Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

India’s Muslims

Discussion in 'Internal Affairs' started by VCheng, Nov 1, 2016.

  1. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    That is the Congress line post Gandhi takeover. You need to catch up on your Khilafat Movement and the opposition to it from Jinnah et al, who exactly took an opposite stand of not allowing religion a place in discourse of national interest and national movements.

    It is ironical that the party you oppose, you have parroted exactly their stand.

    Uniform Civil code is ONLY being opposed by people of vested interest and those who would rather have religion on their national discourse and it's influence on every day to day workings and who oppose all measures to render it exclusively a personal affair of a citizen to be kept to the confines of his/her own four walls and personal belief system, allowing for only marriage, etc ceremony that too also unbinding.






    Sorry, Muslim women want rights too, just like Hindu women. The recent movement to permit women to pray in religious places of worship ignited the UCC discourse, triple talaq is merely a part of it.

    It has to be taken in the wider context of the discourse that the GoI has started, not what you interpret is as per you the reason. The wider context has taken into account the disparity in rights of women and men under the respective codes and wants to address all the issues and bring them in consonance with the Constitution of India.

    The highlighted part - Constitution of India is also irrelevant then, why are you typing here? You don't have any right of free speech and expression within the ambits of constitution since you have said that a part of it is irrelevant. You consider UCC as irrelevant, I the right to freedom of expression! Get the irony?

    The denial of entry to women in religious places of worship is also a violation of the fundamental rights - that is also one of the reason for UCC being discussed in the wider context.
     
    scorpionx, Joe Shearer and PARIKRAMA like this.
  2. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Yes, that is a sensible analysis, but flawed, in my personal opinion, by the secular trend that we see.

    In 1947, 80% of the Indian population lived in the countryside; only 20% lived in the cities. The cities were the areas where we had had the longest and deepest exposure to external forces, the country was relatively well insulated. Whatever departures from the primitive and archaic happened, the entire thin film of a multilateral thought process, or of multicultural personalities was largely confined to the cities. Actually, they were entirely confined to the cities; the villages were still backward, economically, socially even culturally.

    That thin film of schooling and tertiary education is gone. Now you have very large numbers flooding into the job market and earning tons of money, who have been trained, not educated. They have gone into the educational bucket shops, got sufficient training to get white collar coolie jobs, and found themselves masters of the universe. The whole world looked up at the Indian software programmer. I won't talk about the medical profession. What we have today is people who have made their way to money and don't know what to do with it.

    All their information about history, about the minorities, about politics and history of the minorities and about the status and proposed healing of the status of the depressed classes and the tribes, everything is drawn from wickedly distorted Internet sources. We have to pay a price for that, and we are paying it.

    So today, we have a ratio of 40% in the country, 60% in the cities, on a hugely expanded population. Do you see what has happened? Those village prejudices, those horribly distorted social values have come flooding in, got trained and started earning. As long as the going was good,and they could aspire to buy a flat of their own while still in their 30s and 40s, it was fine; the moment that stopped, they panicked. More than half the voting for this government came from those who painfully seriously want the old times back again, and the good times to flow. They aren't voting ideology alone, they are primarily voting development, but their thinking is not hostile to the thinking of the religious right; the two sets, the new constituency and the old band of bhakts, get along.

    And as the secular trend increases, and more and more come into the cities from the country, more and more people will wonder why everyone doesn't think like them.

    That is why, like a ship in a storm swaying from side to side in a greater arc every time, we are unlikely to recover one of those swings. It may have taken place in 2014; I hope not, but no one can say.
     
    scorpionx and PARIKRAMA like this.
  3. Inactive

    Inactive Guest


    Partially correct. They were also scared of the loss of Hindu support. Let us be BRUTALLY honest there.

    The Indian Nation State was a majoritarian state of being non-Muslim state post 15 Aug 1947. Nobody cared a bit for the Muslim sentiment and indeed the sentiment of the newly formed nation was protection of the State from similar trauma in the future. What stopped the 'leaders' from implementing the basic tenet of the Constitution in order to safeguard the young nation?

    Did it have anything to do with the 'ghettoisation' of Muslims all over India, thereby allowing for them to be nurtured as an exclusive vote bank from day 1 while allowing the Hindu Society to allow those who did not and could not accept equality as being granted by the Constitution of India to each and every Indian as a young Republic (remember this was an era post-Communal Award, which had emphatically introduced the divisions within the Hindu Society and amongst the non-Muslim and Muslim community by then for over a decade and a half) to run 'amok' and the repercussions of the same resulted in Mandal and Sabarimala Temple Issue to name a few.

