Priyamvada Gopal: The UK will also suffer if India elects this far-right activist and Hindu Extremist. We must sever our links with him.

Modi was a leading activist for its secretive and militaristic arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – whose founder expressed admiration for Hitler, ideologies of racial purity and the virtues of fascism. It is an organisation that, on a good day, looks like the British National party but can operate more like Nazi militias. Known for an authoritarian leadership style, Modi's only expression of regret for the pogroms compared them to a car running over a puppy, while he labelled Muslim relief camps "baby-making factories".

Hindu extremism is rooted in a macho 20th-century response to British colonialism which mocked Hindu "effeminacy". It is rarely scrutinised in the west, partly because Hinduism is stereotyped as gentle and non-violent in the image of Gandhi – who, ironically, was assassinated by an RSS activist – and benefits from the disproportionate attention given to Islamist violence, which enables other pernicious extremisms to slip under the radar.

For all its anti-British rhetoric, Hindu nationalism played no significant role in either the freedom struggle or in creating the secular constitution of independent India. But over recent decades, the notion of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) has grown in force along with the unfettered capitalism it espouses: it is responsible for vicious attacks on Christians, murdering missionaries and calling for Muslims to choose between Pakistan and the graveyard. And any victory for a proponent of a nuclearised Hindu India where homosexuality remains criminalised will have consequences that will be felt well beyond the subcontinent, not least in multicultural Britain.

The Gujarat pogroms took place after an unexplained fire on a train, which killed Hindu activists and was swiftly attributed by Modi to Islamic forces and Pakistan. Allegations remain that he deliberately prevented authorities from intervening. Contrary to claims, India's supreme court has not issued him a "clean chit" but criticised him as a "modern-day Nero".

Modi's moral culpability was recognised by both Britain and the US in denying him a travel visa for several years. Britain has also been attempting, without success, to get justice for the three Britons – Saeed and Sakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat – who were chased, cornered and brutally killed, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, disgracefully, trumped by British corporate interests in India, many owned by British Indians, governmental links with Modi have been re-established. This rehabilitation is the result of hard lobbying by some Hindutva-friendly politicians and the many front organisations that operate in Britain. We are urged to focus on corporate-friendly Modi, the pogroms being a little mishap to be shrugged off.

We should note with concern that some charitable funds raised in Britain, including for the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, went to charities run by Hindu extremists who systematically foment hate. So too must we care about the "saffron pound" sent by long-distance Hindu "patriots" to fund extremism. But investigating Britain's Hindu zealots doesn't have the same political currency as pronouncements about getting "tough" on Islamic extremism.

A Modi victory will strengthen the arm of chauvinist forces in Britain, which have already had successes such as shutting down exhibitions, quashing caste discrimination laws, and withdrawing Royal Mail stamps. Under Modi there will be no progress on Kashmir, which will also have far-reaching violent consequences. In the face of a global resurgence of the right we must be alert to all its extremist forms. Britons committed to anti-fascism must not allow their country to abdicate morality.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india

foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

the above is the story of any woman caught in the middle of something like this - a riot, a public bus in delhi, africa, china, anywhere. but you're right, it couldn't have happened to anyone on a burning train for  a very obvious reason, but like I said it is the story of every woman in a riot and you should know that by now given that you weren't born yesterday.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

you guys lost your credibility then.  the weakest of men hid behind the pristine shields of peace and stability and the false idea that they were championing the rights and safety of the muslims in doing so. otoh take flim flam, he's in some ways just like uppili: they're the other team, if they got burnt, big shit, they're so many of them, population control.  

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

pravalika nanda wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

the above is the story of any woman caught in the middle of something like this - a riot, a public bus in delhi, africa, china, anywhere. but you're right, it couldn't have happened to anyone on a burning train for  a very obvious reason, but like I said it is the story of every woman in a riot and you should know that by now given that you weren't born yesterday.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

you guys lost your credibility then.  the weakest of men hid behind the pristine shields of peace and stability and the false idea that they were championing the rights and safety of the muslims in doing so. otoh take flim flam, he's in some ways just like uppili: they're the other team, if they got burnt, big shit, they're so many of them, population control.  

