On Religious Hostilities, India Ranked Just Slightly Better Than Syria: Pew Study

[SMASTER]

Largest democracy tsk tsk acha soryy

 

[Laozi]

We know!

You elect corpse rapers and mass murderers because of their hindutva credentials

You please check the credentials of your leaders before voting.

You go ahead and elect whomsoever you think fit for the job.

Who are we to question your choices of democratically elected leaders.

Instead of worrying about Indians, In fact you should be celebrating our wrong Hindutva choices.

 

[Sky lord]

The point is what you stated here later in your post "They liked what they heard", hence made Nehru, Indira and Modi their Leader, Nehru presented secular democracy and people liked it, Tomorrow a Modi or Yogi will propound a theocracy and people will like it. People will like ideas based on how these ideas are presented/sold by leaders.

I did say "they liked what they heard" .

Dude you're being stubborn! I thought we had already gone over this several times now.

Nehru was leader at a time when Indians were looking for modernity and saw the Brisitsh as the epitome of modernity. At that time, and in those days, modernity meant anglicizing and Europeanizing.

Times have changed. Indians are still looking for modernity. Modi s "development" platform is about modernizing. the "hindutva" part. ( and Modi is part development and part hindutva) is about cultural resurgence and about getting a "fair deal".

Look.... asking for a temple to be built at the birth place of Ram was/is a very reasonable request. It sounds reasonable not only to Hindus but to ordinary Indians of all religions. What can possibly be wrong in building a temple at the site believed by generations of Hindus to be the birth place of a major figure of Hinduism? The mosque at the site, is not of special religious significance to Muslims. It is obvious to the average person that the only reason for a mosque to be built at that exact spot was to humiliate a conquered people's religion.

The nexus between extreme leftists and the mullah brigade that refused to give an inch on the Ram temple issue is what gave rise to a need for a more muscular version of Hinduism in the eyes of the average Hindu.

So really, what I am saying is that hardliners like you ( I am assuming you may be one though I don't know what your position is on Ram temple) is what opened the genie in the first place.

The requirement of the majority population is for perceived fairness along with development. They felt this as an injustice. If Muslims had been more accommodating about Ram temple, there would be no hardline Hinduism today.

So yes, they liked what they heard. Modi promised them electricity and jobs and Ram temple.

Living in denial does not make you right either. Ok so going by your logic, then Yogi was chosen by the people because they agreed with what he stood for aka 'If They Kill Even One Hindu, We Will Kill 100!' | . So are you telling me that people liked and voted Yogi for this?

I Know very little about Yogi and UP politics, so will not go into this. However, I am assuming that UP politics is not far different to national politics and similar rules apply.

never asked for banning anything, I just pointed out the selective witch hunting based on "disrespecting" other's sentiments. Anyways just want to add up over here that we may also end up doing something on a large scale of hanging people who don't abide by your beliefs/eating habits and we already have started in that direction

Look, you made the statement that godse's RSS would have been wiped out if we did not have free speech. What I said was that so would zakir naik. They both survived.

Free speech apples to all colors not just the ones you like.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Uff this obsession

Dude, your DP is like talking to someone with a huge wart on their nose with three spiky hairs growing out of it. Don't be so surprised that People notice things like that! You have uploaded it to send a message....you should be happy that the message is heard and understood.

 

[el 3mir]

Days are looking very dark for india..

 

[The_Showstopper]

I did say "they liked what they heard" .

Dude you're being stubborn! I thought we had already gone over this several times now.

Nehru was leader at a time when Indians were looking for modernity and saw the Brisitsh as the epitome of modernity. At that time, and in those days, modernity meant anglicizing and Europeanizing.

Times have changed. Indians are still looking for modernity. Modi s "development" platform is about modernizing. the "hindutva" part. ( and Modi is part development and part hindutva) is about cultural resurgence and about getting a "fair deal".

