Is a higher birthrate the solution?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 10 years ago

#121

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i dont think other secular countries have been too successful dealing with their minorities either. Look at France recently, UK a few years back. The problem with them, as with India, is lack of clarity in how to deal with minorities. They are soft bleeding heart liberal states and have been overly welcoming towards minorities. Germany for example has had demonstrations against those who would curtail immigration of minorities from other countries, as if these immigrants have anything to contribute. How whacked up!

about the only "secular" countries that have "done it" well in the past few years are the US and Australia. They have a no-nonsense attitude towards minorities. Minorities can adapt to their new country or leave, as the aussies would say.These countries also haven't had the nehru-gandhi and triple-yadav combo that we've had that gave "sheh" to minorities. If you dont see minorities acting boisterous in, say, america it is because they know they will get run out by the feds if they misbehaved. No apologists in the US, or at least not as many as in India..

Issue is germany is more complicated.

After second world war, a large part mof unskilled labout force of Germany was turkish, many of them stayed behind, new generation of Germans have overwhelming amount of Germans of turkish origin.

It is impossible to rule them out.

Also it is not easy to identify a good immigrant from bad.if a PEGIDA. Member accosts me on the streets, what would make them believe I am not a free loading immigrant?

There are lots of European immigrants, who are not muslim and who still drain the countries resources. So what is the line to draw here? PEGIDA. Has an overwhelming number of neo Nazis and are more active where there is not much multicultural activities hoing on and not much ethnic diversity. Given the country's history, people have reason to be wary.

However, few points are not illogical. Germany never had such an high influx of immigrants and asylum seeker as it is having now. As such they do not have stronger policy like the USA. This needes to be remedied.

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#122

Illegal immigration is a major problem in the border areas like Assam as proved by the census reports. This state showed the maximum growth rate in the muslim population in all probability due to the influx from Bangladesh. 2014 also witnessed many agitations by the locals in that area. The problem is that there is no bilateral agreement between India and its neighbours regarding such illegal migrants. While the convicts can be deported to their native country there appears to be no repatriation treaty between the neighbouring countries for offloading the numerous illegal migrants - mostly poor labourers who regularly cross over to India from Bangladesh.

The question is how do we even prove their nationality when we dont have any fool proof database in the country?

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 10 years ago

#123

The issue is even more fundamental.

Illegal immigration from bangladesh cannot be stopped, because of lack of opportunities there.

Border states of wb are full of immigrants as well, who are becoming naturalised Indian citizens, thans to ration cards issued with the help of political parties who control them as voting bank.

Delhi is for example overflown with such migrant workers who work as rickshaw pullers and domestic helps for a pittance.

Infact regions in murshidabad have muslim majority, most of whom are fundamentalists , and who, with political backing create a lot of unrest. Like objecting to long tradition of karthik puja etc. No one pays any heed to them because the plight of locals are not big enough and neither are they vote banks.

As long as vote bank politics exist, seggregration exist, no amount of measure will help any population control.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#124

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Not exactly. Constitution has certain basic features which cannot be altered/destroyed via amendments.

# Supremacy of the Constitution
# Republican and democratic form of government
# Secular character of the Constitution
# Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
# Federal character of the Constitution
# The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy
# Unity and integrity of the nation
# Sovereignty of the country.
# Sovereignty of India
# Democratic character of the polity
# Unity of the country
# Essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens
# Mandate to build a welfare state

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/thyg.htm

I will wrap it up from my end. A Hindu Rashtra is possible. Everything else that you proposed is not.

All of these are current legal standings. They can be changed and will change with time, maybe tomorrow, maybe 500 years later. These things are meant as a safeguard as long as the current form of governance continues. The earlier kingdoms and princely states that existed, must have had several such clauses, that the kingdom should be a monarchy or the monarch has to be from a certain family, but do they exist any longer now that the form of governance has changed? When the British started ruling India, before that did India have no laws about sovereignty, unity of the country, etc.? It's a mistake to think that the current set of laws is something different than the older ones and it is set in stone, permanent and can never be changed.

Quote

246851

Hibernated

Posted: 10 years ago

#125

Btw souro, seems the words secular and socialist became an issue of debate irecently.

