PM sending chaddar Ajmer Sharif - Page 4

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Jinnah was certainly a secularist. He looked up to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as his inspiration and role model. He was a more consummate heir to Gokhale than Gandhi was. He was one of those who criticized Gandhi for infusing religion into politics. He was opposed to the restoration of theocracy in Turkey that Gandhi and Congress lend its support to and subsequently withdrew from the party and politics when he found there was no one to hear him. Also he was a constitutionalist who believed in legal methods to achieve reforms within the society. He wasn't an aggressive/populist nationalist leader who wanted to overthrow the British at any cost. Like many older Congress leaders he believed that outright expulsion of British will lead to a reign of anarchy and feudalism and therefore the Congress should strive towards progressive reforms and greater representation of Indians in decision making. Any genuine historian who understands the real meaning of secularism would confirm the above. Besides if you look into his personal life, Islam had least influence on him. Most of his life he wore western clothes, spoke and wrote in English, drank wine and ate pork. There is little evidence to support that he wanted a mullah governed Islamic state. In fact several of his statements say otherwise. The only times he invoked Islam or the Prophet in his speeches were for mostly positive references to 'equality of all men' and 'importance of taking women together' etc.

What is Ajmer Sharif ??? Many muslims don't believe in Dagaah amd mazaars as its forbidden and as far as Ajmer is considered i have heard that more than muslims its non-muslims who go there .

Originally posted by: souro

As much as I don't like that look (only beard, no moustache), I don't agree with what the lady did. He is a fare paying passenger, hasn't harmed her, it's not right to insult him that way for just having the same style of facial hair as the more radical followers of his religion. I will say that the man was much more of a gentleman to not insult her in some way even when provoked, than the woman was a lady.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

your entire post is filled with inaccuracies, falsehoods and spin, more than one can be bothered to deal with. So dont mind if i just address one small part of it, the part i extracted above.

yes, why should the minorities bend? Why should they go to school if a different prayer is invoked?

that's the difference. Some of us, even coming from the majority segment, did go to Christian missionary schools where Bible was taught, where we learned the Lord's Prayer before anything else. We embraced it. We did not resent it. Try that openness for a change and maybe, just maybe, the minorities can also do well.

by the way, do minorities also insist on such accommodation in the US? Most likely not. They know they'd get their ass whipped if they did. And you talk of India not being secular. Tell us about other countries that do more for their minorities than India does, and maybe we will understand where you are coming from. Otherwise, it sounds like whining and lack of gratitude, asking, always demanding accommodation from others, the same accommodation that would never be extended to others in reciprocity. .

Originally posted by: atominis

Azim Premji or Khans doing well do not mean all minorities are doing well and have no issues.

India's secularism is tokenism. Merely symbolic.

Really ? Just compare it with any other country's tokenism and you will see the difference. In India more then 25% of the seats in colleges are left to please such minorities that too their selection criteria is kept at minimum level for them to qualify. Even in jobs they get reservation.

Why did Bollywood actors have to change names in past? Sikhs like Sampooran Singh Gulzar and Jagjit Singh, Karkirtan Kaur became clean shaven, cut hair, Gulzar, Jagjit Singh and Geeta Bali. Muslim actors Dilip Kumar, Madhubala, Meena Kumari all had to change names.

Why they needed to have Hindu sounding names and looks?

They were not forced to change names, if they did it was for their own benefits.

There was no India. No "one unified country" till British rule. Often communities were at war with each other themselves. Religions, languages, dialects, sects, castes, sub castes etc kept evolving.

Yes we are thankful to Britisher, if they hadn't ruled India it would have been completely destroyed. Thanks to their 300 rule. At the end of their rule, India was divided.

People of all religions have lived together here. Friendly relations and battles - both happened.

Even during freedom struggle there was no one unified struggle. All were fighting own battles, own way.

Of course now certain organisations and community want to rewrite history and behave as if there was one India that was invaded by others or Indians together fought against them.

Its not certain organisation that is rewriting history. History is written by historian.

How can you ascertain which Muslim's forefather was forcibly converted? And who accepted Islam voluntarily? Who knows who liked this religion and its teachings and himself decided to adopt it?

Simply check the gotras and you can find out if muslim forefather were hindus or muslims

http://www.jatland.com/home/Muslim_Jat_Gotras

Why does it hurt which way of life people adopt?

Even Ashoka took to Buddhism later.

Ashoka choose Buddhism after kalinga war.

And you are trying to call Islam "foreign" here. Why is it that "Indians" were not able to or did not resist these foreigners?

If a religion teaches jihad to spread their own religion then what are you expecting normal people to do. Havent you seen couple of terrorist holding a group of people.

Rana Sanga himself invited Babur to invade India to deal with Delhi Sultanate. Is he a traitor then?

Why did he even have any connection with Babur at all?

Check history again, Babur was invited by Daulat khan and not Rana Sanga to fight battle of Panipat.

Why did Hindu kings give away their daughters to Muslim emperors in marriage? Became their vassals themselves?

