The End of the Indian Idea

[gulli]

They are not welcome

Pakistan is only for Pakistanis

If Indians hate each other then partition India

Pakistan is for Pakistanis that's why we have muhajjir quami movement plus Bangladesh.

 

[magra]

If Indian Muslims were on board and not having bullshit smoke about a wonderful united India blown up their *** then they would and should have gotten their own areas

Sikhs needed a Khalistan not be a tiny minority in a sea of Hindus


Indian Christians needed a state too

Certain Indian ethnicities like Tamils might have preferred independence


But everyone was so concerned about getting everyone stuck in the same shit state they forgot what happens if like today a specific group like the hindutva begin to grow and rule

Sikhs, Christians, Tamils, UPites, Gujaratis etc etc can speak on their own behalf. You dont need to butt in our affairs.

 

[hussain0216]

You guys hated India long before BJP came into the national scene. So I dont buy your logic at all. You guys hate India because 2 nation hate theory was the basis of your nation coming into existence.

Yaar we hated India because we understood it

We always knew that the togetherness crap was monkey shit

Congress was keeping it together because of the weight of the party not because India s were secular, underneath it was always a bubbling cauldron of hatred

Take a look at the list of communal riots in India since 1940s

It's loooonggg and brutal



What's happening now in India is the fruition of Jinnahs warning

Sikhs, Christians, Tamils, UPites, Gujaratis etc etc can speak on their own behalf. You dont need to butt in our affairs.

It's all connected man,

Jinnahs message is more important today to save 1.4 billion Indians then ever before

 

[magra]

Yaar we hated India because we understood it

We always knew that the togetherness crap was monkey shit

Congress was keeping it together because of the weight of the party not because India s were secular, underneath it was always a bubbling cauldron of hatred

Take a look at the list of communal riots in India since 1940s

It's loooonggg and brutal

What's happening now in India is the fruition of Jinnahs warning

You got what you wanted, right? Be happy. No point in being sad anyways, as what happened cant be reversed.

Take care of Balochistan.

There is no doubt that India's diversity hobbles the country's ability to work efficiently. However, I think the geographic contiguity of India and the fact that these regions have largely been politically and economically integrated for centuries will ensure it will stay united.

I am positively surprised to read a favorable comment for India from a Chinese. Thank you.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Better than many more people dying while leaving behind their homes and migrating thousands of miles.

yeah. now 100s of millions of muslims can enjoy the perks of hindu rashtra and hindu terror. India, a country built on a lie.

Agreeing for partition to stop bloodshed is not equivalent to agreeing to a stupid religious theory.

as you said, they agreed. the concept of India went up in smoke the day Gandhi got lit up by Godse.

Atleast show some census record to prove me wrong first, m humble enough to accept my mistake

you couldnt be bothered to know the facts before opening your mouth.

now you cant be bothered to even google it?

dont say i didnt do nothing for you

India becoming intolerant is obviously not a good scenario.

proves Jinnah was right. Gandhi, Nehru and you were wrong

But tell me how many are dying due to this?
A very very small fraction of those that died in an avoidable partition induced violence.

over time it will be several more than those that died at partition. you have killed 100s of thousands in Kashmir alone.

 

[magra]

It's all connected man,

Jinnahs message is more important today to save 1.4 billion Indians then ever before

Two nation theory is leading to the 2 countries fighting till today. How did it save the 1.8 billion South Asians?
Dividing it further based on religion, ethnicity would lead to more countries fighting among each other. It will lead to more conflict, not peace.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Two nation theory is leading to the 2 countries fighting till today. How did it save the 1.8 billion South Asians?
Dividing it further based on religion, ethnicity would lead to more countries fighting among each other. It will lead to more conflict, not peace.

India lying that it wasnt a hindu rashtra is why there isnt peace.

 

[tower9]

You got what you wanted, right? Be happy. No point in being sad anyways, as what happened cant be reversed.

Take care of Balochistan.

I am positively surprised to read a favorable comment for India from a Chinese. Thank you.

I try to be accurate and realistic in my assessment of situations.