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

A few days ago I wrote a short piece for the Guardian newspaper in which I argued that India was at a watershed moment in which it might have a Prime Minister who was openly linked with an extremist organisation, the RSS. I also pointed out that Narendra Modi bore moral responsibility for the massacres--not 'riots', in my view,-- which took place in Gujarat in 2002 and that serious questions had been raised about his government's role in them. A Modi regime, I noted, would have potentially grave consequences both for a plural India and a Britain which has a substantial Asian population. I did not call, as has been widely reported, for Britain to sever links with India.

While I expected the piece to elicit disagreement, I was taken aback at the sheer quantity of the nastiness, vitriol and  hatred that came my way in the form of tweets and emails from professed Modi supporters. Many were sexist, calling me 'ugly and brown'; others denounced me as a jihadi who was part of an Islamic takeover of the world. 'Idiot commie'; 'retarded bitch'; 'white arselicking sepoy'; 'Congi-paid libtard'; 'anti-Hindu uneducated low-life rascal'...the list is amazing. One called for me to be subjected to Tarun Tejpal's fingers. If this is the level of public discourse we can expect in India under the auspices of the BJP, then it's time to be very pessimistic indeed.  For someone who is  a fierce published critic of the monarchy and the British Empire, it was also bizarre to be denounced as a colonial slave of the British Queen.

http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-news/blog-attacked-on-twitter-for-my-column-on-modi-510479

Rashmun wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

the above is the story of any woman caught in the middle of something like this - a riot, a public bus in delhi, africa, china, anywhere. but you're right, it couldn't have happened to anyone on a burning train for  a very obvious reason, but like I said it is the story of every woman in a riot and you should know that by now given that you weren't born yesterday.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

you guys lost your credibility then.  the weakest of men hid behind the pristine shields of peace and stability and the false idea that they were championing the rights and safety of the muslims in doing so. otoh take flim flam, he's in some ways just like uppili: they're the other team, if they got burnt, big shit, they're so many of them, population control.  

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

A few days ago I wrote a short piece for the Guardian newspaper in which I argued that India was at a watershed moment in which it might have a Prime Minister who was openly linked with an extremist organisation, the RSS. I also pointed out that Narendra Modi bore moral responsibility for the massacres--not 'riots', in my view,-- which took place in Gujarat in 2002 and that serious questions had been raised about his government's role in them. A Modi regime, I noted, would have potentially grave consequences both for a plural India and a Britain which has a substantial Asian population. I did not call, as has been widely reported, for Britain to sever links with India.

While I expected the piece to elicit disagreement, I was taken aback at the sheer quantity of the nastiness, vitriol and  hatred that came my way in the form of tweets and emails from professed Modi supporters. Many were sexist, calling me 'ugly and brown'; others denounced me as a jihadi who was part of an Islamic takeover of the world. 'Idiot commie'; 'retarded bitch'; 'white arselicking sepoy'; 'Congi-paid libtard'; 'anti-Hindu uneducated low-life rascal'...the list is amazing. One called for me to be subjected to Tarun Tejpal's fingers. If this is the level of public discourse we can expect in India under the auspices of the BJP, then it's time to be very pessimistic indeed.  For someone who is  a fierce published critic of the monarchy and the British Empire, it was also bizarre to be denounced as a colonial slave of the British Queen.

http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-news/blog-attacked-on-twitter-for-my-column-on-modi-510479

from what I understand modi will have to form a coalition with other parties in order to form a govt. he will have to share power. I think it will be challenging for Modi to be an effective administrator given that he has zero support in the liberal media which is what the west and westernized and educated Indians are enslaved to. I also think that while Modi has tremendous potential to be a great leader he may not be one for the following reasons: an early victory may make him overconfident and may lead to terrible abuses of power. I think failure now and by the next round of elections if he is still around I will vote for him. He has to be taught that Indians value secularism. If this guy wins now, the internet is going to be filled with the groaning, moaning, nose-bleeding, dripping, breast-beating, and incontinence from the secular-elites, moppets such as yourself, and you all know who you are. I can't deal with that shit.

And the West, they're so used to the gandhis, the west likes dynasties and dictators, so if a man of the masses comes marching, the westerners are going to hate it. they're gonna hate the unpredictability and the new dark face. all this time Sonia probably took them by the hand, gave them pecks on the cheek, and talked about al dente this and al dente that, and butternut squash gnocchi and tortellini and parmigiana in between exchanging big fat cheques of money. and then along comes modi? western leaders will not want to work with him and I feel bad that even when he makes an honest effort on behalf of india, one that they might not like or disagree with the western press is just going to slam him for being a hindu nationalist hard-liner. local countries are going to cry about the same thing. I have to wonder about how much progress we are going to make internationally and economically. what are his plans? no one is asking. he makes the ground under her feet shudder and I like that about him.

pravalika nanda wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:foetuses removed from pregnant women. T

>>>Has it been proven that this really happened in Gujarat?

