I could probably clear up specific portions of it if I knew what specifically is vague.
Post self-deleted by Hind swarajya.
You make a good point, but one's person's actions should not affect the entire community, which is exactly the case right now. One's person's actions are potentially preventing us from establishing relations with other regions, and is preventing regional growth. As I have said earlier, when I was applying for an embassy with Canada, a nation from that region saw Kumbhalgarh's hateful comments and expressed concern. What if that were a nation who wanted to join India? What if that affected our embassy relations with Canada? This directly affects other nations.
I agree that public shaming and other consequences may prevent such actions, but how can we be sure? Keep in mind that we sent stern warnings to a previous nation who lambasted South Indians. Public shaming has not scared anyone, and I don't think it will in the future. I didn't release this law earlier because I didn't believe that it would happen again, given that we gave the first nation who spoke hatefully about a group a stern warning; I assumed it would deter other nations, but it didn't. I have become skeptical of how effective this tactic is.
Right now, there exists no means of punishment for nations who do this. There is no mechanism through which we can prevent groups from being offended. I think this is a problem, and no one else is offering alternative solutions; they are resorting to simply calling it perceived vagueness in my bill without proposing alternate methods to prevent people from being offended. I draw the line between personal accusations (which are vague and therefore cannot be regulated) and accusations against an entire group.
Speech is inherently not hostile, but the feelings of entire groups matter. We need to promote a culture of respect in this region, and instead we are letting nations who speak hatefully off the hook. Some of the most democratic institutions in the world have stringent laws against hate speech to prevent demagougery and offending other groups. Call me too politically correct, but I do not think we should allow nations to hurt the sentiments of entire groups.
how about having supreme courts and high court
since if government makes a mistake
we can file a case and court gives us the judgement
A MESSAGE FROM YOUR MINISTER OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:
Hello all!
I have currently released a poll on the regional page. The poll asks if officers should be given more authority to suppress hate speech, or they shouldn't.
As someone who has witnessed nations and potential regional allies being deterred from our humble region due to the words of a few, I believe that citizens should vote "YEA" on this bill. We need to build a culture of respect and tolerance in this region, and take care not to offend entire groups, which could harm embassy relations or deter nations from coming here. In the national interest, I believe this is the best option. The opposition is not offering an alternative solution to the solution I have proposed. I urge all citizens to vote "YEA" before the poll closes in 3 days. Doing so will help promote regional growth and embassy relations, which is exactly what I have promised in my candidacy for Minister of State for External Affairs.
it can be anything from
disputes between two nations to india vs rest
justice should be equal
irrespective of caste,creed,religion
justice does not look us ministers . we were just normal citizens before becoming ministers
i personally support your bill as i am minister of social justice and welfare
and i will pass it even if it is not supported by our nations using the ordinance route
America is a nation built by immigrants.Yes,they replaced the natives so there is no question of someone granting them rights.Now,in your argument you are assuming the white men from Europe is the new native and owner of the United States of America.It is not wrong at all,they are indeed the owners of USA.Coming to the question of other migrants who went to USA after the nation was established.These groups- East Bengalis,Chinese,Japs,and other non-European groups derive their rights(at the discretion of other groups) from the Constitution which was framed by the Founding fathers to accommodate the different ethno-linguistic groups from Europe who were prevalent during the War of Independence.They had the French Revolution in mind rather than the racial integration theories which emerged much later.Another thing,USA was built by white men who had shared more or less same culture and historical experience back in the old continent and it was the spirit of Protestantism which drove the nation for most of its part.The liberal show is just a post WWII or most specifically a post 1970 PR thing that they are running.As for Muslims in India,there is a fundamental problem.When ethno-linguistic groups settled in USA.Even though there were linguistic divisions which shaped neighbourhoods at the beginning,they started to identify and integrate with the larger white people's community and saw themselves as Americans.Muslims on the other hand,wherever they went carried with them the burden of all 3 cultures-Arabic,Turkish and Persian and tried to shape the societies which gave them shelter.Bangladeshi Muslims,Indonesian Muslims,Latin American Muslims even though accepted Islam,they were later forced to change their fundamental tradition culture and much of their language to suit the framework of Arabo Turko-Persian.Plus,you have those personal courts which are horrendous.The fact that a Muslim must be given permission to have his own court to try even murder accused and a Muslim man in Uk can just divorce his wife by uttering three words,whereas all other groups need to follow the English Common Law and he must be given permission to have his own court to try even murder accused is utterly ridiculously.I am a Hindu by birth and I eat all kinds of meat and am very much open to criticize my own religion.But that trend does not exist in even the so called moderate Muslims,they would not sit with me if they suspect the meat is not halal and cannot even self criticize or accept any kind of criticism against Islam.The conclusion is they are simply incapable of integrating into other societies and the constant struggle is to change it.Now,the fact why Muslims have done so well in USA? First,it is a quite over-generalized statement.There are plenty of Muslims who barely make a living and on the other hand,many of them are rich and well educated.This has to do with the general economic situation and population in a particular country.USA has much less population,a history of sucking out resources from other countries and a much stable society.In India on the other hand,you got thousands of ethno-linguistic groups,religions,population and an unstable standard of living.However,the number of well off Muslims are higher in India,considering the population.The victim picture is something politicians have used since the 1930s and it is still at play.