 

[magra]

yeah. now 100s of millions of muslims can enjoy the perks of hindu rashtra and hindu terror. India, a country built on a lie.

It was not India which broke after 1947. It was Pakistan which broke in 1971. So whose country was built on a lie is clear based on actual evidence, rather than theory.

as you said, they agreed. the concept of India went up in smoke the day Gandhi got lit up by Godse.

Gandhi was an Indian. he was not the India. His death showed that we have to be vigilant towards all extremism.

over time it will be several more than those that died at partition. you have killed 100s of thousands in Kashmir alone.

You would wish that. Its never going to happen.
We have not killed Kashmiris. They were living peacefully till late 80s. They even helped in apprehending the terrorists you sent across in 65.
It was your sustained terrorism since the late 80s which has caused the conflict to worsen and led to collateral damage to Kashmiris.

 

[gulli]

View attachment 723671
View attachment 723672
View attachment 723675

You proved me wrong buddy, i was lying for previous message of mine. Now, where are these 32% Hindu Sikhs of Lahore have vanished??

 

[GHALIB]

www.theatlantic.com

The End of the Indian Idea

10 - 12 minutes


A crackdown on the country’s press is the latest in a pattern of intimidation against news outlets.
February 3, 2021

For the past several years, warnings have been sounded about democracy in India—whether they be about the fate of the country’s minorities, its courts, its intellectuals. These worries steadily build, before erupting into some major protest, taking over the popular consciousness, both domestically and abroad. For the past several years, India’s government has steadily chipped away at the edifice of its free press and, over the past week, once again gone too far. This was the week my government attacked my home.
Home for me is in a multistory building in the center of New Delhi, on the edge of a sprawling park, a short walk from the markets of Karol Bagh and the upscale shops of Connaught Place. I have not visited in some time, but it is where my heart is. This is where you can find the offices of The Caravan.
The Caravan is a small magazine—it has a staff of just a few dozen people—and its readership pales in comparison with other members of India’s English-language printed press. Yet its diminutive size masks its power: The publication is read by government ministers and opposition leaders, and larger outlets regularly follow up on its stories. Its team of talented staff writers is supported by a glittering list of contributors, all of whom see the magazine’s strengths as standing apart from India’s larger mainstream publications. These people are my family. For the past seven years, I have contributed stories to The Caravan as a freelance journalist, typically on health and science with a particular focus over the past year on the coronavirus pandemic. It is a place where reporters and editors uniformly believe in the power of the written word, where speaking truth to power is a minimum expectation.