I agree with souro. All the safeguards ans process that are there can be changed if the one who is ruling is powerful enough. It has happened before and it can happen again.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#126

Originally posted by: souro

All of these are current legal standings. They can be changed and will change with time, maybe tomorrow, maybe 500 years later. These things are meant as a safeguard as long as the current form of governance continues. The earlier kingdoms and princely states that existed, must have had several such clauses, that the kingdom should be a monarchy or the monarch has to be from a certain family, but do they exist any longer now that the form of governance has changed? When the British started ruling India, before that did India have no laws about sovereignty, unity of the country, etc.? It's a mistake to think that the current set of laws is something different than the older ones and it is set in stone, permanent and can never be changed.

Your statements are too facile for me to argue back. I cannot engage in a discussion with someone lacking basic understanding of how the Supreme court works or the power of judiciary or who is responsible for interpreting / guarding the constitution, how appeals work, what it takes for the Supreme court to declare a law enacted by Parliament or by a State Legislature as unconstitutional, if it deems it is inconsistent with the spirit or letter of the constitution...

Let me ask you this. How does 500 years from now help your case, keeping in mind the growing populations of Muslims? If anything, you would be marginalized in 500 years no?

And what does it take to implement what you are proposing (curbing the fundamental rights of a few minorities) tomorrow? Can you walk me through that process? Skipping details is as good as saying "I don't know!" There always have been hardliners and there always will be so what makes you think you can do tomorrow what you can't do today? Aren't Hindus a majority even now?

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#127

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Your statements are too facile for me to argue back. I cannot engage in a discussion with someone lacking basic understanding of how the Supreme court works or the power of judiciary or who is responsible for interpreting / guarding the constitution, how appeals work, what it takes for the Supreme court to declare a law enacted by Parliament or by a State Legislature as unconstitutional, if it deems it is inconsistent with the spirit or letter of the constitution...

Let me ask you this. How does 500 years from now help your case, keeping in mind the growing populations of Muslims? If anything, you would be marginalized in 500 years no?

And what does it take to implement what you are proposing (curbing the fundamental rights of a few minorities) tomorrow? Can you walk me through that process? Skipping details is as good as saying "I don't know!" There always have been hardliners and there always will be so what makes you think you can do tomorrow what you can't do today? Aren't Hindus a majority even now?

It might sound very simplistic Mr.K but it is quite simple. What do you do when a constitution becomes a hindrance, you abrogate it, that is what has been done world over whenever major changes have happened.

The bit about 500 years was not to say that India will definitely become Hindu country whether tomorrow or 500 years later. What I meant is all laws change, even the ones that you pointed out. India can even become an Islamic country 500 years later or maybe something else altogether, nobody knows what the changes will be 500 years from now except that there will be changes. So, it's a mistake to say that because these laws exist, change won't take place.

And what makes you think that majority Hindus won't support the changes proposed by hardliner Hindus? The fact is we don't know for certain how many percentage of Hindus support secularism, just because we see/hear a section of vocal secular Hindus on media doesn't mean they are the only kind of Hindus who exist. Secondly, as I had said earlier, don't discount the possibility of what a counter propaganda against secularism can achieve.

As for what does it take to bring about the changes, first of all a government which is unambiguous and unapologetic about being pro-Hindu. Secondly, re-educating the Indian population about secularism. Currently the population has learnt to parrot that secularism is the best form of governance, because the initial Congress leaders who formed government wanted them to learn that. That has to be changed and given the amount of oppression done by Muslims and then by Christians and current threat posed by Islamic jihadists, what is needed is to make people aware of it in detail. Secular doesn't mean inviting a group of murderer into your house and letting them stay on just because they happen to follow a different religion than you and you feel kicking them out will be against secularism, that is not secular, that's utterly foolish. That is what happened to India and the task is to make the indigenous religions see it. The Muslims murdered Hindus in thousands during Direct Action Day to get Pakistan, and when they got Pakistan the Congress leaders of that time allowed a major section of the Muslims to stay on. Once the govt. has the common people on their side regarding the foolishness of the current form of secularism proposed by the Congress leaders of that time, the next aim should be to decimate opposition and become more authoritarian in nature. Once it becomes authoritarian and knows that the population is with it, then the govt. can implement extensive changes including doing away with the constitution if they want.