Thats why Jauhar was started in later years, because women thought its better to die then be slave of terrorist,

Why they often took their help to defeat or crush their rivals?

Which king are you talking about ?

It is simple. There was no one whole country. Only personal kingdom or territory mattered. Own kingdom itself was own country. And as long as that was safe or could be expanded, till then nothing else mattered.

You need to check why sovereign of states came into existence

Every single state of India has different faiths, language, dialects, history, cultural practices, dresses, food etc.

Muslims are among the poorest minorities in India.

Most Muslim countries are poor too and there is one common reason why there is no progress in such countries and the day they have that self realization and change their attitude they will do better.

Amusing how artists, craftsmen, rulers, saints, poets, writers, that India was once proud of and still tries to flaunt at times, were Muslims but some here are disparaging their community.

Talking of appearance, there are many bhaiyas also with unkempt appearances, filthy language, teeth stained through chewing paan and tobacco.

Are they complaining about injustice? At the end of day education and appearance does matter for the job.

What's your problem with dress and appearance? People have right to keep their unique identity! Will you call out Sikhs also for their beards and turbans?

Everyday there is one news on terrorist cruelty and the face of those people are not of Sikhs, people don't find uncomfortable with their Shikh looks but in UK still some have issue with their looks.

All media, academia, top posts, cinema etc are majority dominated. Regional languages almost facing extinction. And Hindi being foisted everywhere. Most National awards, schemes, plans, defense equipment is given Hindu names.

Every country does it and they think of respecting their role models. Pakistan have named missile after mughal invaders.

Where is majority having any problems? Or minority getting something "more"?

Majority have their own share of problem. Majority don't get reservation kind of benefit or concessions.

Why will Muslims and other minorities not prefer a school related to own faith? Schools and textbooks don't have anything about them. On top of it they make one recite prayers of a specific religion which might not be theirs. Why will they feel comfortable?

The day muslims will come out of their comfort zone, they will do better. Reciting some prayers doesnt convert anyone. Gaining right technical education is important for surviving in this competitive world. Either they can keep crying of being poor minorities or they can stand up and move on for the new change.

Has there been any effort to help them improve conditons of own schools?

What else are you expecting, Government can give reservation to them. They can't force them to come to colleges.

Media and cinema blatantly stereotype other communities. Even this belief is spread that Hindi is national language.

I have a doubt you know anything about India or Indian history. Whats the % of population of India by religion ?

Those who are behind large scale massacre of minorities become Prime Minister by landslide margin here.

You need to check facts, Supreme court found no evidence against him. If your thinking of minority massarce, do you know how many massacres have been done on hindu's ? Check yourself how many hindus died during "Battle of panipat, Jhansi, Moplah, Noakhali, Hyderabad Massacre, Cleansing of Hindu Pandits, Wandhama, Chapnari, Chamba, Amarnath, Kishware Massacre.

Butchers and murderers roaming free. Obviously "no evidence found" against them!

He didnt commit crime and neither did he gave those orders. Whatever happened was unfortunately but you simply can't term India's PM murderer.

Forget "foreign" communities, even the ones that originated here have not been spared from persecution and attempts to take them under fold of one majority community.

Even so called PMs and Presidents from minority communities were mere symbolic heads. At best golden zeroes.

Those so called zeroes according to you were actually heroes, you may not know, you need to be Indian to know it.

Being minority has become a crime.

Being minority is not a crime, but inability to adapt the changes is a crime. One cannot keep complaining why industry is not using pen and paper for book keeping and now using software instead. One has to learn new technology everyday to have a an edge over others.

9tanki

I agree that one has to keep pace with change. I accept points on birth control and technology
But my point is that we can only suggest, not force or impose.

I have had debates on Hijaab for eg, with my friends who are Muslim. We do disagree but then we leave it. I can't force her to change or think differently. Neither can I suddenly dislike her or break friendship with her over disagreements.

There is something called tolerance. You can give suggestions, have discussions, debate, reason, but at the end of the day you have to leave them to take final decision.

Otherwise they might feel they are being forced to change.

I don't believe people should be forced to change just to integrate with majority. There was a case of a married Hindu woman being told not to wear sindoor, Mangalsutra, bindi at workplace. I don't remember correctly now in which country it happened. But it made headlines all over the world back then. And started off a debate about identity, multiculturalism, diversity etc.

Most of us did remark that the woman should have been allowed to wear those articles which she feels are sacred to her. I remember reading comments on all news websites detailing what sindoor and mangalsutra mean to a married Hindu woman and why she should not be asked not to wear them etc.

We should apply same standards here.

Their appearance, dressing, accessories etc shouldn't matter. Only their work and deeds should.

Didn't Akbar get a Hindu wife? Despite Jauhar existing long before that.

People didn't change names just because it suited them or brought benefits. The atmosphere was communally charged back then and hence for acceptance those people had to change their names!

Even today, why Khans are singled out for love jihad?

Why population jihad spin is put forth when Khans have third child? (SRK, Aamir)

The reasons are communal. Your surname makes you vulnerable if you're a minority.

