What's new

Shiv Sena renews attack on Pakistan cricketers

a recent protest sparked through Amittab B conspiracy..for being non local.

Yeah, that was Raj Thackery's bid to get local support for his party.

This guy broke off from the Shiv Sena and founded the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) on the agenda "Maharashtra for Marathis only".

It worked fro Shiv Sena in the 60s, so he thinks it might work for him again.

We won't know if the ploy worked or not, till the next election!
 
These type of people exist everywhere, in India its shivsena, some other organisation for Muslims, in Pakistan there are Mullahs, in Britan there will be people who are of this mindset, they only try to get attention whenever possible!!
 
These type of people exist everywhere, in India its shivsena, some other organisation for Muslims, in Pakistan there are Mullahs, in Britan there will be people who are of this mindset, they only try to get attention whenever possible!!

Get one thing straight, being a mullah does not mean he's a fanatic. Anybody can be a fanatic and not necessarily a mullah only. This applies for pakistan as well.
 
In recent protest look like Shiv change its policy, it working more on local nationalistic policy rather then on the basis of religion. Why is that?

They have always been local.

Even their anti Mos.lem activities have been local.

They are localised horrors and scum!
 
Get one thing straight, being a mullah does not mean he's a fanatic. Anybody can be a fanatic and not necessarily a mullah only. This applies for pakistan as well.

I presume he is meaning the mad mullahs.

Misuse of scriptures is what fanatics do. That applies worldwide.
 
hi salim
sorry for th delay, very interesting reply particularly about the satelite channels, but i remember reading of a ban.

Saturday, August 05, 2006
India bans Arab satelite news channels .. critics blame Israeli lobby there

India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel
By Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News
August 5, 2006

BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.


The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.


Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.


A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.


Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.


Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.


According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.


Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.


“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.


Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.


The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.


Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.


The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.


The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”


“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.

either your not informed or just a little liar. any how you are tiring.
 
those fascist dotheads have everyone in their cross-hairs - let them fester in their own feces
 
those fascist dotheads have everyone in their cross-hairs - let them fester in their own feces

You dug a 6 year old thread to vent? Dothead, I can think of atleast 7-8 derogatory terms for Pakistanis and Muslims. Time to grow up maybe?
 
You have your Hafiz Saeeds and we have the likes of the Thackerays. Score? One-all!

It takes all types to make this world. All are not saints. So what's the big deal? Just ignore these buggers to keep your blood pressure in check!
 
HS and Thakeray are different, and come from different backgrounds and different perspectives

the latter is dead as a door-nail though his ideology isnt, alas
 
You have your Hafiz Saeeds and we have the likes of the Thackerays. Score? One-all!

It takes all types to make this world. All are not saints. So what's the big deal? Just ignore these buggers to keep your blood pressure in check!
Both are Different , While Thackerays are only advocate against PAK muslims in India only and while HF is advocating attack on India and kill Indians by sending terrorist , which Thackeray's didn't advocate.

Huge difference.
 
Both are Different , While Thackerays are only advocate against PAK muslims in India only and while HF is advocating attack on India and kill Indians by sending terrorist , which Thackeray's didn't advocate.

Huge difference.

No he's advocated the killing of Muslims in india and also advocated the burning of non marathi anything in your bombay :laugh:

HS is not ethnocentric. Yeah he hates the indian state but only b/c of its genocide of Kashmiris/Muslims not to mention the fact that members of his own family were massacred by hindu mobs so that for him is a bone of contention

i dont recall seeing HS advocating the killing of indian poets, journos or athletes (not that we have any of the latter) in our beloved country

again - moot point i suppose since thacker-thigh is 6 feet under now
 
Back
Top Bottom