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

the above is the story of any woman caught in the middle of something like this - a riot, a public bus in delhi, africa, china, anywhere. but you're right, it couldn't have happened to anyone on a burning train for  a very obvious reason, but like I said it is the story of every woman in a riot and you should know that by now given that you weren't born yesterday.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

you guys lost your credibility then.  the weakest of men hid behind the pristine shields of peace and stability and the false idea that they were championing the rights and safety of the muslims in doing so. otoh take flim flam, he's in some ways just like uppili: they're the other team, if they got burnt, big shit, they're so many of them, population control.  

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

+1.

These dynamics account at least partially for Modi's rise. Throw in the aspect of Congress lacking any concrete plank on economics and a road map as to where to take the country, the fall of Congress was inevitable.

pravalika nanda wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/even-demons-have-shame-kausar-s-husband/994966/0

Upps Aunty, Rawmotions Unkil, I look forward to your responses to this. Don't bother with 5000-word essays - just indicate your choice of a, b, c or d from the options below:

(a) this is a sickular fukular fabrication designed to besmirch the fair name of Hinutva warriors. No such thing ever happened. The Supreme Court has looked into this and found no evidence,
(b) they do it too, so it's all fine
(c) Congoon thugs did this and worse in the riots of 1984, but sickular fukulars only look at 2002
(d) this is just a way of controlling the Muslim population, why so much sickular, fukular drama over a routine hysterectomy??

LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

the above is the story of any woman caught in the middle of something like this - a riot, a public bus in delhi, africa, china, anywhere. but you're right, it couldn't have happened to anyone on a burning train for  a very obvious reason, but like I said it is the story of every woman in a riot and you should know that by now given that you weren't born yesterday.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

you guys lost your credibility then.  the weakest of men hid behind the pristine shields of peace and stability and the false idea that they were championing the rights and safety of the muslims in doing so. otoh take flim flam, he's in some ways just like uppili: they're the other team, if they got burnt, big shit, they're so many of them, population control.  

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

A few days ago I wrote a short piece for the Guardian newspaper in which I argued that India was at a watershed moment in which it might have a Prime Minister who was openly linked with an extremist organisation, the RSS. I also pointed out that Narendra Modi bore moral responsibility for the massacres--not 'riots', in my view,-- which took place in Gujarat in 2002 and that serious questions had been raised about his government's role in them. A Modi regime, I noted, would have potentially grave consequences both for a plural India and a Britain which has a substantial Asian population. I did not call, as has been widely reported, for Britain to sever links with India.

While I expected the piece to elicit disagreement, I was taken aback at the sheer quantity of the nastiness, vitriol and  hatred that came my way in the form of tweets and emails from professed Modi supporters. Many were sexist, calling me 'ugly and brown'; others denounced me as a jihadi who was part of an Islamic takeover of the world. 'Idiot commie'; 'retarded bitch'; 'white arselicking sepoy'; 'Congi-paid libtard'; 'anti-Hindu uneducated low-life rascal'...the list is amazing. One called for me to be subjected to Tarun Tejpal's fingers. If this is the level of public discourse we can expect in India under the auspices of the BJP, then it's time to be very pessimistic indeed.  For someone who is  a fierce published critic of the monarchy and the British Empire, it was also bizarre to be denounced as a colonial slave of the British Queen.

http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-news/blog-attacked-on-twitter-for-my-column-on-modi-510479

from what I understand modi will have to form a coalition with other parties in order to form a govt. he will have to share power. I think it will be challenging for Modi to be an effective administrator given that he has zero support in the liberal media which is what the west and westernized and educated Indians are enslaved to. I also think that while Modi has tremendous potential to be a great leader he may not be one for the following reasons: an early victory may make him overconfident and may lead to terrible abuses of power. I think failure now and by the next round of elections if he is still around I will vote for him. He has to be taught that Indians value secularism. If this guy wins now, the internet is going to be filled with the groaning, moaning, nose-bleeding, dripping, breast-beating, and incontinence from the secular-elites, moppets such as yourself, and you all know who you are. I can't deal with that shit.