Islam has been going through its Dark Ages. It is in fact undergoing a revolution that I think is ultimately for its own good. Now as we see it going through its fast paced evolutions, we can see certain things that may not be palatable to our more sensitised eyes however that does not mean we have a right to condemn Islam or Muslims.
Every culture has had its Dark Ages and Renaissance. The European culture had its thousand years of Dark Ages when they were more brutal than any ISIS or Taliban could imagine. Entire populations were wiped off. Then there came a Renaissance that was worth all the trouble.
India had its Dark Ages when Caste systems and terrible norms like Sati were very prevalent. Then there came a revival period led by greats like Swami Vivekananda.
Now when Islam is going through its Dark Ages, we should be supportive of the moderate elements, in minority now, but who would come to be the majority in a short time. Because that is the nature of human society.
Now to the people who are mistrusting Muslims and having notions of negativity towards them, I understand how you may feel justified seeing the activities of so many hateful groups in the world, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban to name a few. However I would like to point out that what you hate says a lot more about you than about the object of your hatred.
Hate the violence, not the violent.
Every person has the capability to be better, that is the basic tenet of every faith system in the world, be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism or anything. So when you have an irrational hatred towards any group through generalization you are just showing the evil in your own heart.
Personally I have always followed the principle of treating a person not how you think he deserves to be treated but as per the standards you set for yourself. The way you interact with anybody should be based on your principles on how to interact and not based on what you think the other person deserves to be treated. That way you can treat a beggar and a billionaire with the same standards.
Nirupama Sir,
Not very long ago,I had the same notion as you.However,I would say bringing the concept of a compartmentalized development of a religion is a bit over simplification and somewhat tries to mimic Marx's mode of production model and civilization.The concept of a European Dark Age is 'modern construct' and heavily relies on the existence of the glorious Hellenic civilization and the Roman Empire.The method of proselytizing was mostly by sword.However,started with the establishment of a Catholic church sponsored parish in a non-christian region led by a mercenary turned priest who would go on insulting the local gods.The local chiefs would offer these priests protection for the fat tributes from the church.Next,would be carving out a separate space within that region and then getting as many converts as possible.The final step would be to get troops from the nearest Christianized ruler and destruction of all pagan monuments and symbols and people given the choice to either get killed or embrace Christianity. This was how the religion was spread across Sweden,Norway,Frisia,Finland,Prague,Bohemia,Scotland,England(it was more of a bribe and then top down killing spree by the kings).If you visit these countries you will still find a small pagan community who have left Christianity recently.So,the supposed Dark Ages was when Christianity was spread.Coming to Islam,it had its glorious era (approx. at the same time) under the Arabic Khalifas and had became the world's centre of learning and culture.The Turkish and Mongols period were the Dark Ages when everything was spread by sword-going by your notion that same era is continuing till today.As for Hinduism,it is not a religion in the first place.But a mash up of regional scared traditions so as to fit the Abrahamic template of organized religion.The idea of caste is also the same and is based on racial identification system of Casta developed by the Portuguese and Spanish to identify mixed race offsprings from the pure ones(mainly in South America and during their earlier reign in Asia.) Infact,what they took was the idea of varna and jatis.Varna was a concept which never existed in reality(as they found in the initial censuses,no one identified with the four fold varna system).As for jatis,they were communities comprising of religion,language,ethnicity,profession.H.H. Rishley had an oppession to combine Darwin's theory with Vedic texts and ethography and his sole ambition was to create an uniform identifiable structure of the Indian society.He was so obnoxious that he identified and tabulated data on people according to the size of their nose,skin and size of skull.These were published and the justification of British rule was thus given,that since a distant cousin of the British-the Aryans(acc. to their nose index,skin colour and skull size) conquered the Dravidians long time back,they had the casus belli to rule over the lesser minded Dravidians(while completely ignoring the rich collection of Sangam literature).The caste became the thing after the publication of the census and when people saw special privileges begin granted by the British to higher castes they opened up caste associations to discuss,debates and mail petitions to change their castes.Thus,the idea of caste became an issue and the idea of a supposed Dark Age of India came into existence.Scholars like Susan Bayly and Nicohlas Dirks who are the opposite side of an academic debate/war on the issue of caste believe that caste never existed in ancient or medieval India.As for Islam,I guess it is still going through the Dark Ages ever since the times of Turks and Mongols.
