The message is clear: The BJP is against terrorists only if those terrorists are Muslim

[magudi]

any idea who runs these guys and what their agenda is ?

secular india

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Depends upon who is in the receiving end.

How so?

 

[nForce]

How so?

BJP takes harsh actions against terrorists in NE. Terrorists get terrorized. BJP guys celebrates. NE rebel calls them terrorist.
Rebel shocked, BJP rocked.

 

[jamahir]

Still I don't get it. Please elaborate.

you mentioned, (a). a nebulous "people of india" who promoted right-wingers as if everyone in india did that, (b). "supreme court judges" which i extended to mean the current government.

you indicated that people in (a) would not have done (b) if not for "minority appeasement" by previous governments... my simple point was people who elected the current establishment were as much misguided in previous decades as they are now... it was a thing waiting to happen... non-existence of "minority appeasement" would not have prevented it... only the partial progressive structures constructed by nehru and the socialists/progressives prevented such a situation earlier... the vote-bank for the current establishment will include those who do "honor killing" ( of male and female ) and sahukaars rather than the jholla-wallahs, yes??

 

[21 Dec 2012]

BJP takes harsh actions against terrorists in NE. Terrorists get terrorized. BJP guys celebrates. NE rebel calls them terrorist.
Rebel shocked, BJP rocked.

I have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about and will silently bow out from this thread now.

 

[nForce]

I have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about and will silently bow out from this thread now.

I'm saying it's dependent upon how you look at things. In any case, BJP is the biggest democratically elected political party of World's largest democracy. To call it a terrorist organization is tantamount to calling India a terrorist country. I do hope you fully understand what you were saying, if you really meant it.

 

[ranjeet]

you mentioned, (a). a nebulous "people of india" who promoted right-wingers as if everyone in india did that, (b). "supreme court judges" which i extended to mean the current government.

you indicated that people in (a) would not have done (b) if not for "minority appeasement" by previous governments... my simple point was people who elected the current establishment were as much misguided in previous decades as they are now... it was a thing waiting to happen... non-existence of "minority appeasement" would not have prevented it... only the partial progressive structures constructed by nehru and the socialists/progressives prevented such a situation earlier... the vote-bank for the current establishment will include those who do "honor killing" ( of male and female ) and sahukaars rather than the jholla-wallahs, yes??

Really!! you got all that from my post? Great.

Edit: I still didn't get the Pramod Muthalik connection?

 

[jamahir]

n any case, BJP is the biggest democratically elected political party of World's largest democracy.

a "democratic system" that disregards the opinions of those who didn't vote for a certain winning party that won only by majority vote??

Really!! you got all that from my post? Great.

well, what people may write in a single line may sometimes need to be elaborated and gotten to the basis of.

Edit: I still didn't get the Pramod Muthalik connection?

i meant, if not for his anger because of "minority appeasement", he might have turned out different after all.

 

[ranjeet]

a "democratic system" that disregards the opinions of those who didn't vote for a certain winning party that won only by majority vote??

True, I mean if we are going to disregard people's opinion who didn't voted for the winning horse we might as well switch to a dictatorship. Say yes to disregarding everyone's opinion equally.

 

[jamahir]

True, I mean if they are going to disregard people's opinion who didn't voted for the winning horse we might as well switch to a dictatorship. Say yes to disregarding everyone's opinion equally.

or else shift the system to direct-democracy guided by socialism, the first part of which aap wants to do via "swaraj".

 

[Phantom 1]

Lol scroll.in
like seriously?
When wasvthevlast time they made a good productive article?
lemme think.
Like never.

 

[ranjeet]

or else shift the system to direct-democracy guided by socialism, the first part of which aap wants to do via "swaraj".

If we did that wouldn't Nato invade us?

 

[jamahir]

If we did that wouldn't Nato invade us?

there is that risk, yes... but it would feel nice being seen as a threat to nato hegemony... yes??

 

[ranjeet]

there is that risk, yes... but it would feel nice being seen as a threat to nato hegemony... yes??

Your little role play will get millions killed aren't you worried about that?

 

[Kaniska]

Had congress not indulged in appeasement policy, people of India would have never voted overwhelmingly for Right wing Supreme Court Judges.

I agree with you...If Congress has truly followed secular way of governing the nation without appeasing minorities, then BJP could have never been on the power..BJP came to power due to fault line opened up not only by Congress but by the so called secular regional parties too...See the classic example of Bihar...Just to come to power, Nitish and Lalu came to gether...which indirectly strenghen the case of BJP is that Hindus are marginalized in their own country by the secular parties and BJP is only the saviour of them...

yes, otherwise pramod muthalik was a socialist playboy like carlos.

Otherwise..no one even bothered to know who is Pramod Muthalik is...It is the so called secular parties who just played too much of minority card for which even nuts like Pramod Muthalik is getting a space for Hindu people....

or else shift the system to direct-democracy guided by socialism, the first part of which aap wants to do via "swaraj".

Dear friend...i am not a great knowledgeble person like you...But suggest me, in your ideal of socialism, how a class and religion of people is prioritized??? And what is your opinion with it?...Suppose a scheme is made for poor people irrespective of religion? Does socialism support it or socialim support schemes based on religion??..