And the West, they're so used to the gandhis, the west likes dynasties and dictators, so if a man of the masses comes marching, the westerners are going to hate it. all this time Sonia probably took them by the hand, gave them pecks on the cheek, and talked about al dente this and al dente that, and butternut squash gnocchi and tortellini and parmigiana in between exchanging big fat cheques of money. and then along comes modi? western leaders will not want to work with him and I feel bad that even when he makes an honest effort on behalf of india, one that they might not like or disagree with the western press is just going to slam him for being a hindu nationalist hard-liner. local countries are going to cry about the same thing. I have to wonder about how much progress we are going to make internationally and economically. what are his plans? no one is asking. he makes the ground under her feet shudder and I like that about him.

Will Modi continue to give away farm land to his industrialist buddies--as he has been doing in Gujarat--who will then break up the land into smaller units and re-sell them to others at significantly higher rates?

but the secular-elites do deserve a UPA-3: a royal Sonia fuckfest where she totally destroys the economy, cuz as the seculars keep reminding us, the economy is not so bad yet that we need worry about the economy. it's funny cuz the seculars on this board have no experience with poor people in india and they live in posh bubbles where they are totally removed from the woes of the common man and this woman has not shown any sign of secularism but she owns that boat and no one else can touch it.

unless the seculars acknowledge that the economy/poverty is what needs to be tackled and they support modi on it, there's no real way for modi to make progress. a leader needs his people particularly the media. I cannot believe that modi is so foolish.

pravalika nanda wrote:but the secular-elites do deserve a UPA-3: a royal Sonia fuckfest where she totally destroys the economy, cuz as the seculars keep reminding us, the economy is not so bad yet that we need worry about the economy. it's funny cuz the seculars on this board have no experience with poor people in india and they live in posh bubbles where they are totally removed from the woes of the common man and this woman has not shown any sign of secularism but she owns that boat and no one else can touch it.

unless the seculars acknowledge that the economy/poverty is what needs to be tackled and they support modi on it, there's no real way for modi to make progress. a leader needs his people particularly the media. I cannot believe that modi is so foolish.

Of course, Modi has cultivated an image of a fighter against corruption, and this is welco­med by people tired of one scam after another during the Cong­ress regime (revealed ironically with the help of one of that regime’s landmark legislations, the Right to Information Act). But at the same time nothing has stopped him from trying to reabsorb into the party some of the leaders in Karnataka associated with the egregious cases of corruption in real estate and mining. It is also well-known that some of the NDA chief ministers were complicit in the decisions around the coal scam. A couple of years back, the CAG had complained about serious financial mismanagement in the Gujarat public sector. Also, the crony capitalism that Modi indulges in is a form of corruption under the broad definition of corruption as abuse of public office, which need not always be illegal....

He, of course, exaggerates Gujarat’s relative economic performance under him, but what is more surprising is how easily this is accepted by even his non-admirers. Studies show—see, for example, the piece by Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Roy in a recent issue of this magazine (A Look in the Mirror, Mar 31)—that a few other states have done even better compared to the national average in the first decade of this century relative to the 1990s, in both economic growth (for example, Maha­rashtra) and poverty reduction (for example, Tamil Nadu). Thirty years back, Gujarat was No. 2 among Indian states in industrial development, and under Modi it has remained No. 2. Even in industrial growth, much of it in recent years has been in the petroleum refineries sector, which is highly capital-intensive and creates very few jobs for common people. In the delivery of basic social services (health, nutrition, education, etc.), the performance of many other states (for example, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pra­desh) has been substantially better. Taking growth and social welfare together, the best development performance in the last decade or so has been in Tamil Nadu. So even though at public platforms Modi likes to thump his 56-inch chest as ‘Vikas purush’ (Mr Development), some of it is really hype.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?290353

Governance has both political and economic dimensions, let us discuss both. The 2002 massacres in Gujarat that happened under Modi’s watch suggest a disastrous governance failure. Even if his personal complicity is not legally established (partly because of destroyed evidence), there is no question that horrendous things happened under his watch in an administration he firmly controlled (he was not just a backseat passenger in the car when, sadly, a “puppy got run over”). Some of his close associates have either been indicted or are currently under investigation. The then prime minister of his own party, Atal Behari Vajpayee, rebuked Modi at the time for deviating from his ‘rajdharma’ (the Sanskrit word for good governance).

