Don't vote for BJP, it will impose a Hindu CM, Only a Muslim can become CM in J&K: PDP leader

[Parul]

Oh God!!!! You are sooooo dumb yourself you are calling me dumb

If a persons identity is judged by his profile pic then we have @ranjeet himself amongst us, not to mension Amitabhh Bachhan as in @shanhensha and also soooo many Jinnahs

I am not a Punjabbi my dearest friend.

But whatever you have written shows ur class... perhaps some of our Punjabi friends can help you out @Sidak @Abingdonboy

Their ain't point on wasting energy in explaining things to ........... It's better to ignore them.

 

[ranjeet]

Oh God!!!! You are sooooo dumb yourself you are calling me dumb

If a persons identity is judged by his profile pic then we have @ranjeet himself amongst us, not to mension Amitabhh Bachhan as in @shanhensha and also soooo many Jinnahs

I am not a Punjabbi my dearest friend.

But whatever you have written shows ur class... perhaps some of our Punjabi friends can help you out @Sidak @Abingdonboy

I take objection to what you tried to convey here ...

but I wouldn't mind taking our beloved mujahid on a ride. If you know what I mean.

 

[SQ8]

hey Oscar, Hindus are 1/3rd of Jammu and Kashmir's population, its not appropriate to say they don't deserve to become CM of that state.

It has nothing to do with deserve or appropriate. It has to do with the perception within the majority. Whether they consider it appropriate or not. Whether their(the majority's) opinion is morally and ethically correct is irrelevant to the person's deserving it or not.

 

[Tridibans]

I take objection to what you tried to convey here ...

but I wouldn't mind taking our beloved mujahid on a ride. If you know what I mean.

Arey I meant not everybody is the same person as in the profile pic like you

 

[Tridibans]

It has nothing to do with deserve or appropriate. It has to do with the perception within the majority. Whether they consider it appropriate or not. Whether their(the majority's) opinion is morally and ethically correct is irrelevant to the person's deserving it or not.

Actually your argument is flawed in a democratic setup. If a party attains majority, it means it HAS the support of the majority de facto. Its upto the party then to decide the leader.

 

[SQ8]

If Abdul Rahman Antulay could be the CM of Maharashtra, Mohammad Koya could be the CM of Kerala, Anowar Taimur could be the CM of Asam then why cant a minority become the CM of J&K? Its up to the people of J&K to decide. Our constitution does not discriminate on the basis of caste, race, religion or language.

Your constitution has NOTHING to do with how the person on the ground feels. If the Indian people were literal translations of their constitution there would be NO communal riots, NO Caste discrimination, No Ethnic issues, NO class discrimination and so on.
The State's ethos and character does not always mean that it will reflect on the nation of people that reside in it. And this stark reality is not confined to India but to all states in the world. Just because the state feels that Muslims, Hindus and all others are equal citizens of the state it does not imply that you or any ABC Indian would automatically agree with it. Hence, any appointment of a deserving, meritorious CM does not mean that it will be seen that way.

 

[INDIC]

It has nothing to do with deserve or appropriate. It has to do with the perception within the majority. Whether they consider it appropriate or not. Whether their(the majority's) opinion is morally and ethically correct is irrelevant to the person's deserving it or not.

In many Hindu majority states of India, there had been numerous Muslim/Christian Chief Ministers. What you said just a set of stereotype and suspicion, no law can stop people from minority community from holding the highest post.

 

[SQ8]

sir there are all types of people within the society , there are a large chunk of people within hindu and muslim community who want to slice each others throat , so its not a crime for political parties to be opportunistic here and use these stupids for electoral benefits by adding a 'i am your own' line in their 45 min speech to make these fools happy . But once in office they will have to be fair and responsible to maintain peace no matter what their voters expected from them at the time of vote . We will have to wait for people in our part of the world to become mature enough to understand that merit is the only thing they need to consider while casting their vote . In india during 2014 except hindi belt in most of the states mandate was given for better governance and anti congress for policy paralysis . And point to be noted is a lot of states in the hindi belt are backward and thus communal flare ups , hindutva politics works fine there . It will take some time for people in these region to understand that mandirs and masjids are not going help change their lifes in any way .

a smart man will vote for electricity and water .

A smart man will vote for electricity and water but provided that the smart men exist in that number. When votes can be influenced via a plate of free food still in a large section of India then the stupid people as you point out will continue to exist and will continue to use emotions rather than logic to decide.

 

[SQ8]

In many Hindu majority states of India, there had been numerous Muslim/Christian Chief Ministers. What you said just a set of stereotype and suspicion, no law can stop people from minority community from holding the highest post.

Yes it is. As I have stated clearly before... the Law has zilch to do with the mentality of people. Common sense is NOT common.

 

[Ammyy]

It has nothing to do with deserve or appropriate. It has to do with the perception within the majority. Whether they consider it appropriate or not. Whether their(the majority's) opinion is morally and ethically correct is irrelevant to the person's deserving it or not.

Its on elected legislators to decide their leader, we dnt have presidential type election system.

Announcement of leader before election is symbolic

 

[SQ8]

Actually your argument is flawed in a democratic setup. If a party attains majority, it means it HAS the support of the majority de facto. Its upto the party then to decide the leader.

Not it isn't. The argument has LITTLE to do with democratic mechanics. It has to do with highlighting the core issues that lie with the popular acceptance of a minority leader within the majority of a populous.

 

[Tridibans]

Your constitution has NOTHING to do with how the person on the ground feels. If the Indian people were literal translations of their constitution there would be NO communal riots, NO Caste discrimination, No Ethnic issues, NO class discrimination and so on.
The State's ethos and character does not always mean that it will reflect on the nation of people that reside in it. And this stark reality is not confined to India but to all states in the world. Just because the state feels that Muslims, Hindus and all others are equal citizens of the state it does not imply that you or any ABC Indian would automatically agree with it. Hence, any appointment of a deserving, meritorious CM does not mean that it will be seen that way.

Everything is fine and I agree overall with what you posted. But being a Pakistani, you won't be able to grasp the Indian mindset or our election process. There was a time when caste/ creed/ religion was epitome in elections. Even now it is true for certain areas. But you cannot say that for India as a whole.

 

[ranjeet]

Arey I meant not everybody is the same person as in the profile pic like you

phir theek hai nahi .. toh aapa lamba pa lena aye is jihadi nu !!!

 

[Yogijaat]

Your constitution has NOTHING to do with how the person on the ground feels. If the Indian people were literal translations of their constitution there would be NO communal riots, NO Caste discrimination, No Ethnic issues, NO class discrimination and so on.
The State's ethos and character does not always mean that it will reflect on the nation of people that reside in it. And this stark reality is not confined to India but to all states in the world. Just because the state feels that Muslims, Hindus and all others are equal citizens of the state it does not imply that you or any ABC Indian would automatically agree with it. Hence, any appointment of a deserving, meritorious CM does not mean that it will be seen that way.

CM means little in India. Power is decentralized in our system.

 

[SQ8]

Its on elected legislators to decide their leader, we dnt have presidential type election system.

Announcement of leader before election is symbolic

Again, the issue with many Indians in general is that they take arguments on a very tangential level of critique and find it offensive rather than realizing the issue being pointed out.

The argument here has NOTHING to do with the constitution of India, nor the democratic system it abides to.. nor the merit/demerit of appointing who from where from a performance perspective.

It has to do with the emotional response of the population being governed and their perspective on the candidate to govern them; the reasons for that response and its effects on their rejection of even valid performance by the candidate.