Syed Akbaruddin is India’s next Permanent Representative to UN

[ganesh623]

There is no comparison here. A wrong deserves to be treated as a wrong.


Who said I am against his appointment. it simply does not mean muslims are treated equally though. One rich muslim given a position does not represent the rampant poverty and exclusion from modern amenities like education and employment which Lucknowi muslims face as do others.

You talk too much.
Too much for a country who have no minority representation for any of such key positions.

 

[haviZsultan]

You talk too much.
Too much for a country who have no minority representation for any of such key positions.

There are seats reserved for minorities. The bias is not so much in politics as Rana Bhagwandas and others have come forward of the same system even till recently. Theres Soran Singh MP in KP and Harcharan singh in the army. The real problem is the general mullah types who have a hatred for minorities and refuse to sell even a roti when they learn the person is a Christian.

Muslims in Indian occupied parts and Hindus of Pakistan face similar problems and similar situation. India covers it up however-very well. As I said no one bothered to write the story of people like us and why we moved from Lucknow.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

There are seats reserved for minorities. The bias is not so much in politics as Rana Bhagwandas and others have come forward of the same system even till recently. Theres Soran Singh MP in KP and Harcharan singh in the army. The real problem is the general mullah types who have a hatred for minorities and refuse to sell even a roti when they learn the person is a Christian.

Muslims in Indian occupied parts and Hindus of Pakistan face similar problems and similar situation. India covers it up however-very well. As I said no one bothered to write the story of people like us and why we moved from Lucknow.

No. India really reallu makes an effort to remain secular. Pakistan doesn't even try. Pak does not want India to be secular because then their reason for existence gets diluted.

 

[haviZsultan]

No. India really reallu makes an effort to remain secular. Pakistan doesn't even try. Pak does not want India to be secular because then their reason for existence gets diluted.

There is a difference between being a nation born as an Islamic super state and a nation born to protect weak and poor muslims. Pakistan is a latter. We were formed to protect the muslims from oppression under hindustan, not to form a mullahcratic nation. There is a difference between the 2.

Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan and the laws expressed this same thing. Jogindar Nath Mandal, Joseph Pottan and Zafarullah Khan were examples of the secular path Pakistan was to take and Jinnahs 11th August speech is the same thing.

Pakistan was formed because muslims were not safe or treated equally by India. We were killed in riots, there was a law against cow slaughter and muslim majority regions were not given a choice to govern themselves. Jinnah up till a point remained a loyal Indian but when things began to look bleak-when it became clear that Hindus were not willing to sacrifice their powerful position to make the muslims feel secure he started vouching for independence though throughout his early life he vouched for a united India with muslims in it.

The real problem was the Hindutvas and people supporting them. They have always been the problem but you do not see. Pakistans existance was to protect muslims not to become an ultra Islamic state. Pakistan does not want to be secular today because the mullahs control it. It is unfortunate but Pakistan's formation or the reason for its creation will not get diluted by a secular setup. It was a haven for oppressed people of all kinds and that includes my family and sikhs who migrated after 1984 too.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

There is a difference between being a nation born as an Islamic super state and a nation born to protect weak and poor muslims. Pakistan is a latter. We were formed to protect the muslims from oppression under hindustan, not to form a mullahcratic nation. There is a difference between the 2.

Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan and the laws expressed this same thing. Jogindar Nath Mandal, Joseph Pottan and Zafarullah Khan were examples of the secular path Pakistan was to take and Jinnahs 11th August speech is the same thing.

Pakistan was formed because muslims were not safe or treated equally by India. We were killed in riots, there was a law against cow slaughter and muslim majority regions were not given a choice to govern themselves. Jinnah up till a point remained a loyal Indian but when things began to look bleak-when it became clear that Hindus were not willing to sacrifice their powerful position to make the muslims feel secure he started vouching for independence though throughout his early life he vouched for a united India with muslims in it.