His supporters say that Muslims are better-off in Gujarat than in poorer states like Bihar. This is like white Afrikaners in the Apartheid regime saying that Blacks were economically better-off in South Africa than in Nigeria. Robbed of their dignity and security, Muslims who used to live across different parts of Ahmedabad are now huddled in squalid ghettos on the fringes of the city.

Modi’s well-funded and efficient campaign machine has successfully deflected public attention away from all this to his Gujarat model of economic governance. Occasionally his mask slips, and he talks about the rise in ‘meat exports’ under Congress rule from the slaughterhouses mainly run by you know who, or about a ‘conspiracy’ to kill rhinos in Assam in order to give space for Bangladeshis to settle in, about his political opponents being ‘Pakistani agents’, and so on. But, in general, he keeps to the theme of economy and strong India, while delegating the job of hate and fear-mongering to his minions, particularly in the all-important states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The BJP politicians implicated in the Muzaffarnagar riots have been given tickets in this election and Amit Shah has reportedly called for “revenge” against “those who have been ill-treating our mothers and sisters”.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?290353

pravalika nanda wrote:

I'm very sorry for the passengers who were massacred on the train. And I'm sorry for the people who died in the Gujarat riots. I think if things are failing at the state level then the people in the highest offices need to step in do something. And your people did not step in when the train was burnt and they didn't step in when Gujarat was burning. And you better take some responsibility for the second event - because you guys refused to acknowledge that a great crime had taken place in your country,  and because you did not ask for good governance and justice, it was only a matter of time before other elements in society retaliated in a like manner. Your woman ran the place like an African dictator. And you thought it was in your place to decide that the plebes in the train did not deserve fairness or for their stories to be told truthfully.

You guys deserve your Sonia.

Who do you think was at the highest offices whether BJPs or Country's. No prizes for guessing though.

Excellent posts in this thread, Pravallika.

pravalika nanda wrote:
LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

Spot on!

Nonsense about targeting against Modi. Gujrat riots was no fun place for anyone. Many many people got killed In many ways. The article just states facts about a riot.

pravalika nanda wrote: I have to wonder about how much progress we are going to make internationally and economically. what are his plans? no one is asking. he makes the ground under her feet shudder and I like that about him.

LOL Modi Bhajan troops won't ask because you don't simply pepper your Lord with such questions, that is against Hindutva (note, not against Hinduism). Others know the nonsense he is going to spew so they won't bother

Kinnera wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

Spot on!

There are two interesting points about the Hindus killed on the train which the Chaddis do not seem to be interested in paying attention to. First, how the fire started is still a mystery. For more on this, see here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20030328003203700.htm&date=fl2006/&prd=fline&

Second, some of the victims who died in the train fire remain unidentified to this day. In his book on the Gujarat 2002 violence Sidhartha Varadarajan speculates that the unidentified people may have been Muslims. The reason those bodies remained unidentified, Varadarajan argues, is because the families of the dead Muslims would have feared becoming targets themselves if they had claimed the bodies.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

Spot on!

There are two interesting points about the Hindus killed on the train which the Chaddis do not seem to be interested in paying attention to. First, how the fire started is still a mystery. For more on this, see here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20030328003203700.htm&date=fl2006/&prd=fline&

Second, some of the victims who died in the train fire remain unidentified to this day. In his book on the Gujarat 2002 violence Sidhartha Varadarajan speculates that the unidentified people may have been Muslims. The reason those bodies remained unidentified, Varadarajan argues, is because the families of the dead Muslims would have feared becoming targets themselves if they had claimed the bodies.

How and why? It doesn't make any sense unless you are blessed with as much IQ as Rashmun.

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

Spot on!

There are two interesting points about the Hindus killed on the train which the Chaddis do not seem to be interested in paying attention to. First, how the fire started is still a mystery. For more on this, see here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20030328003203700.htm&date=fl2006/&prd=fline&

Second, some of the victims who died in the train fire remain unidentified to this day. In his book on the Gujarat 2002 violence Sidhartha Varadarajan speculates that the unidentified people may have been Muslims. The reason those bodies remained unidentified, Varadarajan argues, is because the families of the dead Muslims would have feared becoming targets themselves if they had claimed the bodies.

