why?

why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Perhaps criticizing Modi (I wouldn't call it Stinkier) is their way of getting into the good books of the militant Political Islamist Jihadists who threaten them.

India-born author Salman Rushdie has expressed concern that under Narendra Modi, India will have "a fairly bullying government" and attacks on freedom of expression could worsen if the BJP comes to power.


Citing the examples of the banning of Wendy Doniger's book on Hindus and M F Husain's exile from India for his art works, Mr Rushdie said episodes of this sort are multiplying every week and day and the authorities have "failed lamentably" in their duty to protect free speech rights.


The dude wants Hindus to take in all the crap that others dish out at them in the name of 'free speech' and he is worried that they are getting assertive and resisting it.


He may be your gold standard and you probably take his word as a Gospel, but not many care.

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Perhaps criticizing Modi (I wouldn't call it Stinkier) is their way of getting into the good books of the militant Political Islamist Jihadists who threaten them.

dude you are embarrassing yourself. the guy has cojones the sizes of texas.  he doesn't friggin care about jihadists. he defeated them conclusively.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Perhaps criticizing Modi (I wouldn't call it Stinkier) is their way of getting into the good books of the militant Political Islamist Jihadists who threaten them.

dude you are embarrassing yourself. the guy has cojones the sizes of texas.  he doesn't friggin care about jihadists. he defeated them conclusively.

That is crap! Please learn a bit of history. He was hiding in Britain with 24 hour protection, and started getting out, only after Iran effectively indicated that it will not apply the fatwa.
Even recently in India (which he indicated that he likes to visit) his very presence was opposed by Political Islamists, and he had to cancel his participation in literary festivals. He now knows, that Political Islamists are stronger in India, and he wants to get into their good books.

i said he has cojones the size of texas, i didn't say he was stupid. the fatwa is still very much alive. to my knowledge iran never withdrew the fatwa and in fact some religious organization in iran recently added more to the fatwa. in all these years, he has never apologized for the book (don't quote me the apology he did issue. it said nothing about the book) which by the way, regardless of all the crappy notoriety it engendered is first and foremost a fine piece of literature, the finest by any indian author writing in english by the way.

hindutvavadis don't know what to do with this guy now and are thoroughly confused. they thought he was one of them, and now he turns around and takes a dump on their hero! great to watch.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i said he has cojones the size of texas, i didn't say he was stupid. the fatwa is still very much alive. to my knowledge iran never withdrew the fatwa and in fact some religious organization in iran recently added more to the fatwa. in all these years, he has never apologized for the book (don't quote me the apology he did issue. it said nothing about the book) which by the way, regardless of all the crappy notoriety it engendered is first and foremost a fine piece of literature, the finest by any indian author writing in english by the way.

hindutvavadis don't know what to do with this guy now and are thoroughly confused. they thought he was one of them, and now he turns around and takes a dump on their hero! great to watch.

Nice bit of hero-worship there, Il Professor-ai.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i said he has cojones the size of texas, i didn't say he was stupid. the fatwa is still very much alive. to my knowledge iran never withdrew the fatwa and in fact some religious organization in iran recently added more to the fatwa. in all these years, he has never apologized for the book (don't quote me the apology he did issue. it said nothing about the book) which by the way, regardless of all the crappy notoriety it engendered is first and foremost a fine piece of literature, the finest by any indian author writing in english by the way.

hindutvavadis don't know what to do with this guy now and are thoroughly confused. they thought he was one of them, and now he turns around and takes a dump on their hero! great to watch.

You do not have any points to contest my opinion and the logic is sound. I never said Iran withdrew the fatwa, it implicitly indicated that it may not apply it. This happened if I remember right, during the Rafsanjani/Khatami years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/salman-rushdie-death-fatw_n_1888111.html

If anyone deserves any adulations, it is not Rushdie in the comfort of his London flat writing out a fantasy.

It is Malala who faced real danger speaking out on a real issue.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Perhaps,for the same reason why Secular Muslims like M J Akbar find Rahul and Sonia stinkier than Modi.

Braver than Rushdie.
Right in the kingdom of the House of Saud:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/08/saudi-blogger-wife-says-inhumane-sentence-proves-kingdom-brutality/

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/salman-rushdie-death-fatw_n_1888111.html

When I was referring to my logic, I was referring not to the fatwa, but my reason for Salman Rushdie to wade into Indian Political minefield. I stand by my understanding on the fatwa. Back channel negotiations were started between Britain and Iran, and official Iran stopped its backing, which was there earlier. I am not able to dig out the media reports, but I distinctly remember reading about it.