Over the past week, multiple state police forces have opened investigations into the editors of The Caravan, as well as a host of other journalists and writers, for covering protests by farmers opposed to agricultural reforms being promoted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Twitter’s India office suspended the magazine’s account, as well as those of hundreds of other users, after a “legal demand” from the government. (The Caravan’s account has since been restored, but the government is reportedly threatening legal action over Twitter's apparent noncompliance.) Press-freedom groups have voiced outrage, but it is unclear how much impact they will have.
These latest attacks, part of a pattern of legal cases, personal threats, and intimidation against news outlets and individual journalists, make certain what was becoming evident: The freedom of the press, a constitutional right, is endangered in Modi’s India. The brazen use of social-media networks to censor journalists, the use of the police and courts to silence them, and, more fundamentally, the belief that those who report on protests are somehow undermining the state illustrate how much has changed in India, and how far the country has strayed from its founding ideals.
The authorities claim that The Caravan and other outlets, by reporting on a particular hashtag, sparked or fueled unrest that began on January 26, India’s Republic Day, during which New Delhi police tear-gassed protesting farmers—among them elderly men—as a parade was under way to showcase India’s military might and rich cultural heritage.
The dueling images—a celebration of India’s democracy on the one hand, the crushing of dissent on the other—were carried on a split screen by many news channels, inadvertently offering the perfect visual metaphor for modern India.
Read: How Hinduism became a political weapon in India
To outsiders, the idea of India is centered on spirituality and mysticism, Gandhi and nonviolence, backpackers and yogis. Though these are stereotypical beliefs, they stem from truth: The country’s founding idea was a union of states, diverse in religion, and liberal in acceptance of that diversity. Republic Day marks the enshrining of our constitution, debated and agreed on in the years following independence. The preamble of that document notes India’s “resolve to constitute” a nation with “Justice in social, economic and political life; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among them all, Fraternity.”
This was the central ethos of India once.
Now we are a very different country. Today, that a majority of Indians are Hindu is not a demographic fact, but a governing premise; whereas liberty of thought was once prized, journalists are now arrested; and what was once a union of states, united in their diversity, is a society divided, where Muslims are not welcome, where farmers are beaten for defending their rights.
To blame all of this on Modi would be overly simplistic. It is true that since his reelection less than two years ago, the prime minister has revoked the constitutional autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, India’s sole Muslim-majority state; established a religious test for citizenship that excludes Muslims; and promoted reforms that triggered civil unrest from farmers’ groups. This is to say nothing of the doctors who protest his government’s decision to allow Ayurveda practitioners to perform medical surgeries, the students who protest attacks on intellectuals, the women who speak up against India’s rape culture, and the Dalits who fight caste oppression.
The erosion of democracy in India did not happen in a single moment, or because of a single man. It came as a court directive to moviegoers, making it mandatory to stand for the national anthem. It came in the form of police officers forcing wounded Muslim men to sing that anthem while filming it, without fear of being punished. It came as Bollywood championed police brutality and vigilante justice.
Yet Modi is central to all this. Much as India has a founding myth, so too does Modi: He was a tea seller who managed to work his way up to the most powerful position in the land. This story, which the prime minister repeats often, forms a sharp contrast with the familial privilege of the opposition Congress Party, their current leader a descendent of former prime ministers, and gives Modi the power to demand sacrifices of Indians. It is what allowed him to impose a brutal lockdown in the early stages of the pandemic, to demonetize huge amounts of India’s currency overnight, to remove Kashmir’s special autonomous status.
And each time Modi has done so, his support has remained buoyant, even as the promised benefits have not come. India’s recorded coronavirus cases are the second-highest in the world, and its reported deaths are fourth-highest; taking large amounts of cash out of the system in an apparent bid to fight corruption did little of the sort and instead introduced significant economic hardship; and ending Kashmir’s autonomy has not brought peace to the region. This is in large part thanks to his government’s standard playbook, which involves denying facts, spreading lies, and telling half-truths that turn catastrophic failures into celebrated triumphs.
This is precisely why the actions against The Caravan and other journalists and media outlets are so troubling. Many news organizations have picked away at the government’s narratives, as a free press must do in a democracy, not because they are opposed to Modi, but because they are committed to truth. The Caravan, for example, profiled Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh, with the same rigor and journalistic scrutiny that they currently bring to bear upon the current government.
Read: A look inside the school professionalizing India’s nationalists
The war on truth in India is very much like the war on truth in the United States, where I am currently spending a year as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard; the scale of devastation may never be fully understood. It has jolted the foundation of the common realities we Indians presuppose as a nation, much as it has here in America.
A country as enormous and complex as India is more than its flags, anthems, and monuments. It is made up of things that are at once powerful and fragile: ideas of equality, justice, liberty, fraternity.
In its outright assault on the press, on truth, Modi’s government has hollowed out these ideas, and thus the soul of the nation. Like Americans, Indians do not share a common set of facts any longer, or attribute the same meaning to words. Citizens must be “obedient faithfuls,” or bhakts, as Modi’s supporters are known. India’s inherent complexity—stemming from its religious and cultural diversity—has been weaponized. With each sacrifice, we will chip away at the founding ethos, outlined in our constitution and heralded on Republic Day, until those words have no meaning.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Vidya Krishnan is a writer and journalist, and currently a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. Her first book, Phantom Plague: The Untold Story of How Tuberculosis Shaped our History will be published by PublicAffairs in 2021.

vidya krishnan is anti india working for enemies of india .

