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...
So show me proof where Sonia Gandhi dictated her wish to the then UPA led Government...
From both bold parts above - That Sonia influenced/controlled MMS...what else should i infer?? Clarify please...
Now you ask a counter question instead of answering? This is funny...
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"...
I am not sure about the present instance of AAP leaders(clubbing or working), so I won't comment on that. VVIP visits can be nuisance if they throw tantrums around like Indian politicians do. But in other countries, leaders do visit their concerned areas without much fanfare. But as I said earlier, there are instances where technology may not be able to display the whole picture, that is when human intervention is needed. So who better than a wise leader to take stock of the situation.
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...
Why do you bring hindu leaders/hindus in here? Where did I mention the term Hindus in here? I clearly termed Congress mobs, though there were instance where Sanghis took part in killings. Oh dear, you speak like you very well know about these events yet fail to present a clear picture(Not sure if that is willful ignorance). 1984 was not about Hindu-Sikh clash but 2002 was definitely a Hindu-muslim issue. So stop being ignorant.
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...
So tell me what second class citizen means from your own experience. I am waiting...
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??
Stop making assumptions and answer my below questions since you claim to be know more than me. Let me ask you as to why Congress won so many seats? Is it because Hindus all over India hated and wanted Sikhs to be killed, massacred etc and hence rewarded Rajiv for doing so? Or was it because of the sympathy wave generated after IG's death?
Fair...but that should have been logical..anyways let me address the famous beef ban...
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??
I am not sure if you are current with Indian politics. Let me inform you over here that many states(Infact I can state most) have allowed beef(Bulls and other cattle barring Cows) consumption and quite a good number of states also allow Cow slaughter. But after the BJP coming to power in Maharashta and Haryana, they put a blanket ban on other cattle which was legal until then which led to many losing businesses and jobs(most of whom being affected were muslims)
Since you and many anti-beef campaigners/"activists" bring on this issue, that it was Congress which brought in this legislation of beef-ban, they simply forget to mention about the events that preceded this ban. Congress was against beef ban but was forced to concede because of agitations by Hindu organisations which included the Sadhus attacking the Parliament. So just because BJP as an organisation was never in existence then doesn't mean they have nothing to do with it. Their ideological mentor and Jan Sangh then also agitated for beef-ban and the below is an excerpt from an article
"In the 1966-1967, the RSS used it to build up votes for the Jan Sangh. The slogan during the Jana Sangh election campaign was: ‘vote Jana Sangh to protect the cow’."
Source:
http://beef.sabhlokcity.com/category/for/page/2/
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...??
Ok so just because a loony Bigot says so and brings in a court observation, you state that its perfectly ok to state so... You easily qualify to be Sanghi spokesperson since you debate and present your logic very similar to them. Anyways moving ahead if using the above argument, if the Hindutva goons or for that matter anyone starts demolishing mosques, will that be justified?
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...
I don't really care if you want to jump over this issue or not, if you are ok with that, doesn't mean everyone is. I am not against teaching of Mahabharat or Ramayana and I hope you wouldn't have an issue with Quran being taught, I am against the forcing (be it Quran or Gita), you can keep it optional, why make it compulsory?
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...
Are you telling me that Statements won't have much affect? Ok here we go...
Yogi Adityanath's Men Telling Hindus To Rape Dead Muslim Women
http://www.indiatimes.com/news/indi...d-muslim-women-is-beyond-shocking-230679.html
And the action...
Woman's body dug out from grave, 'raped'; Cops say it was an attempt to stoke communal violence
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ke-communal-violence/articleshow/49519603.cms
Modi publically warned them... And you take that literally
Here is what those "warnings" were all about
Hindu mobs beat to death a Muslim man in September 2015 for allegedly eating and storing beef, which was later discovered to be goat meat.[xvi] Modi was studiedly silent as national outrage erupted; he did, however, find time to tweet a famous singer to condole her son’s death.[xvii] He waited more than two weeks to acknowledge the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq—and when he did, he called it “sad” and “unfortunate,” but implied the federal government is unable to do anything to prevent such violence
It was politically significant therefore when, 16 days after the Dadri killing, Shah eventually said that it was “wrong” and that those responsible should be punished. He then reprimanded ministers and others who had made controversial comments, saying that they were diverting attention from Modi’s economic agenda. The prime minister was said to be “upset and distressed,” which seemed odd, given that he had stayed silent for so long.
