Deep state threatens India’s national unity

[Ammyy]

The article is not anti-India rather a critical analysis of a particular policy of the current regime in India.

Only if you had read the article instead of researching on the author!

This is anti-India article, BJP not allowing Bangladeshi muslim just for vote bank is one of the proof that they are real nationalist party unlike MF congress and TMC who can sell this country just for vote bank.

 

[extra terrestrial]

This is anti-India article, BJP not allowing Bangladeshi muslim just for vote bank is one of the proof that they are real nationalist party unlike MF congress and TMC who can sell this country just for vote bank.

You are seriously obsessed with us, aren't you?

The so called illegal Bangladeshi immigrants issue is just a part of the analysis, you failed to understand the main argument. To serve their own interest, the current government is running those anti-Muslim propagandas and raising a sense of panic and threat among the majority against the Muslims. This would ultimately doom the whole nation. India has a significant Muslim population, turning them against the nation would get you no where. How far these Hindu extremist forces could go is quite clearly explained by this last few lines of the article:

"While Veer Savarkar, a Hindu nationalist, gave a call for militarizing the Hindus to reinforce British effort of suppressing Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle, there is documentary evidence of BJP ideologue Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s advice to the Imperial Bengal Governor on possible ways of breaking the morale of freedom fighters."

 

[Narashima]

You are seriously obsessed with us, aren't you?

The so called illegal Bangladeshi immigrants issue is just a part of the analysis, you failed to understand the main argument. To serve their own interest, the current government is running those anti-Muslim propagandas and raising a sense of panic and threat among the majority against the Muslims. This would ultimately doom the whole nation. India has a significant Muslim population, turning them against the nation would get you no where. How far these Hindu extremist forces could go is quite clearly explained by this last few lines of the article:

"While Veer Savarkar, a Hindu nationalist, gave a call for militarizing the Hindus to reinforce British effort of suppressing Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle, there is documentary evidence of BJP ideologue Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s advice to the Imperial Bengal Governor on possible ways of breaking the morale of freedom fighters."

Not against muslims but against bangladeshi muslims. Learn the difference.

 

[extra terrestrial]

Not against muslims but against bangladeshi muslims. Learn the difference.

Read the article buddy!

And then, you feel threatened only when you consider yourself inferior!

 

[dray]

The article is not anti-India rather a critical analysis of a particular policy of the current regime in India.

Only if you had read the article instead of researching on the author!

I maintain certain minimum standard in terms of what I read.

 

[extra terrestrial]

I maintain certain minimum standard in terms of what I read.

Great then!

Hope that standard is not defined by certain keywords!

 

[haviZsultan]

It is deep bias that enables Sindhi Hindus to acquire citizenship but does not allow Bengali Muslims to do the same. India is indeed not a secular state but a Hindu state. I have noticed this constantly. Its people do not have the psyche of secular people and ideology.

India may claim to be secular but it is a Hindu state with only limited rights provided to the Muslim and other communities.

 

[jamahir]

First of all I like the idea of socialism...Even i am with you...

thank you for that... however...

I am for a nation when interests are decided based on the class of people

1. socialism is for the eradication of nations and nationalism... so, when a socialist republic exists, it exists as a base from where socialism is forwarded to other nations to bring them into socialism too.

2. socialism exists for the removal of class... all humans are equal in justice and quality of life... a true communist society is one with class.

Nehru started with the socialism concept at start

nehru did not bring in socialism... i have had to declare this many times on pdf... i am socialist and i tell you that nehru did not bring socialism... simple example... did he shut down the bombay stock exchange ( capitalist ) which was established in 1875... he did not.

India can not develop with major section of the society is backward....

that is the problem of indian "muslims"... there have been entire muslim socialist republics in the world since 1945.

Mohd Bin Quasim or all Islamic invaders are outsiders to my nation....They are invaders..

so is hinduism... so were britishers... but many indian hindus have more loyalty to usa and britain than to the idea of a progressed and just india.