 

[Chhatrapati]

India becoming intolerant is

The word intolerant in itself is a sham. Passivist Gandhi stuff that got Hindus killed and what gave rise to RSS. Intolerance didn't increase much, rather, it has largely reduced to a point where instead of us hearing about riots every month back in 80's, 90's all the way through 2000, when a random street fight between kids of two communities turned into a week-long riot. Or in 86 a simple short story caused a riot resulting in the death of 16 people. To in 2010's - 20's discussing cow vigilantism to domestic violence even being a country of 1.3 billion.

Social media gave a magnifying glass to even the passive crimes, to murder and gave a communal angle.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

You proved me wrong buddy, i was lying for previous message of mine. Now, where are these 32% Hindu Sikhs of Lahore have vanished??

many left for India during 1941-1947.

 

[magra]

The word intolerant in itself is a sham. Passivist Gandhi stuff that got Hindus killed and what gave rise to RSS. Intolerance didn't increase much, rather, it has largely reduced to a point where instead of us hearing about riots every month back in 80's, 90's all the way through 2000, when a random street fight between kids of two communities turned into a week-long riot. Or in 86 a simple short story caused a riot resulting in the death of 16 people. To in 2010's - 20's discussing cow vigilantism to domestic violence even being a country of 1.3 billion.

Social media gave a magnifying glass to even the passive crimes, to murder and gave a communal angle.

I cant say what happened in 80's or 90's. But if I compare the present NDA govt from the previous UPA or the Vajpayee NDA govt, I see some disturbing things.
1. Negligible representation of Muslims in Upper House by BJP. I understand they dont get many Muslim votes so Lower House would not have many Muslims from BJP. Decent muslim representation in Parliament is important so that Indian muslims do not lose faith in Indian democracy and turn to undesirable ways to get heard.
2. Silence from the top level of govt (Modi, Shah) whenever anti-muslim riots happen. Modi otherwise tweets on mundane things like cricket team victory or Rishi Kapoor's death. But no tweet to condemn violence.
3. Frequent islamophobic speeches by the 2nd or 3rd tier of BJP leaders. Few of these speeches triggered the Delhi riots as well. Again, BJP leadership tolerates such speeches mostly and there is no serious reprimand by Modi or Shah on them.
4. Any dissent by anyone is harshly dealt with strict laws such sedition law (latest example of Disha Ravi, where even court criticized the govt of misuing the law). Another example is of the UP doctor who was put in jail for 2 years because Yogi did not like him taking the limelight.

I am saying all this not to please Pakistanis. But so that we Indians look inwards to clean out our issues. If not, then Pakistan would not be pleased more. They dont fear a Hindu India but a united India.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

It was not India which broke after 1947.

it was not one country before 1947?

It was Pakistan which broke in 1971.

not really. Pakistan meant muslims needed to have their own homeland. we got that in 1947. in 1971 East Pakistan didnt become part of India.

So whose country was built on a lie is clear based on actual evidence, rather than theory.

India. the BJP and most Indian voters prove it. Jinnah was right, and India is a hindu rashtra that dumped millions of muslims into thinking it was secular country.

Gandhi was an Indian. he was not the India. His death showed that we have to be vigilant towards all extremism.

BJP showed Gandhi and India died when they built temples for Godse and became the government.

It was not India which broke after 1947. It was Pakistan which broke in 1971. So whose country was built on a lie is clear based on actual evidence, rather than theory.


Gandhi was an Indian. he was not the India. His death showed that we have to be vigilant towards all extremism.


You would wish that. Its never going to happen.
We have not killed Kashmiris.

thats right. the Kashmiris are all lying. they stabbed themselves to death with pencils.

They were living peacefully till late 80s.

they tolerated you for the most part. then you rigged their election and showed Kashmir what India truly is.

They even helped in apprehending the terrorists you sent across in 65.

India rewarded them with lockdowns, communication blackouts, abductions, killings, rapes (gang rape by Indian soldiers included), politicians arrested, political parties banned, pellet guns, and a whole bunch of other goodies.

It was your sustained terrorism since the late 80s which has caused the conflict to worsen and led to collateral damage to Kashmiris.

facts show that India rigged elections, Kashmiris rose up and the fighting started. they learned that India is full of shit, just like all indians.