Sangita finds out that she isn't British after all

[letsrock]

I would suggest you read a post carefully before hitting the reply button.

And I do not personally care about Sunak or his credentials. He is not my PM.

LOl.

 

[peagle]

Aren't non muslims constitutionally barred from holding the countries highest offices in Pakistan ? not whatabouting here but just wondering what you think of that..

Also, its kind of understandable, their economy isn't doing the best, earlier generations lived better, earnt more.. society was more homogenic. People lash out in all sorts of ways, pick a fall guy/scapegoat/blame the others.. happens everywhere on earth.

Japan is probably the more xenophobic country in the world lol

It hasn't always been the case, the highest office access issue has gone in and out of the constitution at various points in history, most recent entry was around a decade ago, although I'm not 100% certain on the timing but it was recent and as the situation stands, they are not allowed. This is a wider discussion to which I shall expand, but to put the point to rest, I think it's despicable, in theory.

In practice, however, the situation is completely contrary to wider perception, most Pakistanis wouldn't know themselves, let alone anyone else. The minorities in Pakistan have tremendous rights, same as most countries around the world, and on some issues they have far more rights then in any other country, especially in the neighbourhood.

Theory is all very well, but minorities live their lives in practical terms, meaning the issues that concern them are those that effect their daily lives. I was born in Pakistan, but raised in the UK, part of the majority in Pakistan, but part of a double minority in the UK, a country I love dearly. Here I am an Asian of Pakistani decent, that's one category, and I am also a religious minority in that I belong to the Muslim faith, although my relationship to my faith is somewhat questionable, none-the-less, a Muslim I remain in the eyes of official parlance and the wider public, this aspect is important to my daily experience, because no matter what you do/believe/practice, you are recognised by your outward appearance (something that can vary, but still relevant) and your name.

United Kingdom is not a secular country, I cannot become the monarch, does it effect me? No.
By virtue of being Christian, Bishops sit in the House of lords, that's the Rajya Sabha or the Senate, does it effect me? No. But I would still die for this country.

I can access any other office in this nation. This is the truthful evolution of the British system, it is honest to itself and evolving over time. Up till recently the law lords sat in the house of lords, that's equivalent to the Indian or Pakistani supreme court judges sitting in the national parliaments, it is an insane concept, but it worked here till about a decade ago, when the need for change was recognised. It did not effect me, because the system gave me sufficient rights to live my life as a practical citizen.

Coming back to out region, we concentrate too much on frivolous issues, when the only issue that matters is practical human dignity and rights that matter, are they granted or not? France is secular, yet forcibly telling women what they can or cannot wear, where are the rights?

In Pakistan alcohol is banned, except for non-Muslims, they are free to do as they choose, pork is banned but non Muslims are allowed to do as they please, and so on, their fundamental rights are as equal to any Muslim. That is what truly matters.


Now, regarding the electoral process, which is part of the mechanism that allows you to hold higher office.
Every country defines the recognition of groups by different conditions, according to their local understanding of issues. In India, the definition is minority and majority, In Pakistan it is along religious groups. In the UK we are "Black Asian and Minority Ethnic" "BAME" that's an official term, I don't like it but there you go, something has to be used so this is as good as any. This is important because just the recognition of terms can also be problematic. But, in my opinion, one term is a good as another, because you have to have a definition.

In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes.

1. All minorities get representation proportional to their share of the population in all assemblies. First vote.
2. They are also free to stand and vote in open elections, like Muslim citizens, and they do. Second vote.
3. Women from Non-Muslim backgrounds can also be appointed to seats reserved for women, separate from the above two points.

To my knowledge, no country in the world has given such broad electoral rights.

Right now, India has around 2 dozen Muslim members in the Lok Sabha, but according to their share of population, they should have around 82. Throughout India's history the average representation of Muslims in Indian parliaments has been around 4%. That is many times lowered then their share of the population.

If India followed the Pakistani system, there would be 82 Muslims, just in the Lok Sabha, plus many others as some would win seats in the open elections. That is more relevant then becoming a prime minister or a president.

Manmohan became the prime minister, I don't think it changed anything for the Sikhs, Obama was president of America for 8 years, yet blacks are still getting killed, racism hasn't ended or anything of the sort, because being able to become a prime minster or president are theoretical rights, in practice what matters is practical rights.

Our societies are not secular, individually we tend to be, but as a grouping, religion is an important part of our societies, it is better to be honest with your present, and work towards a better future, then pretend something you are not and increase frustration because the majority feels offence over frivolous issues.


Honest approach is the best policy.

 

[-=virus=-]

It hasn't always been the case, the highest office access issue has gone in and out of the constitution at various points in history, most recent entry was around a decade ago, although I'm not 100% certain on the timing but it was recent and as the situation stands, they are not allowed. This is a wider discussion to which I shall expand, but to put the point to rest, I think it's despicable, in theory.