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Perhaps criticizing Modi (I wouldn't call it Stinkier) is their way of getting into the good books of the militant Political Islamist Jihadists who threaten them.

Yeah right. The ayatollahs care much about NaMo and will treat an enemy's enemy as a friend. You're so astute!!

Hellsangel wrote:If anyone deserves any adulations, it is not Rushdie in the comfort of his London flat writing out a fantasy.

It is Malala who faced real danger speaking out on a real issue.

+ very well said.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Not true unless you believe in arriving at a Tautology with a single and selective example. 
Subrahmanya Swamy is a critic of islam but finds Modi many times more acceptable than islamofascists. This was the case even when he was an independent JP (not BJP) member. 
So is the case with Kiran Bedi, Sekhar Kapur, Jayaprakash Narayan (Lok Satta) and I can quote many others.

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Not true unless you believe in arriving at a Tautology with a single and selective example. 
Subrahmanya Swamy is a critic of islam but finds Modi many times more acceptable than islamofascists. This was the case even when he was an independent JP (not BJP) member. 
So is the case with Kiran Bedi, Sekhar Kapur, Jayaprakash Narayan (Lok Satta) and I can quote many others.

You can't argue with Il Professor-ai's hero-worship.

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Not true unless you believe in arriving at a Tautology with a single and selective example. 
Subrahmanya Swamy is a critic of islam but finds Modi many times more acceptable than islamofascists. This was the case even when he was an independent JP (not BJP) member. 
So is the case with Kiran Bedi, Sekhar Kapur, Jayaprakash Narayan (Lok Satta) and I can quote many others.

 
   That's like quoting "Big Time", "Rummy" & "Ballonfoot" on WMDs.

confuzzled dude wrote:   That's like quoting "Big Time", "Rummy" & "Ballonfoot" on WMDs.

Isn't it the same thing about Salman Rushdie (a muslim at birth and in blood) and valuing his opinion or judgement of Modi? This is like taking Sonia's judgement on if St. Paul is a Great Saint over Sankaracharya?

smArtha wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:   That's like quoting "Big Time", "Rummy" & "Ballonfoot" on WMDs.

Isn't it the same thing about Salman Rushdie (a muslim at birth and in blood) and valuing his opinion or judgement of Modi? This is like taking Sonia's judgement on if St. Paul is a Great Saint over Sankaracharya?

not true. to my knowledge rushdie is an atheist and has been a consistent critic of authoritarianism be it of the secular IG kind or the zia ul haq kind. he is a balanced individual and so his opinion carries greater weight than a party insider like swamy.

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Salman-Rushdie-in-Delhi-tears-into-Imran-and-Congress/articleshow/12309169.cms

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
not true. to my knowledge rushdie is an atheist and has been a consistent critic of authoritarianism be it of the secular IG kind or the zia ul haq kind. he is a balanced individual and so his opinion carries greater weight than a party insider like swamy.

So are Jayaprakash Narayan and Kiran Bedi. Along with being balanced, they have more rational approach and analytical skills than Rushdie.  And they are supporting Modi over Islamofascists.

what is muslim in blood? what happens if someone receives a transfusion from a person of another religion?

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
not true. to my knowledge rushdie is an atheist and has been a consistent critic of authoritarianism be it of the secular IG kind or the zia ul haq kind. he is a balanced individual and so his opinion carries greater weight than a party insider like swamy.

So are Jayaprakash Narayan and Kiran Bedi. Along with being balanced, they have more rational approach and analytical skills than Rushdie.  And they are supporting Modi over Islamofascists.

 
I've my own doubts given their political affliations. JP tiptoed state bifurctaion issue.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what is muslim in blood? what happens if someone receives a transfusion from a person of another religion?

So you are intelligent enough to figure that blood can be transfused. However, opinions cannot be changed via inducements or coercions or appealing to the primordial loyalties.

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what is muslim in blood? what happens if someone receives a transfusion from a person of another religion?

So you are intelligent enough to figure that blood can be transfused. However, opinions cannot be changed via inducements or coercions or appealing to the primordial loyalties.

i don't understand your post.

confuzzled dude wrote:
I've my own doubts given their political affliations. JP tiptoed state bifurctaion issue.