*obsession
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq_WBx3u6V23Bcs3bFX7y_A
CHECK OUT MY YTUBE CHANNEL
NEW MAP MADE
While modern day self styled ' Hindu nationalists' might want to believe this, this is a completely misguided point of view. While Pakistan certainly accepted the two nation theory on the basis of religion, and India (under duress) did accept the idea of a Muslim homeland, there was never an acceptance of India as a Hindu homeland. The constitution as it was originally conceived guarantees the right of freedom of religion as well as right of equality. An amendment to the preamble of the Indian constitution proclaims it as a "secular" state. So to assume that rights of any religious groups need approval by another - majority or minority, is in itself a falsehood perpetrated primarily to assert a few fringe elements' interpretation of nationhood on the nation.
I'd ideally not have any restriction on free speech as long as there is no incitement to violence (while I wholly accept that that is not the stance law takes in many countries - including the courts in India) . The recommendation was that if you think it should be restricted, you should probably term it such that the right to free speech will be accepted as a fundamental right as long as it does not violate other fundamental rights or contravenes fundamental duties. The Constitution of India is a good guide (and quite brief - if you want to refer it).
I find the phrase " could potentially offend " extremely worrisome. This essentially negates the possibility for any criticism.
You see the Congress was always dominated by a large lobby of zamindar,nobility,ex-nobility and at the end,mainly applicable in Bengal's case the idea was to give away East Bengal for a limited period of time.In the final Act Congress mentioned(in a clause) the handful of Muslim majority states which formed Pakistan may join back the Indian Union in the future.The Birlas and the Jalans coordinated with the Hindu Mahasabha to form an elaborate partition propaganda in Bengal that presented partiton as the final solution to the problem of Muslim dominance.They always had the intention of re-integrating the Eastern part back as a huge chunk of their business interests were based in and around Eastern Bengal.A similiar arrangement was worked out in Punjab with the local industrialists again playing a major role.Now,the Congress high command which had alientated itself from the both Punjab and Bengal local governments had no other choices and amidst the pressure reluctantly agreed to the League's demand.Interestingly,Jinnah was quite reluctant to ask for a separate state until very late 1947 and the Gov. general gave him one day's time to make an announcement.Anyway,since he was officially representing all the Muslim regional parties at a national level,his decision was the Muslim demand for a separate state.Now,in both Bengal and Punjab there were Muslim governments in power since the start of electoral process in India.In Bengal particularly,even in the early forties during the American occupation of Calcutta there was a massive drive by Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy government to undermine the status of the Hindu population and Krishak Party sponsored criminals would go around Hindu neighbourhoods and literally hurl abuses at them and even commit a diverse range of petty crimes.I.B. records declassified in the 1990s show destruction of crucial criminal records of Muslim gang leaders.Interestingly,this attitude was the starting point of hatred towards the Muslims in the Empire's second metropole.And when this entire crop of Muslim leadership got transplanted to East Pakistan,the attitude more or less remained the same.After every Friday prayer hordes of Muslims would go out and hurls abuses at Hindus and even abduct them.This became a friday mass murder entertainer during the various events like the Bhasa Andolan,1965 war,Hyderabad Police Action,1971.Hindus living in East Pakistan would frequently hear this silky threat from theie known fellow Bengalis- "You daughter is growing up,get her married to my son." If they didnt,some would be kidnapped and even raped.Unfortunately,these are not widely reported or discussed by the pretentious academic scholars of our country.Hindus were safe only in historic Hindu stronghold areas in East Pakistan,which were first targeted after Yahya's army first moved in.Partition Archives is a good place to start with if someone is willing to learn about the period( never believe in a single document or oral narrative,but a large number of sample to get a general trend).So,yes the Congress had the intention of re-integrating back the states that went into Pakistan,so the secular constitution.One thing must be remembered that the constitution was trying to appease a diverse ethno-lingusitic groups so its tone at that time had to be 'secular and appeasing.' Muslims in India are at a far better condition.I know plenty of well off Muslims who get extremely high education and are highly placed.Religious discrimination against Muslims is something that has ceased to the point of reaction in the cities and mostly prevalent in the segregated rural structure.I belief Hindu nationalists groups no matter how insane they are,is an useful counter to the Islamic aggression(extremism) in India.Anyway,India is running 10 puppet states directly from New Delhi whose governments and electoral processes are just pretentious shows of Indian democracy and federal structure(Go figure the states please).Their basic amenities and even food supply is decided in AC offices in New Delhi bypassing all local demands and needs.Guess what they do not even have permission to setup proper media infrastructure other than a generalized government sponsored DD.So we are already living in a state where a good junk of the population is living according to the diktat provided by other groups.Sometimes,I think how many Indias are there in India and what all were we taught while growing up.
«12. . .194195196197198199200. . .3,3783,379»
Advertisement
