Is a higher birthrate the solution?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#81

Originally posted by: Bazigar
They cant even phantom the idea that if we are secular country till today that is more because a large section of 80% dont buy their idea and oppose them .

Completely wrong on that count, India is secular because a few Congress leaders at the time of independence chose it to be so, the Hindu population had nothing to do with it. And before you say that those Congress leaders were elected by the people, let me point out that they were supported by the people to get freedom from the British, no opinion was every sought from the Hindus and none was ever given. On the other hand, the Muslim population of the subcontinent at that time voted overwhelmingly in favour Muslim League when they proposed the two nation theory, figures in the range of 90%-93% are reported. Which can mean 2 things, either the whole population of the subcontinent at that time was not predisposed towards secularism, it's just that Hindus didn't get a chance to voice their opinion; or Muslims were not secular but the rest were secular (but not proven), which then begs the question, why then should we have to entertain the Muslims.

As far as the current situation is concerned, once the nation was declared to be secular and secularism was tom-tommed everywhere and through media as some kind of greatest virtue that a nation can possess, you cannot expect the common people to remain unaffected. It's like any other propaganda and like any other propaganda people will be bound to get influenced in favour of it. Moreover, the leadership of the country favoured secularism and they controlled the resources that puts them in a position to dictate terms to the population, which will also make the common people wary of asking for any sort of change in fear of the repercussion. But you don't know what the effect of a counter propaganda and a pro-Hindu rashtra govt. will be and you don't know even at present what percentage of the population actually supports secularism. It will be known only if people get a chance to vote for a choice without the fear of being tagged fascist, communal etc., by the govt. and the media, if they happen to be against secularism.

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#82

Originally posted by: souro

Thats Hindu fundamentalism! 😲

Quote

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

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#83

Originally posted by: Gubbara.
Anyways, on topic...I would say yes to the question that TM has raised.
If hindus become minority, they will have no where to go. Nepal isnt big enough. So my advice to hindu men in that case would be to kill your kids and women before you get your balls n head chopped off by islamic state fundamentalists. You know what happens to them, right?

btw, any of you have supported #25YearsofKPExile today? If not then please do. There wont be anyone left to make such hashtags when your turn comes in the near future.

Its not as if Hindus arent living as minority in any country. They are not exactly being persecuted the way you mentioned though its possible that they may not enjoy all the freedom they do in their own country at present.

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#84

Originally posted by: charminggenie
The reason why Hindu ruled state seem like a "safer" option is because it is too abstract , there is no cohesiveness . There are far too many sub-brackets within this category , which makes it fairly flexible and workable . But if one hardline doctrine is principled to be focal point of rule , it will always be unfair to other minorities, moderates and others.
Giving absolute power to one religion based ideology will never be flourishing for any country, nor will it be able to retain the democratic set-up.

Agree with that 👍🏼

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#85

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#86

Originally posted by: zorrro
Thats Hindu fundamentalism! 😲

Of course it is, it's quite obvious.

Quote

373577

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#87

There doesnt seem to be much difference between fundamentalists whichever religion they may profess to follow. I wonder why one should choose one over the other. Is it because our parents followed a particular belief system that we have to follow the same? 😳

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#88

Originally posted by: zorrro
There doesnt seem to be much difference between fundamentalists whichever religion they may profess to follow. I wonder why one should choose one over the other. Is it because our parents followed a particular belief system that we have to follow the same? 😳

Although I'm not at all religious, but my only dislike stems from the bending over backwards we do to accommodate Muslims.

90%-93% of the subcontinent Muslims decided to vote for Muslim League and their two nation theory. Yet when their wish got fulfilled 35%-40% didn't leave India. We gave them the country they demanded and yet we have to be burdened with a disproportionately huge number of Muslims in India, whose per capita contribution to GDP is lowest among all religious groups and contribution to crime most probably the highest

Muslim countries don't allow proselytising, public display of religious symbols and have other restrictions for other religions. Yet we allow them to proselytise, make mosques wherever they please, display their crescent and star flags, do azan over loud speakers, perform namaz in public places and what not.

The Muslim population takes up arms if Muslim girl marries a Hindu boy, hunts them down and kills them, but have no qualms if a Muslim boy marries a Hindu girl and converts her.

Since centuries they have destroyed temples and then get agitated if one abandoned mosque is demolished which happens to be on a place considered very important by many Hindus and as proved by ASI that even that mosque was built by destroying a temple.

In Muslim countries religious minorities are oppressed and yet in India we go so far as to give them leeway in following a different set of laws.

I don't think such benevolence to the undeserved is a good thing.

Quote

Gubbara.

@Gubbara.

Inactive

Posted: 10 years ago

#89

@bazigar

Have a nice day!

Edited by Gubbara. - 10 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#90

Originally posted by: souro

Bangladesh had about 15% or so Hindu population, yet how much resistance did it face when it went from secular to Islamic nation? Hardly any. When Nepal became secular from Hindu nation, how much resistance did it face from the majority population. Again hardly any. When Pakistan was made more hardline Islamic nation, who tried to prevent it? No one. When Iran went from secular to Islamic nation, who was able to stop them? Again no one.

You are not just advocating a state religion; you are also advancing a form of political repression that affects the ability of millions to take part in the political life of a society. I don't know if these countries enforced what you are proposing here but even assuming Hindus are second class citizens in the nations you cited above, we don't have to emulate them like they are some paragons of virtue. They have no brand image to protect in terms of policy and governance, international relations, economics and trade, international law, national security, energy and climate change, urban and regional planning, immigration and the media. India is a developing nation, a wannabe developed nation, and none of the ideas you are floating are "progressive". At best, your idea is separatistic. At worst, it could lead to ethnic cleansing and genocidal massacres.

Originally posted by: souro

As for international community, yes I see how much sanctions they have imposed on those nations which went the Islamic way. If they still persist, good. At a time of sluggish growth, they will lose a market of 1.3 billion. Let's see which feeling is stronger, prospect of money or benevolence towards some minority group. Moreover, if the majority of the population votes in favour to making India a Hindu nation and still the international community decides to interfere, it will be deemed interference in internal matters by the laws of that international community itself. Remember, we are not talking about persecution of minorities. They will be allowed to stay and follow their religion but in a Hindu nation. If they don't like it and start a violent movement to that effect, it's they who are going against the resolution made by the majority of the population and therefore the cause of trouble, not the other way round.

I am pretty sure a political repression undertaken with the help of the army, with the full backing of the government in power, would be a crime against humanity in the eyes of the UN.

It's not just about the 1.3 billion consumer market. The way everything is globalized, if investors detect unstable or unfavorable financial conditions, there would be a capital outflow, foreign funds will sell their securities and move on to other greener pastures, stock market will crash and the country will fall into a deep doo doo. IMO.

Quote

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14

Is a higher birthrate the solution? - Page 9

Related Topics

Explore Topics