So it is okay to evaluate someone's analytical skills and balance of judgement by purely looking at their affiliations or opposition. Going by that token why cannot we not question Rushdie's capabilities of a balanced opinion on the same lines? If you doubt JP and Bedi's capabilities because they are leaning to Modi, we can question those of Rushdie based on his 'leanings towards Islamofascists and opposition to Modi'.

smArtha wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I've my own doubts given their political affliations. JP tiptoed state bifurctaion issue.

So it is okay to evaluate someone's analytical skills and balance of judgement by purely looking at their affiliations or opposition. Going by that token why cannot we not question Rushdie's capabilities of a balanced opinion on the same lines? If you doubt JP and Bedi's capabilities because they are leaning to Modi, we can question those of Rushdie based on his 'leanings towards Islamofascists and opposition to Modi'.

can you give us an instance of rushdie's leaning towards islamofascists? his entire life history and his writings suggest that quite the opposite is true. in fact he had to go into hiding because of some creative liberties he took with islamic history.

cut and paste of the entire TOI article linked above:

NEW DELHI: In India two months after being forced to skip the Jaipur Literature Festival, the novelist Salman Rushdie hit out at the Congress on Saturday, suggesting that his presence there was blocked because of "useless electoral calculations" and told Rahul Gandhi that "it did not work".

The renowned author, who has been castigated by fundamentalist Muslim groups for his book 'The Satanic Verses', observed that blocking his presence in Jaipur "led the Congress party down the road" in the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.

Participating in the India Today Conclave, he said India "deserves to be led by better leaders than is being now". Referring to the controversy which surrounded the Jaipur festival in January and forced him to skip the event, he said, "What happened there is not Deobandi bigotry... It was pretty useless electoral calculations. It did not work, Rahul (Gandhi)."

"Indian electorate is smarter than these politicians... People can be whipped as in Jaipur Literature Festival," Rushdie said, adding that 95% of Muslims were not interested in violence and that that would be true for Hindus too.

Rushdie, who spoke at a session with the theme 'Liberty versus: I am what I am and that's all that I am', said the culture of "offendedness is growing" in India. Citing the opposition by fundamentalists to the late MF Hussain and other artists and writers, he said, "It seems every day there is a piece of bullying by groups of Muslims, Hindus... voices are being silenced... the chilling effect of violence is telling and it is growing in this country."

Regretting the public apathy against such measures to silence free expression, the author contended, "People are asleep. You need to wake up." He said that "freedom is not a tea party, freedom is a war... Freedom is not absolute, it is something which somebody is there to take away. If you don't defend it, you will lose it." On his presence in India again as promised by him two months ago, he said: "This seems normal that a writer of Indian birth who loves this country turns up to speak. This is normal. But it is abnormal that he is prevented. That danger is growing." Talking about the stiff opposition by some fundamentalists to 'The Satanic Verses' written 24 years ago, the London-based writer said: "Who gives the people the right to attack me?"

He said he was extremely shocked that the writers who read from 'The Satanic Verses' at the Jaipur festival to express solidarity with him were not defended and were still in the danger of being prosecuted. He took a dig at the chief ministers of Jammu & Kashmir Omar Abdullah and UP Akhilesh Yadav, besides Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan for not turning up at the event reportedly because of his presence.

"Some politicians suddenly discovered that they had ridiculously overcrowded schedules," he said.

Rushdie hits out at Imran Khan

Salman Rushdie hit out at Imran Khan, describing him as a "dictator in waiting". The former Pakistan cricketer-turned-founder of the political outfit Tehreek-e-Insaf withdrew from the conclave two days ago, saying "he did not dream of being seen with Rushdie for the immeasurable hurt he has caused to Muslims".

"A British writer described Imran Khan as a dictator in waiting. I am happy that nobody else is protesting this time than Imran Khan. Imran is afraid of facing my bouncers. Imran knew that he would share the stage with me," the Booker prize-winning writer said.

"Imran never read 'The Satanic Verses'. Imran is not a liberal," Rushdie said.

Rushdie, who returned two months after he vowed on Indian television that he would come back to India after being stopped from the Jaipur Literature Festival in January, said he had "not caused immeasurable harm to Mulsims".

"Fanatics cause biggest harm to Islam. Immeasurable harm has been caused to Muslims by terrorists," he said.

Rushdie said common people were more sensible than their leaders and 95% of Muslims in India were not in favour of violence and the things being said in their name.

Freedom of speech is a casualty of bigotry, Rushdie said.

"India always had tradition of accepting free speech. Every day there is a price for hooliganism by bigots," he said, taking a dig at the "disgraceful vote-bank politics taking place in India".

