Muslim Indians Should Demand A Seperate Nation:--

[MastanKhan]

Some 90% of the discussion over the last 24 hours has been with 'that type'. The funniest was when one of them picked up a sarcasm addressed to a Muslim, and rushed to conclude that i was Muslim myself. That does not mean that I would be ashamed to be Muslim if I was one; it means that i found that their thought processes were illustrative.

Hi,

Well---count me in as well---a few times I have been called an indian agent over here---much to my " shocking surprise ".

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is a fairy tale fantasy alright that you don't blame the people actually tasked with the duty to deal with these matters & concern yourselves solely with the man that you do not like & wish to blame even if the only blame to be apportioned is on the basis of some moral failing.

I'm suggesting that behaviour like this gives a free pass to those actually involved, whether it be the likes of the Shiv sena or the Sanathan Samsta or even state governments who fail in their duty like U.P. & Karnataka. Why should they not actually sit back & watch more such incidents happen because they know that they are not the ones going to be blamed for it. There is a ready scapegoat available.

It befuddles me that you can't see my point.

It isn't that I can't see your point.

It's just that these exchanges remind me of having to see the principal, encounters that I remember with a great deal of feeling. You do realise that you bob up on my radar only to read me a stern lesson on virtuous deeds not done, and venalities left uncorrected. So if I take a little time to agree, chalk it off to a frantic search for tenable excuses.

I'm thinking of what you said. Very hard. And I always do, even if I seem to be resisting every homily.

It is true - it's transparent to the world - that I dislike Modi and do not believe that any good will come out of this current escapade. I suppose I should take on board the fact that he is not the sole horror stalking around, and presumably it also requires an explicit genuflection in the direction of the other skeletons in his cupboard.

Saw that. Not to worry, I have been a Christian many times, a Congresi, a Sangi chaddi wala, a Hindutvadi fanatic.....

I accept all compliments...

This one, and the encounter with a bloke calling himself Indian Patriot, were the funniest; that other was also deflating, an excellent thing for overblown egos like mine.

 

[Bang Galore]

@Joe Shearer

Something I read, relevant to a thread like this

"If you follow partisanship to the extreme, this is where you end up: Israel-Palestine, Serbia-Albania, Ajax-Feyenoord, Sox-Yankees, Republicans-Democrats (add pro Modi-anti Modi, pro Congress - anti congress). You get to a place where you don't merely disagree with your opponents, you actively disbelieve in their basic humanity."

 

[Sky lord]

@Joe Shearer

Something I read, relevant to a thread like this

"If you follow partisanship to the extreme, this is where you end up: Israel-Palestine, Serbia-Albania, Ajax-Feyenoord, Sox-Yankees, Republicans-Democrats (add pro Modi-anti Modi, pro Congress - anti congress). You get to a place where you don't merely disagree with your opponents, you actively disbelieve in their basic humanity."

Most needed.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1058923757472280

 

[Musafir117]

For Hyderabad and Lakhnow it's time to un leash Owaesi brothers @I.S.I send some boys there while I'm thinking what would be new name of separate land for Indian Muslims.

 

[haviZsultan]

Constitutional discrimination doesn't happen in India, unlike Pakistan, there are no class of citizens, The constitution of India treats everyone equally.

Law and order is a challenge, which is an inherent for a country that houses 1/6th of the planet's population, but then again for a much smaller populace like Pakistan, (which btw constitutionally discriminates among it's citizenry) law and order is an even bigger problem....

If the constitution guarantees everyone equality why is there a type of Hinduization in constitution. You must admit that in many ways Hindus are favored. The biggest example is the cow slaughter ban and its imposition in a muslim majority region like Kashmir.

Being truthful I would say that partly the constitution gives muslims rights-but points where particularly Hindu and Muslim thought clashes the Hindu ideology or thinking is favored. I shouldn't blame India because its the case even in democratic Islamic nations. A kind of majoritarianism rules rather than proper secularism which I vouch for.

If India would really be secular than being secular in lip service RSS would be the first organization banned. Another thing is that all people in a secular society are equal. Even if there is a beef ban it should include a pork ban. Otherwise there should be no ban either on beef or pork. Thats how a secular society actually runs. Please all or none at all.

For Hyderabad and Lakhnow it's time to un leash Owaesi brothers @I.S.I send some boys there while I'm thinking what would be new name of separate land for Indian Muslims.

We call Lucknow Awadh-Its the historical name. As for Hyderabad they look up to the Nizams. But the name is Deccan republic or Azad Hyderabad. I have been in contact with both movements.

 

[vsdoc]

@Joe Shearer

Something I read, relevant to a thread like this

"If you follow partisanship to the extreme, this is where you end up: Israel-Palestine, Serbia-Albania, Ajax-Feyenoord, Sox-Yankees, Republicans-Democrats (add pro Modi-anti Modi, pro Congress - anti congress). You get to a place where you don't merely disagree with your opponents, you actively disbelieve in their basic humanity."

There are two extremes of the political and social discourse in India today, and they are both the fringe. One fringe cries louder when the central pendulum moves its way, that's all.

The nation resides in the center, just left or right.

 

[JohnyD]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride:
If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side,:
If, Ifs and Ands were pots and pans,
there'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

 

[MilSpec]

If the constitution guarantees everyone equality why is there a type of Hinduization in constitution. You must admit that in many ways Hindus are favored. The biggest example is the cow slaughter ban and its imposition in a muslim majority region like Kashmir.

Being truthful I would say that partly the constitution gives muslims rights-but points where particularly Hindu and Muslim thought clashes the Hindu ideology or thinking is favored. I shouldn't blame India because its the case even in democratic Islamic nations. A kind of majoritarianism rules rather than proper secularism which I vouch for.

