This is one gigantic post....i will cut to make it relevant however please try to keep the size in check...
I am asking one simple question and you have been running round the circles. The government is elected and ruling India. They have direct access to people since parliament is a place where they have elected reps from various constituencies and who can voice the people's opinion. So if you are OK with BJP led government in being reviewed by RSS, then I believe you shouldn't have had a problem when UPA led government was reviewed by Sonia Gandhi and her aides. Is that so?
IS something wrong with you?? Of-course Sonia Gandhi will review UPA govt. performance... not only her every single ally will as well...why?? because they need to go back to people for votes and want to make sure their poll promises and Govt actions are in synch......check back my earlier post...i shared a decent list...every party that review has their vested interests..they will review and share feedback with govt. What is not acceptable is they
dictating govt. of what to do next...
This is getting funnier. OK I meant that BJP is influenced/controlled by RSS. So tell me what did you make of my statement..."RSS is the 10 Janpath of BJP".
From both bold parts above - That Sonia influenced/controlled MMS...what else should i infer?? Clarify please...
Tell me why leaders are elected? It is because they can lead people and solve their issues, Technology can help a leader access the situation but doesn't necessarily give him the exact picture. There is also a human instinct where followers/people expect their leaders to console/soothe them....
What?? This is what I exactly mean by semantics...as said leaders were not clubbing...they were working...how technology is not giving exact picture?? In today's global World such a statement is naive...also VVIP/VIP's are more of nuisance during emergencies because a decent amount of resources are used for their security...if you don't know about all this then I am sorry you have little knowledge in this area...As i said in the last post did those deaths stopped once leaders came back?? Answer is a big "NO"...
You named few people and instances of "secular parties" and then go on to compare them with BJP which has a history of communal streak. You can a post a few instances of these "secular parties" indulging in communalism but I can post many instances where BJP and its sister concerns were involved in communal incidents.
BJP has a history of communal streak?? Like what?? Yes please show me...
How is that justification? Are you out of your mind? Did I say that Sikhs asked for it or deserved it? I explained the sequence of events.
You have little sense of the events and talking about them...Was IG a hindu leader?? If not then why you made the statement that Sikhs killed their leader so Hindu's took revenge...this is what was told in Gujrat...Muslims did Godhra and Hindus did Gujrat..this action reaction theory is termed as justification...so put that in your head and let's move on this one...
Please explain the following..Congress led those killings because Rajiv Gandhi had to be portrayed as a saviour..What do you mean by the above statement?
That Sikh Progom was not a riot however an organized campaign by Congress where mobs were brought in from Rohtak and other areas...
Congress or for that matter other "secular" parties don't have a ideological mentor which wants to create a Hindu rashtra where minorities aka people from non-dharmic religions are relegated to second class citizens. A source to support my statement....
RSS definition of Hindu is very different..it is way of life and not a religion SC seems to agree witht hem...anyways I don't give two hoots about that either...For records I am sikh...It is me who said that RSS is ideological mentor of BJP so you don't need to tell me that...what you need to tell me is the actions that they took where they are making us all other people a second class citizen...Dude you seems to have no idea what a second class citizen means...we faced it in Punjab post 84 for almost a decade...and this happened under a secular party...
It is mostly BJP which indulged in such tactics(spreading religious tension) to benefit electorally. Are you telling me that Congress led mobs indulged into rioting so that they can gain power(Common dude they were anyways ruling and had no danger of losing power). So how does Congress benefit from riots since I have already shown you that it is BJP which benefits from riots?
My sincere advice is - if you have little knowledge of the past events then don't talk about them...learn or ask...Rajiv Gandhi was not interested in politics and was forced into after the death of his brother Sanjay Gandhi...IG had already changed Congress by then into a family owned entity...After her death all the factions would have jumped up had Rajiv Gandhi not shown as equally strong ruler...Her Death and post riots justified by RG(big tree earth shakes crap) brought in 400+ LS seats to Congress...when was the last time a single party won that many LS seats?? So sounds like someone profiting from riots?? A secular party playing the same tricks..no??
I am questing you because I wanted to know your views
Fair...but that should have been logical..anyways let me address the famous beef ban...
Ok lets speak about certain things under Modi rule(A few quotes from different news sources).
Sure however since it is a long post i will take the gist and reply back in points...No need to share so many sources/links...I am current with Indian politics and would ask in case your explanation is not enough...
a) Beef Ban will disproportionately harm poor Muslims working in meat and leather industries...