Rushdie said the ban on the import of 'The Satanic Verses' in the age of the internet was useless.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I've my own doubts given their political affliations. JP tiptoed state bifurctaion issue.

So it is okay to evaluate someone's analytical skills and balance of judgement by purely looking at their affiliations or opposition. Going by that token why cannot we not question Rushdie's capabilities of a balanced opinion on the same lines? If you doubt JP and Bedi's capabilities because they are leaning to Modi, we can question those of Rushdie based on his 'leanings towards Islamofascists and opposition to Modi'.

can you give us an instance of rushdie's leaning towards islamofascists? his entire life history and his writings suggest that quite the opposite is true. in fact he had to go into hiding because of some creative liberties he took with islamic history.

Someone who started this thread claimed - "find modi stinkier than islamofascists"

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
I've my own doubts given their political affliations. JP tiptoed state bifurctaion issue.

So it is okay to evaluate someone's analytical skills and balance of judgement by purely looking at their affiliations or opposition. Going by that token why cannot we not question Rushdie's capabilities of a balanced opinion on the same lines? If you doubt JP and Bedi's capabilities because they are leaning to Modi, we can question those of Rushdie based on his 'leanings towards Islamofascists and opposition to Modi'.

can you give us an instance of rushdie's leaning towards islamofascists? his entire life history and his writings suggest that quite the opposite is true. in fact he had to go into hiding because of some creative liberties he took with islamic history.

Someone who started this thread claimed - "find modi stinkier than islamofascists"

how is that a leaning towards islamofascists? bovine excreta is disgusting, but human excreta is disgusting even more. that doesn't mean one has a preference for bovine excreta. "leaning towards" is a positive affirmative judgment of the kind swamy has for modi.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:what is muslim in blood? what happens if someone receives a transfusion from a person of another religion?

I would believe blood should not be a problem if it is a matching group  but a human's mental makeup is created right before conception/growth in womb and the environment it is grown in its toddler/kid/adult life and beyond.

Like the example you posted where the Pakistan's  education system/text books  instigating the hate for hindus/kafirs. If a kid/adult is grown in an environment which teaches it is okay to hate/kill/non-muslims/kafirs and if it is even encouraged or rewarded as martyrdom or 72 virgins,  whom you can blame?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

This might come as a surprise to some, but being a strident critic of Islam doesn't necessarily make one an accurate critic of Modi. Or, an expert of anything else for that matter.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
how is that a leaning towards islamofascists? bovine excreta is disgusting, but human excreta is disgusting even more. that doesn't mean one has a preference for bovine excreta. "leaning towards" is a positive affirmative judgment of the kind swamy has for modi.

In practical terms, it means if you had to choose to deal with one over other you'd choose the less disgusting one and that is where the leaning comes from. In any case whether such leanings are exercised in the worst case situations or not, my argument is that Rushdie may find Islamofascits less disgusting over Modi because he has Islamic loyalties of the primordial type i.e. tied to his own birth/blood. And you are conveniently overlooking that. 

His opposition to Islamic Fundamentalism may have more to do with the situations he had to face rather than as part of some core principles he had arrived at by himself after careful and objective analysis. Principles that are arrived at in response to a set of situations are easily swapped or reversed when such threatening situations no longer exist. And I don't have any special information or reasons to believe that Rushdie will not do such U turn. When he had to choose his loyalties, devoid of any personal threat, he is probably leaning back to those driven by primordial associations.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

How did you measure that?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why do even people who are usually strident critics of islam, find modi stinkier than islamofascists? i mean of course folks like salman rushdie.

Rushdie believes in all kinds of nonsense, including that brahmins were the exploiters of other Hindus.  I heard him once telling it during a TV interview ... probably the effect of his Convent education ... the guy can't think for himself

smArtha wrote:
In practical terms, it means if you had to choose to deal with one over other you'd choose the less disgusting one and that is where the leaning comes from. In any case whether such leanings are exercised in the worst case situations or not, my argument is that Rushdie may find Islamofascits less disgusting over Modi because he has Islamic loyalties of the primordial type i.e. tied to his own birth/blood. And you are conveniently overlooking that. 

i am sorry you have such a cynical view of human beings, and find them incapable of divorcing themselves from tribal loyalties and making personal and public judgments based on the merits of individuals.

if you have been an avid reader of his works he has always been a critic of islamic institutions, pakistan, the mullahcracy and authoritarianism of any kind all throughout his writing career. all of this precedes the satanic verses. he angered IG when he trashed her in 'midnight's children' and he angered the paki establishment including zia when he wrote 'shame'.  this is why i take his opinions about modi seriously.

it is ok to not like a person, but it is NOT ok to impute something to them of which they've always been vocal critics. the fact is you'd be unable to find a single utterance by him in which he endorses islamofascism. the only reason for you to say what you've said here is because of his criticism of modi. had he not said that, the hindutva crowd would have continued embracing him.