    It was a political ploy by the leadership of the time, specifically, JL Nehru, who insisted on closely located societies of Muslims in order to allow for them to have a collective sense of 'security' in the post partition period and opposed by Patel because of the very reason that it shall fill them with a sense of fear and animosity and prevent forever the integration of the Muslims into Indian Society in the aftermath of the traumatic partition.
     
  4. bharathp

    bharathp Developers Guild IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Messages:
    746
    Likes Received:
    1,402
    Country Flag:
    India
    You have lesser confidence on the people of India when you claim that the people from villages got their prejudice along with them. I do not see it that ways (read a thousand mutinies by VS Naipul). thats why the difference in opinion about the same set of events. Lets see who will be right. if anyone of us is left.. double pun back to you.
     
    Joe Shearer likes this.
  5. Inactive

    Inactive Guest


    Absolutely incorrect. He is an administrator. He came to power on the wave of a 'Hindu' vote. The sentiment of the majority was used by him admirably to get the power. He sent the orders exactly when the riots started, the reaction at grassroots was slow. Reason was very simple. The Congress played the card by instigating burning of the train and not even a die hard Congress supporter who was Hindu, could allow that to go 'unpunished'.

    Be very clear. Modi is not a communal character, he is simply doing what every politician does, use the mass sentiment and come to power. Post Godhra, he realised that the country was in revival post NDA-1. He sought to encash on the mood of the people which had moved away from temples and mosques in general and to development and economy.

    The UPA played right into his hands by first reversing two major projects - the national highways and golden quadrilateral projects as also river interlinking projects.

    When Laloo got the credit for turning around Railways it was the result of policies of Nitish Kumar as Railway Minister that gave Laloo the credit. No policy works overnight, the effects are felt over 3-5 years. Similarly, when Laloo worked, Mamta Bannerji got the 'credit' of bankrupting the railways.

    He never got damaged or otherwise, he simply used the sentiment of the time to get power. You can not change a system by fighting it, you get by getting in, working through and rising to the top to a position where you can dictate changes. Your analysis is quite off here.
     
  6. T-123456

    T-123456 2nd Lieutant THINKER

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    368
    Country Flag:
    Turkey
    If a country is Pan Islamic or pro Wahabi,how can there be a constitution,a parliament and how can there be controversy from the people of this country?
    My country is not the guardian of a religion,that role is for Iran and the KSA,let them fight it out.

    I dont like this Wahabi either but i already understood what you meant from your first posts on this thread.

    Erdogan is doing exactly the same in my country,its just politics.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2016
    PARIKRAMA and Joe Shearer like this.
  7. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Not to subtract from a series of brilliant posts, but the river interlinking project was - is - an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
     
    Inactive likes this.
  8. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Heh.

    Yes, I have little confidence in the raw sensibilities of people. This is a land where people started worshipping somebody created by a movie, for Pete's sake! All the baggage of caste prejudice and refusal to engage with the systems that are supposed to run our country originate there. Read Bernard Cohen, "An Anthropologist in the Midst of Historians"; he is sounder than that bigot, Naipaul, although Naipaul writes brilliantly while being a bigot.
     
  9. Levina

    Levina Guest

    Exactly my point.
    Religion should not be considered when govt policies are being implemented.
    Make no mistake present day muslim is just as Indian as you and me. :)
    Indian muslims are by far the most broad minded when compared to muslims from other south Asian countries.
    I do not think there's a need to "Indianise" them, but we can stop the spread of Wahhabism in India.

    statement 1
    statement 2

    You've contradicted yourself.
     
    T-123456 and Inactive like this.
  10. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Superficially convincing but flawed at root. First, for the Muslims; following a period of stubborn non-cooperation, as they saw their empire slip away and finally die in the 1857, Muslims suddenly realised that the Hindus were walking away with everything that was available simply by plugging into the ruling system's structures and processes - what our cunning Odysseus @Hellfire calls getting to be accepted by the system before seeking to guide it. Just as they had plugged into Persian and worked out for themselves a way to shift into the Mughal system four hundred years earlier, Hindus (and Jains, notably; Buddhists were practically extinct by the 12th to the 14th centuries, depending on which part of India we were looking at) had bent to superior force and eased themselves into the system noiselessly and effortlessly.