The real problem was the Hindutvas and people supporting them. They have always been the problem but you do not see. Pakistans existance was to protect muslims not to become an ultra Islamic state. Pakistan does not want to be secular today because the mullahs control it. It is unfortunate but Pakistan's formation or the reason for its creation will not get diluted by a secular setup. It was a haven for oppressed people of all kinds and that includes my family and sikhs who migrated after 1984 too.

a) Whatever Jinnah wanted Pak to be it is not.
b) In Pak there is a bigger effort to suppress the minorities. India continues with 15% population of muslims in Pak Hindu and Christian populatins have all but vanished. Even the Christian cricketer was esetnailly made to convert. In India there is a law to allow propagation of religion, not just have one's religion. Did Zaheer Khan, Irfan Pathan or Shah Rukh Khan convert to Hinduism?
c) As per the constitution adopted in 1947 there is no cow slaughter ban. There is no religious sense- there is a primarily concern with maintenance of mulch cattle primarily because India is poor and being the largest milk producer in the world helps us.
d) These imagined insults are that only- imagined. No country allows majority areas of a particular group to restrict it's elected representatives to that group. ANd this effort to malign us on that is just that. It's not just the muslims but several other groups had demanded it too- including the untouchables and lower castes whose argument was that having been denied power for 1000s of years they needed special governing zones. They were denied it too.So it's not just muslims- you do not create a weak state multiple divisions basis religion or caste period.

Does America reserve special zones for blacks? Does Pakistan reserve special zones fo Hindus? Fact is that everyone knew that would not be acceptable to and it was just a red herring.

 

[haviZsultan]

a) Whatever Jinnah wanted Pak to be it is not.
b) In Pak there is a bigger effort to suppress the minorities. India continues with 15% population of muslims in Pak Hindu and Christian populatins have all but vanished. Even the Christian cricketer was esetnailly made to convert. In India there is a law to allow propagation of religion, not just have one's religion. Did Zaheer Khan, Irfan Pathan or Shah Rukh Khan convert to Hinduism?
c) As per the constitution adopted in 1947 there is no cow slaughter ban. There is no religious sense- there is a primarily concern with maintenance of mulch cattle primarily because India is poor and being the largest milk producer in the world helps us.
d) These imagined insults are that only- imagined. No country allows majority areas of a particular group to restrict it's elected representatives to that group. ANd this effort to malign us on that is just that. It's not just the muslims but several other groups had demanded it too- including the untouchables and lower castes whose argument was that having been denied power for 1000s of years they needed special governing zones. They were denied it too.So it's not just muslims- you do not create a weak state multiple divisions basis religion or caste period.

Does America reserve special zones for blacks? Does Pakistan reserve special zones fo Hindus? Fact is that everyone knew that would not be acceptable to and it was just a red herring.

a) This should not be discounted because we will stop at nothing to fulfill Jinnah's true vision for Pakistan. Secularists and liberals strongly advocate a secular Pakistan and will continue to do so.
b) We have still much to do for our minorities but that does not mean India is perfect. Mohammed Yousuf or Yousuf Youhana converted of his choice and has no where cited intolerance as the reason for his conversion otherwise Dinesh Kaneria too would have converted. You can say this about the Kalash but not about others-if you do you do not know about the demography of Pakistan.
c) That is a weak excuse. You shouldn't blame others (Pakistan in this case) when you yourselves are not completely distanced from communal thoughts and ideology and defend the cow slaughter ban which is anti muslim. If milk is your concern then beef should be a bigger concern-you are the largest exporter of beef in the world-something that is changing rapidly. Old cows should be cut otherwise its not beneficial for the farmer.
d) I agree its not just muslims-doesn't make it any more fair for minorities though. India could have stopped partition, even our families migrating by giving us justice-severe punishment for the hindutvas and ilk who terrorize muslims from Bengal to Rajhastan and from Madras to Kashmir. But India has refused to take action against Hindutvas. The reasons I understand are the same-it is hard to fight enemies from your own religion-but Pakistan is doing the exact same thing yet instead of gaining respect its being abused by our eastern neighbors as a terrorist sanctuary. When you will fight hindu extremists and have the same law for both muslim and hindu extremists then you concern might just be real.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