An interesting piece on a Libby website:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-green-phd/the-satanic-verses-twenty_b_3965066.html wrote:There is plenty of criticism to go around for the participants in the Rushdie Affair. Some Muslims in Britain, for example, exercised poor judgment in how they responded to the novel. Public book burnings conjured up horrible episodes of repression in Europe's past, from the Inquisition to Nazi bonfires. Other Muslims voiced support for Khomeini's fatwa, giving many non-Muslims in the West the impression that Muslims were inherently prone to violence or otherwise incapable of "fitting in" to Western societies. And while still other Muslims defended Rushdie's right to express his views and denounced Khomeini's fatwa, the media tended to lump all Muslims together, and this made it more difficult for the broader public to understand what were otherwise some legitimate concerns about the novel.
...

Rushdie was a member of Britain's cultural elite. This had not always been the case. He was, after all, a child of two worlds, India and Britain, cursed with what he refers to in his memoir as a "double unbelonging." But as a renowned author, he rubbed shoulders far more with the movers and shakers of Britain than with the country's growing number of Muslims. His fame as an author gave him access to publishers and media outlets that enabled his voice to be heard and his views to be spread far and wide. Most Muslims in Britain, by contrast, occupied the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder. They lacked influence in the mainstream media as well as access to political power. Their voices, therefore, were often ignored or otherwise went unheard, and this reality undoubtedly fed their frustrations and influenced the forms their reactions took during the Rushdie Affair.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i am sorry you have such a cynical view of human beings, and find them incapable of divorcing themselves from tribal loyalties and making personal and public judgments based on the merits of individuals.

if you have been an avid reader of his works he has always been a critic of islamic institutions, pakistan, the mullahcracy and authoritarianism of any kind all throughout his writing career. all of this precedes the satanic verses. he angered IG when he trashed her in 'midnight's children' and he angered the paki establishment including zia when he wrote 'shame'.  this is why i take his opinions about modi seriously.

it is ok to not like a person, but it is NOT ok to impute something to them of which they've always been vocal critics. the fact is you'd be unable to find a single utterance by him in which he endorses islamofascism. the only reason for you to say what you've said here is because of his criticism of modi. had he not said that, the hindutva crowd would have continued embracing him.

>>i am sorry you have such a cynical view of human beings, and find them incapable of divorcing themselves from tribal loyalties and making personal and public judgments based on the merits of individuals. 


Why cannot I accuse you or Rushdie of the same w.r.t Modi? You or Rushdie had not worked with him or gathered first hand information from his own administration, interviews and actions. The little you gathered is still in dispute in the investigation and judicial systems. And yet you are adamant enough to form extreme opinions and popularize them. Eat your own dog food first before peddling it to others. 


>>the fact is you'd be unable to find a single utterance by him in which he endorses islamofascism. the only reason for you to say what you've said here is because of his criticism of modi. had he not said that, the hindutva crowd would have continued embracing him.


Again you were the one that claimed to know that Rushdie hates Modi more than he hates Islamofascicts. So don't do your favorite 'pretzel' attributing that inference to me. The burden of proof, if any, is on you. Show me evidence to your claim first. I had nothing against Rushdie for being against Modi as long as he had shown more vehemence and opposition to the Islamofascists of the world. Modi is at worst as culpable as Bush is in the Iraq war or Rajiv is in the 1984 riots and not any more. If Rushdie, as per your claims, somehow finds Modi stinkier than Bush or Rajiv and even worse than the Islamic fundamentalists/fascists then I have all reasons to evaluate and come to conclusions about what loyalties and associations are driving such skewed opinions.

Kinnera wrote:India-born author Salman Rushdie has expressed concern that under Narendra Modi, India will have "a fairly bullying government" and attacks on freedom of expression could worsen if the BJP comes to power.


Citing the examples of the banning of Wendy Doniger's book on Hindus and M F Husain's exile from India for his art works, Mr Rushdie said episodes of this sort are multiplying every week and day and the authorities have "failed lamentably" in their duty to protect free speech rights.