If India would really be secular than being secular in lip service RSS would be the first organization banned. Another thing is that all people in a secular society are equal. Even if there is a beef ban it should include a pork ban. Otherwise there should be no ban either on beef or pork. Thats how a secular society actually runs.


We call Lucknow Awadh-Its the historical name. As for Hyderabad they look up to the Nizams. But the name is Deccan republic or Azad Hyderabad. I have been in contact with both movements.

No, it is more to do with your lack of understanding of what really is the constitution w.r.t to cow slaughter.
"The "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, veterinary training and practice" is Entry 15 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, meaning that State Legislatures have exclusive powers to legislate the prevention of slaughter and preservation of cattle."

No state law explicitly bans the consumption of beef. There is a lack of uniformity among State laws governing cattle slaughter. The strictest laws are in Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, where the slaughter of cow and its progeny, including bulls and bullocks of all ages, is completely banned. Most States prohibit the slaughter of cows of all ages. However, Assam and West Bengal permit the slaughter of cows of over the ages of 10 and 14 years, respectively. Most States prohibit the slaughter of calves, whether male or female. With the exception of Bihar and Rajasthan, where age of a calf is given as below 3 years, the other States have not defined the age of a calf. According to the National Commission on Cattle, the definition of a calf being followed in Maharashtra, by some executive instructions, was "below the age of 1 year"

 

[Musafir117]

If the constitution guarantees everyone equality why is there a type of Hinduization in constitution. You must admit that in many ways Hindus are favored. The biggest example is the cow slaughter ban and its imposition in a muslim majority region like Kashmir.

Being truthful I would say that partly the constitution gives muslims rights-but points where particularly Hindu and Muslim thought clashes the Hindu ideology or thinking is favored. I shouldn't blame India because its the case even in democratic Islamic nations. A kind of majoritarianism rules rather than proper secularism which I vouch for.

If India would really be secular than being secular in lip service RSS would be the first organization banned. Another thing is that all people in a secular society are equal. Even if there is a beef ban it should include a pork ban. Otherwise there should be no ban either on beef or pork. Thats how a secular society actually runs. Please all or none at all.


We call Lucknow Awadh-Its the historical name. As for Hyderabad they look up to the Nizams. But the name is Deccan republic or Azad Hyderabad. I have been in contact with both movements.

Azad Hyderabad is so simple name, the Deccan is same as Hyderabad Deccen? I put this quiry at
AIMIM home page and asked them if they already chosen a name.

 

[haviZsultan]

Azad Hyderabad is so simple name, the Deccan is same as Hyderabad Deccen? I put this quiry at
AIMIM home page and asked them if they already chosen a name.

AIMIM is not committed to Deccan independence but is muslim nationalist. They ask for things like reservations for muslims-government jobs for them and the general well treatment of muslims. Akbaruddin Owaisi may have made some anti hindus happy by arguing against Hinduism but even Akbaruddin, he does not have a clear stance on independence from India nor a vision beyond the nationalism imposed on him. Some ADC members hate both the Owaisi brothers.

Asaduddin Owaisi is more Indianized than his brother. Muslims have at times demanded him to vouch for independence but he has not taken a step in this direction yet.

 

[Musafir117]

AIMIM is not committed to Deccan independence but is muslim nationalist. They ask for things like reservations for muslims-government jobs for them and the general well treatment of muslims. Akbaruddin Owaisi may have made some anti hindus happy by arguing against Hinduism but even Akbaruddin, he does not have a clear stance on independence from India nor a vision beyond the nationalism imposed on him. Some ADC members hate both the Owaisi brothers.

Asaduddin Owaisi is more Indianized than his brother. Muslims have at times demanded him to vouch for independence but he has not taken a step in this direction yet.

I see! That's why I said it's time to re charged them or just let's check how they re act if a separation movement start.

 

[haviZsultan]

No, it is more to do with your lack of understanding of what really is the constitution w.r.t to cow slaughter.
"The "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, veterinary training and practice" is Entry 15 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, meaning that State Legislatures have exclusive powers to legislate the prevention of slaughter and preservation of cattle."

No state law explicitly bans the consumption of beef. There is a lack of uniformity among State laws governing cattle slaughter. The strictest laws are in Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, where the slaughter of cow and its progeny, including bulls and bullocks of all ages, is completely banned. Most States prohibit the slaughter of cows of all ages. However, Assam and West Bengal permit the slaughter of cows of over the ages of 10 and 14 years, respectively. Most States prohibit the slaughter of calves, whether male or female. With the exception of Bihar and Rajasthan, where age of a calf is given as below 3 years, the other States have not defined the age of a calf. According to the National Commission on Cattle, the definition of a calf being followed in Maharashtra, by some executive instructions, was "below the age of 1 year"

Simple question? Beef is banned in most states but why is pork not banned? Why is smoking not banned in favor of sikhs and drinking not banned in favor of muslims? Why appease one group.

No law explicitly bans beef... well tell that to the Hindutvas who set people on fire for consuming beef, with I may argue government support. India has done well because it has got a larger minority of muslims, but particularly where Muslim Hindu interests clash severely the Hindus are favored.

 

[MilSpec]

Simple question? Beef is banned in most states but why is pork not banned? Why is smoking not banned in favor of sikhs and drinking not banned in favor of muslims? Why appease one group.

No law explicitly bans beef... well tell that to the Hindutvas who set people on fire for consuming beef, with I may argue government support. India has done well because it has got a larger minority of muslims, but particularly where Muslim Hindu interests clash severely the Hindus are favored.

As I said, it comes from your lack of comprehension, No state law explicitly bans the consumption of beef. There is a lack of uniformity among State laws governing cattle slaughter. Read more about it and come back.