In practice, however, the situation is completely contrary to wider perception, most Pakistanis wouldn't know themselves, let alone anyone else. The minorities in Pakistan have tremendous rights, same as most countries around the world, and on some issues they have far more rights then in any other country, especially in the neighbourhood.

Theory is all very well, but minorities live their lives in practical terms, meaning the issues that concern them are those that effect their daily lives. I was born in Pakistan, but raised in the UK, part of the majority in Pakistan, but part of a double minority in the UK, a country I love dearly. Here I am an Asian of Pakistani decent, that's one category, and I am also a religious minority in that I belong to the Muslim faith, although my relationship to my faith is somewhat questionable, none-the-less, a Muslim I remain in the eyes of official parlance and the wider public, this aspect is important to my daily experience, because no matter what you do/believe/practice, you are recognised by your outward appearance (something that can vary, but still relevant) and your name.

United Kingdom is not a secular country, I cannot become the monarch, does it effect me? No.
By virtue of being Christian, Bishops sit in the House of lords, that's the Rajya Sabha or the Senate, does it effect me? No. But I would still die for this country.

I can access any other office in this nation. This is the truthful evolution of the British system, it is honest to itself and evolving over time. Up till recently the law lords sat in the house of lords, that's equivalent to the Indian or Pakistani supreme court judges sitting in the national parliaments, it is an insane concept, but it worked here till about a decade ago, when the need for change was recognised. It did not effect me, because the system gave me sufficient rights to live my life as a practical citizen.

Coming back to out region, we concentrate too much on frivolous issues, when the only issue that matters is practical human dignity and rights that matter, are they granted or not? France is secular, yet forcibly telling women what they can or cannot wear, where are the rights?

In Pakistan alcohol is banned, except for non-Muslims, they are free to do as they choose, pork is banned but non Muslims are allowed to do as they please, and so on, their fundamental rights are as equal to any Muslim. That is what truly matters.


Now, regarding the electoral process, which is part of the mechanism that allows you to hold higher office.
Every country defines the recognition of groups by different conditions, according to their local understanding of issues. In India, the definition is minority and majority, In Pakistan it is along religious groups. In the UK we are "Black Asian and Minority Ethnic" "BAME" that's an official term, I don't like it but there you go, something has to be used so this is as good as any. This is important because just the recognition of terms can also be problematic. But, in my opinion, one term is a good as another, because you have to have a definition.

In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes.

1. All minorities get representation proportional to their share of the population in all assemblies. First vote.
2. They are also free to stand and vote in open elections, like Muslim citizens, and they do. Second vote.
3. Women from Non-Muslim backgrounds can also be appointed to seats reserved for women, separate from the above two points.

To my knowledge, no country in the world has given such broad electoral rights.

Right now, India has around 2 dozen Muslim members in the Lok Sabha, but according to their share of population, they should have around 82. Throughout India's history the average representation of Muslims in Indian parliaments has been around 4%. That is many times lowered then their share of the population.

If India followed the Pakistani system, there would be 82 Muslims, just in the Lok Sabha, plus many others as some would win seats in the open elections. That is more relevant then becoming a prime minister or a president.

Manmohan became the prime minister, I don't think it changed anything for the Sikhs, Obama was president of America for 8 years, yet blacks are still getting killed, racism hasn't ended or anything of the sort, because being able to become a prime minster or president are theoretical rights, in practice what matters is practical rights.

Our societies are not secular, individually we tend to be, but as a grouping, religion is an important part of our societies, it is better to be honest with your present, and work towards a better future, then pretend something you are not and increase frustration because the majority feels offence over frivolous issues.


Honest approach is the best policy.

Sure, but what fundamental right are minorities being deprived of in India ?

also "In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes."

I read the whole thing, does not compute.

"Right now, India has around 2 dozen Muslim members in the Lok Sabha, but according to their share of population, they should have around 82. Throughout India's history the average representation of Muslims in Indian parliaments has been around 4%. That is many times lowered then their share of the population.

If India followed the Pakistani system, there would be 82 Muslims, just in the Lok Sabha, plus many others as some would win seats in the open elections. That is more relevant then becoming a prime minister or a president."

Yeah, no thanks (not a slight at muslims at all) I don't mind if they'd be 200+ in the LS, but you have to do it within the system as is, without any quotas for X and Y people, I'm dead against quotas that nibble away on meritocracy.

How I see this is it being no different from depriving people of the right to vote based on an ethno-religious and gender based criteria.

Yeh to commies waali batien kar r ho aap ! "You have too much, we'll take some away... and give to those folk who have too little" .. in this case "there's too many of you, you get to vote once, those minorities, too few of them, they get to vote thrice" .. GTFO, man !