a) This should not be discounted because we will stop at nothing to fulfill Jinnah's true vision for Pakistan. Secularists and liberals strongly advocate a secular Pakistan and will continue to do so.
b) We have still much to do for our minorities but that does not mean India is perfect. Mohammed Yousuf or Yousuf Youhana converted of his choice and has no where cited intolerance as the reason for his conversion otherwise Dinesh Kaneria too would have converted. You can say this about the Kalash but not about others-if you do you do not know about the demography of Pakistan.
c) That is a weak excuse. You shouldn't blame others (Pakistan in this case) when you yourselves are not completely distanced from communal thoughts and ideology and defend the cow slaughter ban which is anti muslim. If milk is your concern then beef should be a bigger concern-you are the largest exporter of beef in the world-something that is changing rapidly. Old cows should be cut otherwise its not beneficial for the farmer.
d) I agree its not just muslims-doesn't make it any more fair for minorities though. India could have stopped partition, even our families migrating by giving us justice-severe punishment for the hindutvas and ilk who terrorize muslims from Bengal to Rajhastan and from Madras to Kashmir. But India has refused to take action against Hindutvas. The reasons I understand are the same-it is hard to fight enemies from your own religion-but Pakistan is doing the exact same thing yet instead of gaining respect its being abused by our eastern neighbors as a terrorist sanctuary. When you will fight hindu extremists and have the same law for both muslim and hindu extremists then you concern might just be real.

d) No question of fair or unfair- A STATE DOES NOT CREATE DIVIDED POWER STRUCTURES. That's just the way it is everywhere in the world. Rather than settling for that kind of a weak system that will drown us in civil conflict for centuries, it's better that India a Pakistan separate. It just is the fact. After Apartheid ended in South Africa for instance, was there pckets reserved for whites and blacks? There is no end down that road.

c) There is no cow slaughter ban, so where is the need for an excuse? I definitely support that most Hindus don't eat beef out of their own volition though- it has ensured the survival of milch cattle.

b) of course it was because of 'his own volition'. Saeed Anwar's and Inamam Ul Haq's overtly religious preferences didn't have any influence.

 

[haviZsultan]

d) No question of fair or unfair- A STATE DOES NOT CREATE DIVIDED POWER STRUCTURES. That's just the way it is everywhere in the world. Rather than settling for that kind of a weak system that will drown us in civil conflict for centuries, it's better that India a Pakistan separate. It just is the fact. After Apartheid ended in South Africa for instance, was there pckets reserved for whites and blacks? There is no end down that road.

I disagree, India could have been saved and this mindset lost it. Pakistan was bound to happen because Indians refused to relinquish a few of their rights in favor of muslims who wanted simply freedom and respect. Read Jaswant Singhs book on Jinnah-very insightful.

c) There is no cow slaughter ban, so where is the need for an excuse? I definitely support that most Hindus don't eat beef out of their own volition though- it has ensured the survival of milch cattle.

I disagree. Then what is imposed in Kashmir if there is no cow slaughter ban.

b) of course it was because of 'his own volition'. Saeed Anwar's and Inamam Ul Haq's overtly religious preferences didn't have any influence.

The rabid mullahs had a role. Even Islamic republic was not attached to Pakistan until Jinnah lived.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I disagree, India could have been saved and this mindset lost it. Pakistan was bound to happen because Indians refused to relinquish a few of their rights in favor of muslims who wanted simply freedom and respect. Read Jaswant Singhs book on Jinnah-very insightful.



I disagree. Then what is imposed in Kashmir if there is no cow slaughter ban.


The rabid mullahs had a role. Even Islamic republic was not attached to Pakistan until Jinnah lived.

The 'purity of principle' concept in state that you so abhor is way more important than you think. There really is no possibility of making compromises to accept the demands of a few groups. The principle has to be uniform. One vote one man, for whoever he decides should get the vote. The rights you have are the rights that I have.

Take the concerns of the lower castes for instance. The way in which it was handled was by allowing the tallest leader of the untouchables- Dr. Ambedkar- become the head of the constitution draft committee. In his position he was able to bring into the constitution the safeguards that he wanted to bring in. 70 years later, what is the status? Has it vanished? No. But has india become way better than before? Yes.
Most people don't realize that the 600 pound gorilla that stormed the elections in 2014, a man called Narendra Modi belongs to a low caste. From a society where if you were touched by a caste as his a higher caste person would wash and perform religious rituals, we are now in a position where a man becomes the ruler of all India and his caste does not matter. Even critics like me never said that making him PM is problematic because he's from a lower caste, but that his right wing ideology is not proper for a Secular state.