Try to understand the perspective why we are against Mohd Bin Quasim...Islamic invaders and the legacy we are objecting because they have caused destrction of Hindu's cultural sentiment in the ancient histroy...That is why I am opposing it...

just a few days ago, we had this... ( Death, hunger stalk Indian tea-estate workers ).

those 69 tea plantation workers and their family members died of hunger in darjeeling... in 2014... yet, the nearest dogs and gods ( in temples ) would be "offered" food... islam promoted action against idolatry for a practical and scientific reason.

Because Islam has caused destruction of Hindus from last 1000 years...

civilization came to india five times... the greeks of alexander the great, the early christians, muslim conquerors and sufis, the britishers, the naxalites in present times.

----------

please do read these, if you want a socialist/communist humanity...

1. The Worldwide Government | Page 3

2. proposal for a new division of south asia | Page 10

 

[Judge]

It is deep bias that enables Sindhi Hindus to acquire citizenship but does not allow Bengali Muslims to do the same. India is indeed not a secular state but a Hindu state. I have noticed this constantly. Its people do not have the psyche of secular people and ideology.

India may claim to be secular but it is a Hindu state with only limited rights provided to the Muslim and other communities.

You need to read of what Secularism means.
It means that a State has to have equal laws for its own citizens, not foreigners.

Indian laws are equal for Indian Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Budhists.
That means that Indian State is not obliged to treat foreigners equally. We can give any amount of rights to Sindhi Hindus and persecute Bangladeshi Muslims. Both are legal and has nothing to do with Secularism or lack thereof.

 

[jamahir]

You need to read of what Secularism means.
It means that a State has to have equal laws for its own citizens, not foreigners.

Indian laws are equal for Indian Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Budhists.
That means that Indian State is not obliged to treat foreigners equally. We can give any amount of rights to Sindhi Hindus and persecute Bangladeshi Muslims. Both are legal and has nothing to do with Secularism or lack thereof.

he meant hindus from pakistan's province of sindh... am i correct, @haviZsultan ??

 

[haviZsultan]

he meant hindus from pakistan's province of sindh... am i correct, @haviZsultan ??

You are absolutely right. Both my parents were born in Lucknow and surrounding areas. I initially thought there was much to learn from India's model of secularism but am quite saddened by the lack of secularism in India. People still have to believe in the concept which is actually very great.

There is a pervasive bias right there where Hindus are given citizenship but the same not allowed of Muslims. There are cries of illegal immigrant the moment the Bangladeshi migrant sets foot in those parts.

 

[Judge]

he meant hindus from pakistan's province of sindh... am i correct, @haviZsultan ??

Yes. I understood it as that - the Hindus from Pakistans province of Sindh.

 

[Judge]

You are absolutely right. Both my parents were born in Lucknow and surrounding areas. I initially thought there was much to learn from India's model of secularism but am quite saddened by the lack of secularism in India. People still have to believe in the concept which is actually very great.

There is a pervasive bias right there where Hindus are given citizenship but the same not allowed of Muslims. There are cries of illegal immigrant the moment the Bangladeshi migrant sets foot in those parts.

Again, Secularism is for Indian citizens and Indian citizens only.
We are free to choose and discriminate between non-Indian citizens legally - a sovereign right.

 

[jamahir]

but am quite saddened by the lack of secularism in India.

india has "indian secularism" which is the root cause of all of india's ills... indian "secularism" laws promote the nonsense of hinduism and the nonsense of indian "muslims"... so, there is the gay ram sena on one side and the she-male "dukhtaraan e millat" on the other side.

what india needs immediately is hardcore socialism.

Again, Secularism is for Indian citizens and Indian citizens only.
We are free to choose and discriminate between non-Indian citizens legally - a sovereign right.

others can actually see the hypocrisy in that statement, you know.

 

[Judge]

others can actually see the hypocrisy in that statement, you know.

People see what they want to see.
My statement is quite clear and factual.

The Constitution of India promises Secularism to Indian citizens. At no point does it ask India to treat non-citizens(individually or as a State) with equality or secularism. What citizens get as Rights, non citizens may or may not get as privileges.

There is zero hypocrisy.