I am sharing a link below...Check how many states has beef ban and the years it was brought into legislation..[HINT:] BJP was not even an entity then...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Legislation_by_State_or_Union_Territory
So may I ask - is it fair to say BJP did it to hurt Muslims or there is hindu sentiment that all parties at times want/wanted to capture??
b) Mosques can be demolished as they are no holy - Subramanian Swamy
Are we gonna talk about statements now?? I thought we were talking about govt. actions... anyways this is what he alleges
"As far as the masjid is concerned, the Indian Supreme Court constitutional bench of 1994, in the famous Ram temple matter, observed that a masjid is not an essential part of Islamic religion and, therefore, in the British time mosques have been demolished for a public purpose"
Anyways FIR has been filed against him - b/w under his/govt directions please suggest if a mosque has been demolished...??
c) Bhagwat Gita forced in Schools..
"BJP had earlier presented the idea of introducing Gita so as to impart moral education among kids, unfortunately, the plan was not supported by the opposition party and was called "saffronising" the education system."
So what was agreed upon -
"The book will have a limited teachings of Bhagavad Gita, as there would be other religious chapters of Islam and Christianity"
Now I can also jump and say why not Sikhism...BJP is attacking my religion...but I have grown in an India where the favorite kids program was Mahabharat...not sure what was your state so have no problems whatsoever...
d) The likes of Sakshi Maharaj, Niranjan Jyoti and Sadhvi Prachi
Again we are talking about statements...I am looking for concrete actions...Trump has promised a wall on Mexico which Mexico is going to pay...
...Anyways as you yourself is saying Modi publically warned them...he can do a bit more by throwing them out of the party however that is something which is an alien term in Indian politics...
e)Rewriting of history books to portray the Mughals as despicable bigots
Now this one is the most controversial issue my friend...I am for teaching correct history to kids...what is your stand?? One of the NCERT history books claimed that our 10 Guru was a terrorist, other literally called him a sold out...do you know why?? because mighty Mughals need to be shown in good light...Rightfully they got corrected however history books need to portray what happened...we should not over glorify anyone or make one look bad...Aurangzeb was a tyrant and so he should be called one...no??
Anyways any specific history that you think has been shown in incorrect way to malign muslims?? Having said that let me ask you a more fundamental question...Is Mughals a proprietary of a specific religion?? Are they not part of common history that impacted all of us??
f) Scrapping 5% reservation to Muslims in education.
and why should one have a religion base reservation?? b/w do you know when was it announced?? This is the same appeasement politics which as per you is not communal...strangely giving something to a particular religion is not communal in nature but taking it away is..may I ask why double standards here??
g) Disenfranchise millions of Muslim immigrants in Assam
So are you in favor of illegal immigrants from BD?? Shouldn't that be the case that we should send them back?...Though i want all not just muslims having said that govt. defence is non-muslims are not treated at par especially on our western border...
h)privilege the non-Muslim migrant over the Muslim
I just explained above the reasoning...please suggest what is wrong in reasoning..though in general i disagree with govt. line of thinking here....
The problem over here is that you don't want to understand/accept FACTS, Communalism and appeasement are two different things You want to derive analogies and equate the politics played by BJP and other "secular" political parties. BJP backed by its mentor(or whatever name you want to give it) RSS is out their to create a Hindu Rashtra(where non-Dharmic minorities want have equal rights as Hindus) whereas other "secular" parties aren't out their to create some lala land from muslims/minorities in the name of appeasement while disregarding the rights of hindus.
The bold part is what i am contesting...Secular means same for all..when you do something special/against a particular religion how on this earth is that secular..both actions are to polarize on the name of religion...please help here as I am not able to digest it...
I already gave one such example where "scores and scores" of people have been affected(aka beef ban).
I think you need to learn about when beef ban was introduced in this country....who brought it for the first time...a link has been shared so please do study it and share your thoughts...
How do you intend to compare unabashed communalism with women rights. Indian women through all ages have suffered ills like Sati, Dowry deaths, child marriages, Devadasi etc, So are you telling me that these issues were communal?
Honestly tell me have you read about shah bano case?? had you..you wouldn't have made such a childish remark..Sati, Dowry Deaths, Child Marriages, Devdasis all are banned under IPC...none of these are not communal issues...however if I issue ordinance in form of appeasement politics like Rajiv Gandhi did in Shah Bano case then it cracks the secular credentials, why??...because only Muslim women's are deprived here...Fortunately this govt. is trying to fix it and thank god for it!!