Pandit Nehru: "Only Hindu communalism can introduce Fascism into Indian society"

southindian wrote:Upadhyay,

You have become a joke... i.e. for over 10 years now and counting.

Get some help.

southindian wrote:Stop joking Upadhyay

Rashmun wrote:Minority communalism can never be compared with majority communalism, for the former is ghettoised and mainly feeds upon its own people (think the ulemas and >Shah Bano), the very people it claims to represent, while the latter thrives by feeding off the society at large, including the minorities. Other than the brute power that being 80 per cent of the population brings, majority communalism is infinitely more consequential for it determines the sociopolitical discourse, leaving minority communalism to defend itself and ghettoise further.


Majority communalism, dangerous in itself, becomes deadly when it becomes the official ideology of the Indian state, as the Sangh Parivar would want it to be. Minority communalism can never dream of state power. That is the difference between a Yogi Adityanath and an >Akbaruddin Owaisi. Here Jawaharlal Nehru’s words are valid even now: both Hindu and Muslim communalism are bad. “But Muslim communalism cannot dominate Indian society and introduce fascism. That only Hindu communalism can.”Therefore whether it is the communal riots of Gujarat, Moradabad, Bhagalpur, Bombay or Muzaffarnagar, the overwhelming number of those killed are Muslims. Thus it is counterintuitive for the minority Muslims to provoke riots, for they would be the primary victims, as fatalities and as refugees in camps. The forces that gain the most from a religious polarisation, especially based on violence, are the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. Unsurprisingly, 75 per cent of the Lok Sabha MPs with criminal cases for causing communal disharmony come from the BJP.


http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-tale-of-two-communalisms/article8332198.ece

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Minority communalism can never be compared with majority communalism, for the former is ghettoised and mainly feeds upon its own people (think the ulemas and >Shah Bano), the very people it claims to represent, while the latter thrives by feeding off the society at large, including the minorities. Other than the brute power that being 80 per cent of the population brings, majority communalism is infinitely more consequential for it determines the sociopolitical discourse, leaving minority communalism to defend itself and ghettoise further.


Majority communalism, dangerous in itself, becomes deadly when it becomes the official ideology of the Indian state, as the Sangh Parivar would want it to be. Minority communalism can never dream of state power. That is the difference between a Yogi Adityanath and an >Akbaruddin Owaisi. Here Jawaharlal Nehru’s words are valid even now: both Hindu and Muslim communalism are bad. “But Muslim communalism cannot dominate Indian society and introduce fascism. That only Hindu communalism can.”Therefore whether it is the communal riots of Gujarat, Moradabad, Bhagalpur, Bombay or Muzaffarnagar, the overwhelming number of those killed are Muslims. Thus it is counterintuitive for the minority Muslims to provoke riots, for they would be the primary victims, as fatalities and as refugees in camps. The forces that gain the most from a religious polarisation, especially based on violence, are the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. Unsurprisingly, 75 per cent of the Lok Sabha MPs with criminal cases for causing communal disharmony come from the BJP.


http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-tale-of-two-communalisms/article8332198.ece

as muslims increase in population , the whole equation will be reversed .