How and why? It doesn't make any sense unless you are blessed with as much IQ as Rashmun.

So you think you have a higher IQ than the former editor of the Hindu newspaper? That doesn't make much sense unless you are a saffron loony.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
LOL. so much secular breast-beating over this article. nice writing by the writer who must have been thrilled to pick up an event like this and infuse it with the right amount of gore and detail to arouse secular passion and cement her position in the liberal media. hope you slept some.

a few years ago when that train was set on fire you didn't ask who those people were, who were their families, were they supporting old parents? raising children? maybe some of those people were children, pregnant women, maybe some were disabled or whatever. we never knew cuz the secular elite like the secular media did not want to bother with the details and unearth any stories. these people died in that anonymity, there were no stories, no interviews, no human faces attached to that event.  a train full of rss people.  the implication was that it was alright for them to die because they had different values than you. 

Spot on!

There are two interesting points about the Hindus killed on the train which the Chaddis do not seem to be interested in paying attention to. First, how the fire started is still a mystery. For more on this, see here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20030328003203700.htm&date=fl2006/&prd=fline&

Second, some of the victims who died in the train fire remain unidentified to this day. In his book on the Gujarat 2002 violence Sidhartha Varadarajan speculates that the unidentified people may have been Muslims. The reason those bodies remained unidentified, Varadarajan argues, is because the families of the dead Muslims would have feared becoming targets themselves if they had claimed the bodies.

How and why? It doesn't make any sense unless you are blessed with as much IQ as Rashmun.

So you think you have a higher IQ than the former editor of the Hindu newspaper? That doesn't make much sense unless you are a saffron loony.

The very fact that SV is your fanboy indicates how much damage was done to his brain/IQ.

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Spot on!

There are two interesting points about the Hindus killed on the train which the Chaddis do not seem to be interested in paying attention to. First, how the fire started is still a mystery. For more on this, see here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20030328003203700.htm&date=fl2006/&prd=fline&

Second, some of the victims who died in the train fire remain unidentified to this day. In his book on the Gujarat 2002 violence Sidhartha Varadarajan speculates that the unidentified people may have been Muslims. The reason those bodies remained unidentified, Varadarajan argues, is because the families of the dead Muslims would have feared becoming targets themselves if they had claimed the bodies.

How and why? It doesn't make any sense unless you are blessed with as much IQ as Rashmun.

So you think you have a higher IQ than the former editor of the Hindu newspaper? That doesn't make much sense unless you are a saffron loony.

The very fact that SV is your fanboy indicates how much damage was done to his brain/IQ.

You did not answer my question:

https://such.forumotion.com/t22506-vinod-mehta-sanjay-baru-is-a-treacherous-scumbag#152077

1) who is a "secular"?
2) why do you nounify adjectives and adverbs?
3) should we call you the "thirsties" (because your lot seem to be blood thirsty)?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:1) who is a "secular"?
2) why do you nounify adjectives and adverbs?
3) should we call you the "thirsties" (because your lot seem to be blood thirsty)?

are your questions directed towards muslims? looks like it.

there are no muslims on such, only seculars and thirsties.

who are the seculars? you?

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Kinnera wrote:

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

Look at yourself and see who is intolerant. The kind of negativity you are spewing on this forum is insane. The very fact that you guys constantly address others who don't agree with you in a derogatory way as 'Chaddis', 'Unkils', etc suggests your level of intolerance.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

so before you cross the line cuz she crossed the line will you kindly tell me what part of my posts could be called "bloodthirsty?"

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:1) who is a "secular"?
2) why do you nounify adjectives and adverbs?
3) should we call you the "thirsties" (because your lot seem to be blood thirsty)?

knock yourself out, max.

pravalika nanda wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

so before you cross the line cuz she crossed the line will you kindly tell me what part of my posts could be called "bloodthirsty?"

Nobody called you bloodthirsty directly. Max is saying there are some people who are secular and others who he terms "thirsty" by which he means communal people. Max is talking in an abstract manner befitting a scholar. The person who called Max crazy and said he needs to see a shrink should first introspect and determine whether what she is saying about Max applies to herself.

Rashmun wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

truthbetold wrote:who are the seculars? you?

Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

so before you cross the line cuz she crossed the line will you kindly tell me what part of my posts could be called "bloodthirsty?"