Source :
http://harvardkennedyschoolreview.com/the-rising-tide-of-intolerance-in-narendra-modis-india/
http://www.newsweek.com/modis-rule-threatened-holy-cows-385797
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??
I am not sure about your claim of 10th Guru being named as terrorist, so I would want a reference for that. And speaking about NCERT history books, let me remind you that the same books do not speak about Shivaji's plundering of Surat and various other things, they don't speak about violence against Buddhism inflicted by Hindu kings etc. So if we are to start portraying history as it happened, I am not sure if the Kings presently revered by masses will enjoy the same reverence.
Is Mughals a proprietary of a specific religion?? Are they not part of common history that impacted all of us??
No they are not but it is being made out nowadays. Are you really unaware of this or just acting naive? Look at the television serials, various web articles, rhetoric from right wing orgs etc...
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??
Another mistake you made over here(Or I would rather say parroting the Sanghi version). Indeed constitution does not allow religious based reservation, but let me tell you that muslims as a whole entity does not get reservation, it is the weaker sections among muslims who get reservation and even the High court of Maharashtra upheld it but BJP as always went against it. So hindu dalits, SC's, OBC's can have reservation but weaker sections among muslims can't get the same benefit? So I ask you, why the double standards? And please don't comeback with "hey but muslims don't have castes", just because we don't have castes inscribed in our religion, doesn't mean we don't have weaker and marginalized sections among muslims.
Here is a quote for your reference...
The Indian Constitution doesn't allow reservation on the basis of religion and the previous Maharashtra government did not violate the provisions of the Constitution. The five per cent quota was offered on the basis of caste, not on the basis of religion. The same ordinance also offered 16 per cent reservation for Marathas. Within days of it being promulgated, it was challenged in Mumbai High Court. The court rejected the Maratha reservation but upheld quota for Muslim backward classes. Interestingly, the BJP-Shiv Sena government went against that High court order and continued with reservation for Marathas.
Source:
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/musli...backward-shiv-sena-congress/story/1/2490.html
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...
Are you telling me that all muslims in Assam are illegal? Whenever the question of illegal migration comes in, there is a rhetoric from Sanghis targeting muslims while forgetting about hindu illegal migration. Assam from times of British rule did have considerable Bengali muslim population who were employed by Brits. So claiming that there is a huge change in demographics because of illegal muslim Bangladeshis is rather idiotic. A few quotes from a news article...
The Indian government has tried to count the number of "illegal Bangladeshi immigrants' and failed. Most Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam and Bengal have a history going back to the 1860s.
1871: The migrations radically altered the demography of the region as people from densely populated East Bengal districts such as Myamansingh, Dhaka, Pabna were settled in Assam. The 1871 census recorded major changes in Assam districts such as Goalpara, Nowgong, Darrang and Kamrup.
Source:
http://scroll.in/article/664077/ben...to-assam-in-1871-are-not-illegal-bangladeshis
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...
Common mate even after so many posts, you stick on something which are completely different...
communalism: Allegiance to one's own ethnic group rather than to the wider society
appease: Assuage or satisfy (a demand or a feeling)
As per standard definition -
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/appease
Can you see the difference? One speaks of just looking after its own community rather than wider society whereas appeasing is like accepting or taking care of certain demands without affecting others.
So tell me how are they the same stuff? If congress has appeased muslims by providing quota to muslims, they have also done the same with others...
The Maharashtra government took an “in-principle" decision on Monday to announce a 4.5% reservation for Maharashtrian Muslims in government jobs, which could be followed by a 12% reservation for the Maratha community in colleges and government jobs.
Source:
http://scroll.in/article/668023/mah...uslims-and-marathas-but-do-pre-poll-sops-work
Whereas BJP is ok providing reservation to Marathas but not to muslims. Does that ring any bells to you?
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!!
Look dude, if Sati, Dowry etc are women rights issues so is Shah Bano case a women rights issue as simple as that, yes passing an ordinance is obviously appeasement but how do you term it communal. How is Shah Bano case affecting the Hindu lot other than ticking off the Sanghi nutcases?