Creating pockets of out of system power leads only to social unrest. Even the little affirmative action we showed by reserving government jobs for Scheduled Castes and Tribes has created significant unrest. You think that a system far more unstable that preserves pockets basis religion will not create massive unrest? It is for people to discuss, evolve and conform to a uniform system and not the other way around.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Excellent appotinment, he has earnt this no doubt about it.

India needs to be a meritocracy- the best candidates in the availble postions, no one cares if you are Hindu, Muslim, Martian etc.

It serves very specfic interests (mostly media) to play the communal card every few days.

 

[haviZsultan]

The 'purity of principle' concept in state that you so abhor is way more important than you think. There really is no possibility of making compromises to accept the demands of a few groups. The principle has to be uniform. One vote one man, for whoever he decides should get the vote. The rights you have are the rights that I have.

Take the concerns of the lower castes for instance. The way in which it was handled was by allowing the tallest leader of the untouchables- Dr. Ambedkar- become the head of the constitution draft committee. In his position he was able to bring into the constitution the safeguards that he wanted to bring in. 70 years later, what is the status? Has it vanished? No. But has india become way better than before? Yes.
Most people don't realize that the 600 pound gorilla that stormed the elections in 2014, a man called Narendra Modi belongs to a low caste. From a society where if you were touched by a caste as his a higher caste person would wash and perform religious rituals, we are now in a position where a man becomes the ruler of all India and his caste does not matter. Even critics like me never said that making him PM is problematic because he's from a lower caste, but that his right wing ideology is not proper for a Secular state.

Creating pockets of out of system power leads only to social unrest. Even the little affirmative action we showed by reserving government jobs for Scheduled Castes and Tribes has created significant unrest. You think that a system far more unstable that preserves pockets basis religion will not create massive unrest? It is for people to discuss, evolve and conform to a uniform system and not the other way around.

Read this. Modi is no low caste Hindu otherwise before butchering muslims he would have thought twice. A person who has seen others suffer because of tyrannical religious bigots always learns a lesson and tries to make sure the same thing does not happen to others-except a few idiots who want to take revenge. Take it from experience.

The Congress claimed on Thursday the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi doesn’t belong to any backward caste, but was in fact born into an upper caste “Vaishya” family, that is given title of “Modh”, for being super rich, like Mod Brahmin and Modh Bania.

Alleging Modi was a “fake OBC”, former Gujarat Assembly opposition leader Shaktisinh Gohil armed with documents said Modi belonged to a Vaishya sub-caste the “Modh Ghanchi”, a microscopic minority found only in Gujarat. “He, in fact, belongs to the upper caste since he comes from a prosperous business community,” said Gohil.

Gohil further contested Modi’s claim of being a tea-seller, saying his uncle ran a canteen at a state road transport office, where Modi used to sit occasionally. Gohil’s disclosure came at an AICC press briefing here, when he said, “Here comes the “fake OBC” of Gujarat after the state is already getting a bad name for fake encounters.”

He went on, “If Modi is speaking the truth that he used to sell tea, he should disclose from which “larri” (cart) he used to do so, and there must be still many people of his age who used to have tea stalls in the area to vouch for his authenticity.”

Gohil flaunted a Gujarat government resolution dated January 1, 2002 that he had procured through the Right To Information Act (RTI) to show how Modi usurped the rights of Other Backward Castes (OBCs) by placing his rich “Modh Ghanchi” caste in the OBC category within four months of becoming chief minister.

Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

The problem is communalism has seeped everywhere. Sometimes appeasement is a policy that saves a lot of trouble. If India had appeased muslims partition would not have occured. What you are calling a small minority was a vast muslim majority. 75% of all muslims and 90%+ of UP muslims voted for the Muslim League. There was a great feeling of despondency and feeling of being betrayed by the Congress.