The dude wants Hindus to take in all the crap that others dish out at them in the name of 'free speech' and he is worried that they are getting assertive and resisting it.


He may be your gold standard and you probably take his word as a Gospel, but not many care.

There is no sense in anyone calling Modi a criminal (even a murderer) and a threat to India’s secularism if he becomes the prime minister, considering that

(1) Modi, in spite of several investigations and trials by the Indian courts during the past decade, has not been found guilty and convicted of any crime or killing (including in 2002 riots), and that

(2) India’s current secularism already is confused and flawed enough, without Modi posing any threat to it as prime minister, since under it (“secularism”) the Indian Govt. presently allows people in different communities to use and live officially under their own, separate religious laws, which is in direct conflict with the real secularism which requires the separation of Govt. and religion thus making it mandatory to have one law for all (irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender), e.g. the UCC or Uniform Civil Code.



   

[quote="Seva Lamberdar"]

Kinnera wrote:India-born author Salman Rushdie has expressed concern that under Narendra Modi, India will have "a fairly bullying government" and attacks on freedom of expression could worsen if the BJP comes to power.

1. He is right...Modi will try to be an autocrat - except he is much smarter than Indira and will take his time

2. RSS - ironically - will be the key. Whether it can tame the genie it created will have to be seen. As an organization that spearheaded the movement against Indira, it can be counted on to fight him - if it failed to tame him. It is not going to disappear and it will be one factor that Modi will be afraid of.

3. Modi is a "murderer" in "secular minds" even if he received a Nobel Peace prize and even if the Supreme Court Bench absolved him of every "crime"

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:India-born author Salman Rushdie has expressed concern that under Narendra Modi, India will have "a fairly bullying government" and attacks on freedom of expression could worsen if the BJP comes to power.

1. He is right...Modi will try to be an autocrat - except he is much smarter than Indira and will take his time

2. RSS - ironically - will be the key. Whether it can tame the genie it created will have to be seen. As an organization that spearheaded the movement against Indira, it can be counted on to fight him - if it failed to tame him. It is not going to disappear and it will be one factor that Modi will be afraid of.

3. Modi is a "murderer" in "secular minds" even if he received a Nobel Peace prize and even if the Supreme Court Bench absolved him of every "crime"

The worst Modi can do to India's current secularism if he becomes prime minister is do nothing and leave it in the present screwed up state.

Conversely, the best he can do is turn it in to the real / true secularism, by dumping the currently used different, divisive and archaic multiple religious / community laws and replacing them with one law for all (e.g. UCC) which treats and empowers everyone equally (irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
The worst Modi can do to India's current secularism if he becomes prime minister is do nothing and leave it in the present screwed up state.

Conversely, the best he can do is turn it in to the real / true secularism, by dumping the currently used different, divisive and archaic multiple religious / community laws and replacing them with one law for all (e.g. UCC) which treats and empowers everyone equally (irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I don't know how having the Sharia law (for civil cases) for muslims is going to affect the general population in india. If the Sharia law applies to all citizens, then it's a problem. Right now, that is not a priority. Leave it as is if the muslims don't want to change it. No point in wasting the energies on that controversial thing which involves only the muslims.

Most importantly, the caste-based, religion based reservations and schemes/benefits that are only for minorities should go. These are the things that affect everyone. Benefits of the govt should be given only to the economically weak, irrespective of their caste, creed and religion.

Govt should stop controlling the temple trusts.

Kinnera wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
The worst Modi can do to India's current secularism if he becomes prime minister is do nothing and leave it in the present screwed up state.

Conversely, the best he can do is turn it in to the real / true secularism, by dumping the currently used different, divisive and archaic multiple religious / community laws and replacing them with one law for all (e.g. UCC) which treats and empowers everyone equally (irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender).

I don't know how having the Sharia law (for civil cases) for muslims is going to affect the general population in india. If the Sharia law applies to all citizens, then it's a problem. Right now, that is not a priority. Leave it as is if the muslims don't want to change it. No point in wasting the energies on that controversial thing which involves only the muslims.

Most importantly, the caste-based, religion based reservations and schemes/benefits that are only for minorities should go. These are the things that affect everyone. Benefits of the govt should be given only to the economically weak, irrespective of their caste, creed and religion.

Govt should stop controlling the temple trusts.

The UCC is a must for India  ... only one law for everyone in the country, which gives the same / equal rights legally to everyone (irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender). 
http://creative.sulekha.com/the-vote-bank-politics-using-caste-religion-and-gender-in-india_614683_blog