    The Muslims realised that they too would have to 'adjust', to co-opt the famous south of India usage; that was when Syed Ahmed Khan brought in the amalgam of British and native Muslim education that brought about a revolution in Muslim society. From that point onwards, their recovery was swift, although they never ever got to compete on equal terms with Hindus; the head start they had lost was too large. But they clawed their way back to the good graces of the British, especially when the open wounds of the mutiny were slowly buried under the Martial Races idiocy on the one hand, and the growing suspicions of demonstrative Hindu Indians on the other hand. When Surendranath Bannerjee was jailed by the British in the 1880s, all of (northern) India was agitated; 25 years later, at the time of the first partition of India, the Muslims were suspicious and cold to the indignation of the Hindu Bengalis. The British had taken great pains to inform them that the new province would feature greater education for them, and greater opportunities of advancement in society, by getting better chances of advancement in administration positions. Education suddenly became a big deal for Muslims; the Muslim League was founded in Dhaka in 1907 during the intervals of an all-India conference on Muslim education to which all the important Muslim leaders had come.

    In the thirty years after that, Muslims made serious efforts to get ahead. This was the period of the development of the salariat, the Muslim members of the professional classes, who found themselves in direct competition with Hindu Indians for government and allied and associated professional advancement.

    [I think the word was coined by Hamza Alavi; there is a brilliant collection of papers in a book edited by Anita Weiss, which should be read by those interested in serious comment. The book is
    Islamic Reassertion in Pakistan: The Application of Islamic Laws in a Modern State by Anita M.Weiss

    It will interest only serious students, not pot-luck artists with an attitude and an Internet connection]

    This is where the fault-lines in modern India began. When Pakistan happened, practically the entire salariat left; what was left behind were the proto-Maududis, the dinosaurs who today hold back Muslim Indian society, and who were very strongly entrenched in the Congress organisation and structure, giving rise to most of the incoherent rage and frustration of those half-arsed idiots who use the term 'sickular'. What we are dealing with today is the vertically detached bottom three-fourths of Muslim India, dumped by the more zealous and the more committed, or the plain more lucky who made their way to Pakistan.

    So the myths about the greater Muslim population growth; there are dunderheads who still haven't figured out why this is necessarily so, and how and when it will revert to a Gaussian average (you will find that theme in this thread, articulated by a pretentious and shallow bigot). So the myths about their wantonly and willingly being the slaves of the Ulama, and a package of other collected prejudices about Muslims.

    And, to answer your question, yes, poor Muslims look different from poor Hindus and poor Christians; they are bearded but bare on the upper lip, they wear ridiculously short pajamas, which I used to think was to ease the wazoo, but which my observant friends told me was to avoid pretentiousness in dress; they have marks on their forehead from their strict observance of the five-times a day namaz; in a minority, their women are wrapped up in full burkha. Unfortunately, the visible part of the minority dictates social thinking about the entire lot of them.
     
    T-123456, randomradio, VCheng and 3 others like this.
  11. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,790
    Likes Received:
    15,448
    Country Flag:
    India
    Islam aas a religion has no place for moderates, secularism and change. Islam does not recognise anyother religion so all debates on Indian vs rest of the world muslims is wrong.
     
  12. seiko

    seiko VETERAN ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,542
    Likes Received:
    935
    No, Ram Mandir will only the beginning, then you will ask to demolish mosques in Kashi and Mathura too.. You wanted to punish Muslims for what their forefathers did.


    BJP become a big party because there was no alternative. We had to choose between likes of Sonia/Rahul and Modi. So the option was clear.

    BJP made full use of media campaigning which and their messages spread to the masses which were tired of corruption of congress. Vajpayee did a good job as PM and still he lost the elections.. If you think people voted on Hindu basis why he lost?

    RAM mandir was always a secondary objective of BJP government and I dont think they didnt even thinking about it right now.




    Political parties are to be blamed of religious appeasement, I agree to that. Most of the Muslims live here try to earn their daily bread just like anyone else. Origin of Hindu Muslims divide in Indian not started wih Babri Masjid. It was only one of the reason. Another reason I can tell is inferiority complex of some thinking that they were ruled by Muslims for more than 100 years.
     
    Inactive and Joe Shearer like this.
  13. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    :lol: So what?


    Since when has that ever stopped you? :mrgreen:
     
    Nilgiri, scorpionx, Inactive and 4 others like this.
  14. Grevion

    Grevion Professional Think Troll IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    3,045
    Country Flag:
    India
    Welcome sir! Have heard so much about you.
    Your presence is highly appreciated in this forum.
    @Nilgiri
     
  15. Joe Shearer

    Joe Shearer VETERAN MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    819
    Oh dear.

    I didn't realise I'd encounter someone so unexpectedly, who would call my bluff.

    How are you, my dear Sir? I have really missed you. So this is where you, umm, went to earth?
     
    Inactive, Grevion and seiko like this.

Share This Page