Nobody called you bloodthirsty directly. Max is saying there are some people who are secular and others who he terms "thirsty" by which he means communal people. Max is talking in an abstract manner befitting a scholar. The person who called Max crazy and said he needs to see a shrink should first introspect and determine whether what she is saying about Max applies to herself.

"there are no muslims on such, only seculars and thirsties."...max.

how do you interpret that? It is like Bush saying before going to war on Iraq after 9/11, 'You are either with us or with the terrorists.'

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Ya, the megalomaniac believes that all those who don't agree with him is blood thirsty. The dude needs to see a shrink.

Your fundamental intolerance to other views is characteristic of the Chaddi mindset. You have now crossed the line of polite discourse so expect to get the same treatment which you are dishing out to others who do not agree with you.

so before you cross the line cuz she crossed the line will you kindly tell me what part of my posts could be called "bloodthirsty?"

Nobody called you bloodthirsty directly. Max is saying there are some people who are secular and others who he terms "thirsty" by which he means communal people. Max is talking in an abstract manner befitting a scholar. The person who called Max crazy and said he needs to see a shrink should first introspect and determine whether what she is saying about Max applies to herself.

"there are no muslims on such, only seculars and thirsties."...max.

how do you interpret that? It is like Bush saying before going to war on Iraq after 9/11, 'You are either with us or with the terrorists.'

There does exist a secular-communal dichotomy as per the English definitions of the terms. Either you are secular or you are not secular in which case you are communal.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

"there are no muslims on such, only seculars and thirsties."...max.

how do you interpret that? It is like Bush saying before going to war on Iraq after 9/11, 'You are either with us or with the terrorists.'

There does exist a secular-communal dichotomy as per the English definitions of the terms. Either you are secular or you are not secular in which case you are communal.

you think you or confuzzled or max are secular by the definition of the dictionary? Hypocrites all. Intolerance towards hinduism is *not* secularism.

How many times have you heard the word, 'secularism' in US in all the years that you spent here? Srsly? You hear that word uttered millions of times in India. It's the most abused word in India.

In whatever way Max believes, he believes that he  secular and whoever doesn't go along with him is 'blood thristy'. That's a sickening mentality.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

"there are no muslims on such, only seculars and thirsties."...max.

how do you interpret that? It is like Bush saying before going to war on Iraq after 9/11, 'You are either with us or with the terrorists.'

There does exist a secular-communal dichotomy as per the English definitions of the terms. Either you are secular or you are not secular in which case you are communal.

you think you or confuzzled or max are secular by the definition of the dictionary? Hypocrites all. Intolerance towards hinduism is *not* secularism.

How many times have you heard the word, 'secularism' in US in all the years that you spent here? Srsly? You hear that word uttered millions of times in India. It's the most abused word in India.

In whatever way Max believes, he believes that he  secular and whoever doesn't go along with him is 'blood thristy'. That's a sickening mentality.

I don't think Max or I have ever shown intolerance towards Hinduism. I can't speak for CD since it is only recently that I have been following his posts.

Speaking for myself whatever criticism I have directed at Hinduism is designed to strengthen Hinduism, not to destroy Hinduism. Hinduism welcomes this kind of criticism. I know more about Hinduism and Hindu philosophy than most RSS types who wear hinduism on their sleeves.

Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state. People like Modi and organizations like RSS are doing all they can to make the Indian political system take a U-turn and retool it so that Muslims become second class citizens in India in keeping with the RSS ideology formulated by Golwalkar that Indian Muslims should be treated like Jews were treated by Hitler in Germany.

Rashmun wrote:
I don't think Max or I have ever shown intolerance towards Hinduism. I can't speak for CD since it is only recently that I have been following his posts.

Speaking for myself whatever criticism I have directed at Hinduism is designed to strengthen Hinduism, not to destroy Hinduism. Hinduism welcomes this kind of criticism. I know more about Hinduism and Hindu philosophy than most RSS types who wear hinduism on their sleeves.

Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state. People like Modi and organizations like RSS are doing all they can to make the Indian political system take a U-turn and retool it so that Muslims become second class citizens in India in keeping with the RSS ideology formulated by Golwalkar that Indian Muslims should be treated like Jews were treated by Hitler in Germany.

Showing utter disregard for the lives lost in the Godhra train and trying to deny that it was caused by the muslim goons (who were convicted by the courts of law) is stregthening Hinduism?

Dodging any topics related to the 1984 riots is secularism?