The above is just one scenario. Another more drastic scenario can be, there is a sort of Hindu revolution which refuse to recognise the current form of constitution and government. Both are free to remove each other by whatever means. If Hindu revolution is successful, they are obviously under no obligation to recognise the current constitution and they will be free to draft a new constitution.

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#128

The debate over the merits and demerits of secularism has already begun with the Shiv Sena's comments over the controversy regarding the I& B advt displaying the original preamble of the constitution on the Republic Day with the words secular and socialism missing from it.

If the words "secular" and "socialism" could be added to the preamble as a part of the 42nd amendment of the constitution couldnt it be amended again should the majority desire?🤔

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-IB-ad-and-the-controversy-that-wasnt/articleshow/46036646.cms

Edited by zorrro - 10 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#129

Souro, I can appreciate the honesty in your post(s) but "the next aim should be to decimate opposition"?! You mean like a pogrom? Come on, you are better than that!

As for a metamorphosis from a democracy to a dictatorship (authoritarian), I still think you glossed over how you would sidestep the Supreme Court. For instance, you need constitutional authority to abrogate a law. The supreme law, a.k.a. the constitution, cannot abrogate itself.

As for revolution, why would there be one when people themselves are electing members of the Lok Sabha through general elections? They don't like one government, they elect another 5 years later. I guess I am failing to see how a revolution would be effectual in a democracy. Protests sure but revolution? On what grounds? And why, when you have the power to overthrow the government whose policies you don't like?

But assuming for a second that you do get what you drafted, to me that debate would be indistinguishable from the debate the topic maker initiated. It's either a Muslim-majority India where Hindus are oppressed or a Hindu-majority India where Muslims are oppressed. I would oppose both forms of oppression, if not on moral and ethical grounds, then on the grounds of progress and development. Revolutions and pogroms are never good for a country's economy.

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#130

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Souro, I can appreciate the honesty in your post(s) but "the next aim should be to decimate opposition"?! You mean like a pogrom? Come on, you are better than that!

As for a metamorphosis from a democracy to a dictatorship (authoritarian), I still think you glossed over how you would sidestep the Supreme Court. For instance, you need constitutional authority to abrogate a law. The supreme law, a.k.a. the constitution, cannot abrogate itself.

As for revolution, why would there be one when people themselves are electing members of the Lok Sabha through general elections? They don't like one government, they elect another 5 years later. I guess I am failing to see how a revolution would be effectual in a democracy. Protests sure but revolution? On what grounds? And why, when you have the power to overthrow the government whose policies you don't like?

But assuming for a second that you do get what you drafted, to me that debate would be indistinguishable from the debate the topic maker initiated. It's either a Muslim-majority India where Hindus are oppressed or a Hindu-majority India where Muslims are oppressed. I would oppose both forms of oppression, if not on moral and ethical grounds, then on the grounds of progress and development. Revolutions and pogroms are never good for a country's economy.

the constitution might not be able to abrogate itself, but people can. People are supreme. Point is if there is a will, we can find a smart lawyer who can abrogate anything. A shitty constitution tailor made to serve the nehru gandhi and the triple-yadav clans is the least of the problem.😆

you're also getting too dramatic with the pogrom bit. Just because you have a single state ideology, it does not mean you get to pogroms. Consider the chinese. For all practical purpose, they have a nice one-party capitalist system going and they dont run pogroms. They just crush dissent from time to time, that's it, but no pogroms. 😆A few hundred are rounded up and served up as example for the rest. And the chinese have not done too shabbily being a tad authoritarian. Fine, make that very authoritarian if you try opposing them. But why should you if they've given you progress? Even your local nunnery is pretty authoritarian that way, and i dont see many padre types complaining. Ever seen a nun running around naked? They have strict rules they need to adhere to, you know.😆

but i will give you this- there are a lot of muslims who have made enormous sacrifice and contribution, and we are better off as a nation with people who have different perspectives. But when you club the aggressive ones who have held up the rest from progressing because of appeasement politics at the cost of all else, then maybe we are better off if they all fell in line. Getting rid of the secular nonsense would then be the right step. And those who don't like it can adapt or just apply for assylum in saudia, no hard feelings.😆

Edited by BirdieNumNum - 10 years ago

Quote

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14

Is a higher birthrate the solution? - Page 13

Related Topics

Explore Topics