Hum Hindustani hai, humay democracy mat sikhao !

 

[peagle]

Sure, but what fundamental right are minorities being deprived of in India ?

also "In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes."

I read the whole thing, does not compute.

"Right now, India has around 2 dozen Muslim members in the Lok Sabha, but according to their share of population, they should have around 82. Throughout India's history the average representation of Muslims in Indian parliaments has been around 4%. That is many times lowered then their share of the population.

If India followed the Pakistani system, there would be 82 Muslims, just in the Lok Sabha, plus many others as some would win seats in the open elections. That is more relevant then becoming a prime minister or a president."

Yeah, no thanks (not a slight at muslims at all) I don't mind if they'd be 200+ in the LS, but you have to do it within the system as is, without any quotas for X and Y people, I'm dead against quotas that nibble away on meritocracy.

How I see this is it being no different from depriving people of the right to vote based on an ethno-religious and gender based criteria.

Yeh to commies waali batien kar r ho aap ! "You have too much, we'll take some away... and give to those folk who have too little" .. in this case "there's too many of you, you get to vote once, those minorities, too few of them, they get to vote thrice" .. GTFO, man !

Hum Hindustani hai, humay democracy mat sikhao !

Can you please make more of an effort, you have my statements mixed in with your replies, that's just childish, it lacks clarity. come on, its not that difficult.


Whether something "commute" or not is not my problem, I've stated facts , you fool. have the decency to evolve the discussion rather then behave like a child.

You cannot cry about not believing in quotas when the entire Indian nationhood is based on a quota system, in politics, education, jobs, monetary distribution, and so on.
You cannot choose which quotas to follow, and which to reject, either you have them or you don't, if you have them, then they are acceptable for all, otherwise it is simple hypocrisy, nothing more.

"Commies" "GTFO" ? what the bleeping bleep are you talking about you?
Make an argument, present your discussion, don't behave like a spoilt like brat.

I tried to have an open honest discussion with you, but you've come back like you've got your panties in a twist, go clean up and come back with proper contribution, otherwise get help.

 

[-=virus=-]

Can you please make more of an effort, you have my statements mixed in with your replies, that's just childish, it lacks clarity. come on, its not that difficult.


Whether something "commute" or not is not my problem, I've stated facts , you fool. have the decency to evolve the discussion rather then behave like a child.

You cannot cry about not believing in quotas when the entire Indian nationhood is based on a quota system, in politics, education, jobs, monetary distribution, and so on.
You cannot choose which quotas to follow, and which to reject, either you have them or you don't, if you have them, then they are acceptable for all, otherwise it is simple hypocrisy, nothing more.

"Commies" "GTFO" ? what the bleeping bleep are you talking about you?
Make an argument, present your discussion, don't behave like a spoilt like brat.

I tried to have an open honest discussion with you, but you've come back like you've got your panties in a twist, go clean up and come back with proper contribution, otherwise get help.

lol, forgive me, it's quite early here and I've yet to had my coffee naraaz na ho pls

So, to nutshell it. I first asked what fundamental rights minorities in India might be being deprived of ?

I then went on to ridicule your praise of how the apparently do it electorally in Pakistan, in the name of "fairness" even .. this is what you said:

"In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes."

I then made the point about giving certain people extra votes is no different than depriving people of the right to vote. This runs contrary to the very idea of fairness. Did you mean 'charity' ?

clear now ?

 

[Turingsage]

 

[Turingsage]

 

[peagle]

lol, forgive me, it's quite early here and I've yet to had my coffee naraaz na ho pls

So, to nutshell it. I first asked what fundamental rights minorities in India might be being deprived of ?

I then went on to ridicule your praise of how the apparently do it electorally in Pakistan, in the name of "fairness" even .. this is what you said:

"In Pakistan non-Muslim men have 2 effective votes in every election, at all levels, and non-Muslim women have 3 effective votes."

I then made the point about giving certain people extra votes is no different than depriving people of the right to vote. This runs contrary to the very idea of fairness. Did you mean 'charity' ?

clear now ?

I think you need few more coffees.
I read through your convoluted reply, and have already provided the answers to all of your above baseless contradictions, perhaps you should go back and read again.

Everything I wrote is factually correct, and any opinion I offered was based on facts. Is that clear now?
I seriously fail to understand which part you are confused about, and why you are confused, unless you have this old Indian habit of viewing Pakistan from a very narrow hate based mindset.


I choose not to answer the Indian Muslim part because it was not a substantive part of the original discussion, I wasn't looking to advertise Muslim oppression in India, because it would have broadened the discussion.

Please clarify, without drama, which parts you have a difficulty understanding.
If you wish me to expand on the Indian Muslim issue, I am happy to do so.