Inciting irrational fear and hatred for hindus is secularism?

in my original post i wasn't calling any specific person as a thirsty (note a thirsty, not thirsty). the thing is, nounification of attitudes is a very typical ploy used in political battles to ridicule the other side. i'll admit it gets in my craw. this is how the words liberal and conservative became nounified. so in the indian context i was trying out a new nounification. looks like it produced the desired effect.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
I don't think Max or I have ever shown intolerance towards Hinduism. I can't speak for CD since it is only recently that I have been following his posts.

Speaking for myself whatever criticism I have directed at Hinduism is designed to strengthen Hinduism, not to destroy Hinduism. Hinduism welcomes this kind of criticism. I know more about Hinduism and Hindu philosophy than most RSS types who wear hinduism on their sleeves.

Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state. People like Modi and organizations like RSS are doing all they can to make the Indian political system take a U-turn and retool it so that Muslims become second class citizens in India in keeping with the RSS ideology formulated by Golwalkar that Indian Muslims should be treated like Jews were treated by Hitler in Germany.

Showing utter disregard for the lives lost in the Godhra train and trying to deny that it was caused by the muslim goons (who were convicted by the courts of law) is stregthening Hinduism?

Dodging any topics related to the 1984 riots is secularism?

Inciting irrational fear and hatred for hindus is secularism?

yes...of course, it is secularism. If not, it has to be the sheer fear of uttering a word against the iSlamists and their killing mistakes even on the net. So shyt scared are these people, they hide under the garb of "intellectuality" and "secularism."

i don't have a problem if someone calls me secular, but if someone calls me "a secular", i may be compelled to call them "a thirsty" or something equivalently derisive.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in my original post i wasn't calling any specific person as a thirsty (note a thirsty, not thirsty). the thing is, nounification of attitudes is a very typical ploy used in political battles to ridicule the other side. i'll admit it gets in my craw. this is how the words liberal and conservative became nounified. so in the indian context i was trying out a new nounification. looks like it produced the desired effect.

Action and reaction will be equal and opposite. That's a universal law. You should know better.

Rashmun

Does your secularism include MIM who abuse hindu gods? Does your secularism include christian parties?  Does your secularism include yadav party called RJD?  Does your secularism include caste based politicians like mulayam and mayawati?  

Does your secularism mean opportunistic politics that prop up dynasty?  When you partner with someone, they are secular, ex: Dev gowda in Karnataka but when he joins BJP, he suddenly turns communal? 

Do you know the meaning of the word secularism?  It means removal of religious influence from governmental affairs.  Did congress ever practice that?

Secularism does not mean minority appeasement or opportunistic alliances.

truthbetold wrote:Rashmun

Does your secularism include MIM who abuse hindu gods? Does your secularism include christian parties?  Does your secularism include yadav party called RJD?  Does your secularism include caste based politicians like mulayam and mayawati?  

Does your secularism mean opportunistic politics that prop up dynasty?  When you partner with someone, they are secular, ex: Dev gowda in Karnataka but when he joins BJP, he suddenly turns communal? 

Do you know the meaning of the word secularism?  It means removal of religious influence from governmental affairs.  Did congress ever practice that?

Secularism does not mean minority appeasement or opportunistic alliances.

There is such a thing as minority communalism and it definitely needs to be opposed but it should always be remembered that majority communalism is more dangerous because minority communalism can never assume a fascist character, unlike majority communalism.

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Rashmun

Does your secularism include MIM who abuse hindu gods? Does your secularism include christian parties?  Does your secularism include yadav party called RJD?  Does your secularism include caste based politicians like mulayam and mayawati?  

Does your secularism mean opportunistic politics that prop up dynasty?  When you partner with someone, they are secular, ex: Dev gowda in Karnataka but when he joins BJP, he suddenly turns communal? 

Do you know the meaning of the word secularism?  It means removal of religious influence from governmental affairs.  Did congress ever practice that?

Secularism does not mean minority appeasement or opportunistic alliances.

There is such a thing as minority communalism and it definitely needs to be opposed but it should always be remembered that majority communalism is more dangerous because minority communalism can never assume a fascist character, unlike majority communalism.

Have you read history?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.

Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom)  after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

europe is fundamentally different from the US. i don't believe an outright ban could withstand a challenge based on asserting the wearer's first amendment previleges.

Kinnera wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.

Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.

Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.