No, I am not being stubborn but it is your preconceived ideas which won't let you to look at things objectively. Your statements contradict each other. You look confused between the terms like modernity, secularism and development. Nehru's India was more socialist and less capitalist whereas India is more capitalist now, so your comparisons doesn't justify the statement you are trying to make. And it is really laughable when Hindutva ideologues and some Hindus moan about this "fair deal" when Indian muslims are at the almost at the bottom of development index.

Look.... asking for a temple to be built at the birth place of Ram was/is a very reasonable request. It sounds reasonable not only to Hindus but to ordinary Indians of all religions. What can possibly be wrong in building a temple at the site believed by generations of Hindus to be the birth place of a major figure of Hinduism? The mosque at the site, is not of special religious significance to Muslims. It is obvious to the average person that the only reason for a mosque to be built at that exact spot was to humiliate a conquered people's religion.

I didn't really wanted to bring in any religious related discussion in here but since you brought in Ram's birth place, let me tell you that Hindus considered many other places as Ram's birthplace and Ayodhya gained prominence only after 18th century. The below is a reference for you.

Source: Ram Sharan Sharma (2003). "The Ayodhya Issue". In Robert Layton and Julian Thomas. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi#Other_places

So it is obvious that all this hysteria behind Ram's Birthplace is created to antagonize muslims and for a particular organisation's ultimate goal of creating Hindu Rashtra.

The nexus between extreme leftists and the mullah brigade that refused to give an inch on the Ram temple issue is what gave rise to a need for a more muscular version of Hinduism in the eyes of the average Hindu.

It really amuses me when Hindutva loons claim about some "nexus" between extreme leftists and mullah brigade. Many liberals spoke out against muslim fundamentalists, triple talaq, invited Salman Rushdie to various literary fests. Hindu fundamentalists were happy with this but the moment these extreme leftists/liberals speak against Hindutva, they start crying foul. Hypocrisy you see.

So really, what I am saying is that hardliners like you ( I am assuming you may be one though I don't know what your position is on Ram temple) is what opened the genie in the first place.

The requirement of the majority population is for perceived fairness along with development. They felt this as an injustice. If Muslims had been more accommodating about Ram temple, there would be no hardline Hinduism today.

So yes, they liked what they heard. Modi promised them electricity and jobs and Ram temple.

My position on Babri masjid doesn't make me a hardliner irrespective of what I have to say about it, Anyways just to add in over here that I have on multiple occasions condemned religious extremism including those done by muslims but I haven't seen you doing the same. Infact when I asked you about Sarthak's bigoted statements on one of the thread, you chose to stay mum and that my dear speaks volumes about you. And let me tell you that this genie was opened by Advani and his cohorts. Nehru led India where the Ram's Birthplace wasn't of national prominence until Advani and his cohorts made it an national issue. And this is what I was saying, Leaders can make people believe that certain issues/ideas are of more prominence to them.

I Know very little about Yogi and UP politics, so will not go into this. However, I am assuming that UP politics is not far different to national politics and similar rules apply.

This is what I was stating about you, you don't want to comment about a man who speaks about killing 100's just because you "know little about Yogi and UP politics". This is just an excuse to stay indifferent to this hatemonger's statements. And going by your argument, Yogi spoke about killing 100's because "they liked what they heard" aka the Hindus of UP. Is that so?

Look, you made the statement that godse's RSS would have been wiped out if we did not have free speech. What I said was that so would zakir naik. They both survived.

Free speech apples to all colors not just the ones you like.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Godse's RSS was involved various hate speeches, riots, religious killings etc, Can I hear the same about Zakir Naik? He at best can be accused of maligning, disrespecting other religious figures/texts. So your comparisons fall flat.

Dude, your DP is like talking to someone with a huge wart on their nose with three spiky hairs growing out of it. Don't be so surprised that People notice things like that! You have uploaded it to send a message....you should be happy that the message is heard and understood.

To be frank, I don't give a damn about what Hindutvadis think and notice about my DP. I like Tipu Sultan for his bravery(Even his enemies don't claim otherwise) and when I chose it, I did not have an idea about Sanghi dislike for him.

 

[Sully3]

On Religious Hostilities, India Ranked Just Slightly Better Than Syria: Pew Study
Animosity between Hindus and Muslims drove India's poor ranking in 2015.