All i am saying it you could have avoided partition in 46 by giving us equal rights. You do not agree and think it is for the better. I say it is for the better too. India never had our interests, muslim interests at heart, the reason why our grandfather from my mothers side stayed on in Lucknow but supported Pakistan. Winning the muslims unfortunately will require a lot of appeasement. And no Modi. It is unfortunate no one understands this.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Read this. Modi is no low caste Hindu otherwise before butchering muslims he would have thought twice. A person who has seen others suffer because of tyrannical religious bigots always learns a lesson and tries to make sure the same thing does not happen to others-except a few idiots who want to take revenge. Take it from experience.


Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

The problem is communalism has seeped everywhere. Sometimes appeasement is a policy that saves a lot of trouble. If India had appeased muslims partition would not have occured. What you are calling a small minority was a vast muslim majority. 75% of all muslims and 90%+ of UP muslims voted for the Muslim League. There was a great feeling of despondency and feeling of being betrayed by the Congress.

All i am saying it you could have avoided partition in 46 by giving us equal rights. You do not agree and think it is for the better. I say it is for the better too. India never had our interests, muslim interests at heart, the reason why our grandfather from my mothers side stayed on in Lucknow but supported Pakistan. Winning the muslims unfortunately will require a lot of appeasement. And no Modi. It is unfortunate no one understands this.

But you did have equal rights. The problem was with special protected electorates. THAT is not equal rights. And I don't know what you want to show with your link. It is an OBC. And for some reason if you are questioning that, then note that in UP (Mayawati) and Bihar (Laloo) - among the biggest states in India, lower caste people have become CMs. Low caste people have also held many national level ministerial positions.

 

[haviZsultan]

But you did have equal rights. The problem was with special protected electorates. THAT is not equal rights. And I don't know what you want to show with your link. It is an OBC. And for some reason if you are questioning that, then note that in UP (Mayawati) and Bihar (Laloo) - among the biggest states in India, lower caste people have become CMs. Low caste people have also held many national level ministerial positions.

Muslims have different rules. We have a festival where we cut all kinds of cattle including the cow and eat it. Hindus revere the cow. There should be separate electorates (one of the demands of Jinnah in the latter period) and the regions with muslim majority to be ruled by their own laws. It is not a big thing to ask for though it seems impossible in todays India. Low caste people generally have the same problems as muslims to be frank. Lets not point to successful people from OBC's for that or successful muslims. They are not representative of their people.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Muslims have different rules. We have a festival where we cut all kinds of cattle including the cow and eat it. Hindus revere the cow. There should be separate electorates (one of the demands of Jinnah in the latter period) and the regions with muslim majority to be ruled by their own laws. It is not a big thing to ask for though it seems impossible in todays India. Low caste people generally have the same problems as muslims to be frank. Lets not point to successful people from OBC's for that or successful muslims. They are not representative of their people.

No- separate electorate is a principle that no country in any part of the world can agree to. Muslim majority areas could be expected to vote for muslim candidates in those areas anyway- so what's the big deal of 'protection'. If the people in those regions felt the muslim candidate was not up to scratch, they would have voted in the best person for the job. Muslims do have personal laws that are specifically secured for them. Marriage, divorce, their regeious administration are all separate- what more do you need. And no- the problems with the lower caste are different.

 

[haviZsultan]

No- separate electorate is a principle that no country in any part of the world can agree to. Muslim majority areas could be expected to vote for muslim candidates in those areas anyway- so what's the big deal of 'protection'. If the people in those regions felt the muslim candidate was not up to scratch, they would have voted in the best person for the job. Muslims do have personal laws that are specifically secured for them. Marriage, divorce, their regeious administration are all separate- what more do you need. And no- the problems with the lower caste are different.

We fail to agree and will go around in circles if we talk further. Muslims problems arise when it comes to laws that contradict Hinduism like the beef law and in our city we cannot kill monkeys that are a real menace. That is where the problems arise. Also justice is not swift. Those responsible for Gujarat and Mumbai have not been punished. Our housing taken by hindus using the opportunity provided by partition has still not been returned and we can be framed for any crime or terrorism. I don't see muslim problems disappearing in the future either.

The thought in india is we gave them Pakistan so why should we give them more rights. Its not helping and the muslims still feel deprived. I wish you good luck for the society you wish to build-I just want you to keep muslim interests in mind though. Cheers. No point going around in circles.