STRINGER INDIA / REUTERS

India ranked fourth in the world in 2015--after Syria, Nigeria and Iraq--as having the highest social hostilities involving religion, according to research by Pew. India's ranking worsened sharply since 2014, but was better than in previous years.



Pew Research Centre, an independent non-partisan polling and research organisation, has been publishing its annual Global Restrictions on Religion Report since 2009. For the latest report, it used 18 main sources, including US Department of State reports, reports by UN and other multilateral agencies and reports by international non-governmental groups, to compose two indices--the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index. While the former measures government restrictions on the free practice of religion, the latter looks at hostilities between groups around the issue of religion. In 2015, it ranked 198 countries.



The Social Hostilities Index looks at 13 indicators including crimes motivated by religious hatred, mob violence related to religion, communal violence, religion-related terrorist groups, using force to prevent religious groups from operating, the harassment of women for 'violating' religious dress codes and violence over conversion or proselytising. India ranked 'very high' on the index with an index value of 8.7 out of 10, 10 being the worst. Syria ranked at 9.2, Nigeria at 9.1 and Iraq at 8.9.



Katayoun Kishi, the study's lead researcher, told Huffington Post India in an email interview that hostilities between Hindus and Muslims factored into the India's poor ranking. "[O]ne of the indicators in the Social Hostilities Index looks at whether incidents of violence occurred as a result of tensions between religious groups. In India in 2015, there were instances of attacks by Hindus on Muslims due to alleged cow slaughter, rioting after clashes between Hindus and Muslims, and mob violence involving the two groups," she said.



Government restrictions on religion in India are rated as "high" and increased over 2014 but were lower than for previous years. These include government interference in religion practice or proselytising, government hostility to minority religions and government inaction on complaints of discrimination. Government restrictions on religious practice in India were largely directed towards minorities, Ms. Kishi said. "Much of the government restrictions were aimed at non-Hindus in India. For example, the ban on cow slaughter impacted Muslims during Eid al-Adha, and Christians complained about a lack of police action after incidents of religiously-motivated violence towards them," she said.


Globally, government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion increased in 2015 for the first time in three years. "The global rise in social hostilities reflected a number of factors, including increases in mob violence related to religion, individuals being assaulted or displaced due to their faith, and incidents where violence was used to enforce religious norms," Pew said. The increase in government restrictions was linked to a surge in government harassment and use of force against religious groups.


In Europe, hostilities toward Muslims in particular increased considerably. In 2015, 32 countries in Europe experienced social hostilities toward Muslims. Christians and Muslims were harassed in the most countries in 2015, continuing a trend from previous years, owing in part to their highly dispersed populations globally.


Hindus, on the other hand, were harassed in 18 countries, but 99% of Hindus live in those countries. "[T]he vast majority of the world's Hindus (95%) live in India, where harassment of Hindus by both government and social groups was reported in 2015...Coupled with harassment of Hindus in several other countries with considerable Hindu populations, including Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, this meant that 1 billion Hindus, or 99% of the world's Hindus, lived in countries where Hindus were harassed in 2015," the report said,



"[L]ower caste Hindus faced impediments to education, jobs and some government services. Crimes against them often went unpunished by authorities, sometimes because the victims did not report the crimes due to fear of retaliation," Kishi said. "When considering social hostilities, Hindus were sometimes the target of hostilities by Muslims as a result of long-standing tensions between the groups (and vice-versa, were sometimes the perpetrators of hostilities). This was not limited to lower caste Hindus," she said.



Both indices, despite registering an increase over 2014, have seen a general downward trend in India since 2007, the first year that Pew published the data for. While India's ranking on the Social Hostilities Index has worsened since 2014, it has been the second worst country in the world on social hostilities involving religion for several past years including 2008-2011.





http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/0...r-than_a_22037994/?ncid=fcbklnkinhpmg00000001

day by day another brick is blown off the wall of democracy india hides behind.

will share this article on all social media platforms especially with western friends. show the world the real face of shinning india