Had India been truly and totally accepting then Dilip Kumar, Geeta Bali, Gulzar, Madhubala, Meena Kumari, Jagjit Singh etc wouldn't have to change not just their names but even appearance (Gulzar and Jagjit Singh).

They had to adopt Hindu sounding names. Till date many don't know that some of them are not Hindu

Khans didn't have to change surname but despite popularity some sections continue to target them. SRK's loyalty has often been questioned.

I have never seen a majority community being branded traitor or constantly scrutinised for loyalty!

You might believe PMs were innocent because evidence was not found. I find it amusing because this is India and there is no way a PM or CM is going to face consequences for his deeds. No wonder evidence was not found.

The way majority rewards such genocidal candidates with thumping victory proves how much they really care.

My point is that allegation of suffering majority is not true.

One Mary Kom doesn't mean NE is all hunky dory. Nor does it wash away discrimination and attacks people from NE face. Only few days ago, NE youth have been attacked in Bengaluru.

One Sikh PM can't hide the injustice to 1984 victims, growing drug menace in Punjab, and general mocking, stereotyping that community goes through.

We might have had Muslim Pres and PM but the hate against Muslims and massacres are there to see.
Even in this very thread the views about them are telling.

Women Prez and PM or LS speaker don't imply women face no discrimination and oppression in India.

So say what you will but it is tokenism. All show off, maybe to fool gullible public or international community perhaps?

I am an Indian. I was born, educated and live here. So I know as well.

Organisations do rewrite history. Revisionism is reality.

Reservations in my opinion, are a lame idea. I favour efforts towards skill development and uplifting them to compete with others than take a lazy route of reservation. If at all reservation has to be there it should be only till education. Not in jobs even!
There should be other ways to address discrimination and ensure equal opportunities than reservation.

I do not understand why you give examples of other countries!
"India" is rather different. Many communities evolved here or lived here for centuries. How can we keep them aside like other countries?
Some minorities have originated here only. They have not arrived from other lands. So? Why should communities like them bear the brunt? It's not like they have any other land! This land is also theirs so why can't they live here with full rights to maintain own identity, community, culture, education etc?

What do you want? Minorities to remain sidelined or adopt majority's ways?

And which country is our role model, which country we want to aim to be or compare ourselves with? Saudi Arabia?

On Hindi, it is not officially the national language of India. Please show me where GoI and Constitution declared it the National Language of India?

I am aware that every country adopts National symbols, names of Govt owned institutions etc according to the way of the majority. All I am saying is that didn't minorities in India as well as other states as in South and NE, accept this? They did!

Why crib then?

Talking of attacks on different looking people. Sikhs also get attacked abroad as they apparently get mistaken for Muslims. So does it mean they should change their appearance and give up identity?

I know history. Just that I don't follow blogs and booklets brought out by certain religious organisations pretending to be nationalists.
If you want to call me a liar or label me in other ways or allege I am not Indian then so be it.

It is any way a trend these days to brand anyone as anti national. So I am not bothered.

It is evident what is the agenda. Call for birth control, anti conversion law, demonise minorities or liquidate them, call for Uniform Civil Code etc.
Tomorrow they might as well brand all atheists, rationalists, skeptics as anti national or bring out a law to kill them or give a 1000 lashes every week.

Anyway, I can't believe even today people could talk of gotras, caste, and harp so much on communal grounds.

Nothing changed I guess.

Muslims targetted. Now current flavour is Christians. Who's next on the list?

Jagjit Singh was a Mona Sardar, he did not and was not forced to to change his appearance.

Originally posted by: cineraria

Jagjit Singh was a Mona Sardar, he did not and was not forced to to change his appearance.

Sikhs had to trim their hair and get clean shaven during the 1984 riots for many Sardars were burned alive by congress people and others who labeled them as Indira Killers. The 1984 riots were brutal and heinous and they did so to protect themselves.

@atominis After Independence the congress followed the British footsteps of divide and rule policy. Sikhs, Jains, Punjabis, Sindhis they don't follow a separate religion. They are very much Hindus. They follow Sanatan Dharma, they worship the same Gods as Hindus do. It's the Congress who divided the religion into so many religions to gain political mileage from devising "minorities".

Ask any Jain you find, what religion does he/she follow. The answer would be Hinduism or Sanatan Dharm. Among Jains have been the greatest devotees of Lord Shiva. Many temples you see in India have actually been constructed by Jains.

Sikhs worship Om so do Hindus. "Ik Omkar Satnam." The OM symbol and sound has been crucial and indispensable part of Sanatan Dharm. Sikhs too worship the same gods as Hindus, they celebrate the same festivals as Hindus, they keep fasts as per Hindu rituals, they visit temples. And nobody is forcing them to. How can anyone when it is the same religion and belief system.

And Hindus visit Gurudwars, contribute in Langars, many non-Sikh Hindus such as me wear kada.

The only difference is that majority "Hindus" as you define them, don't follow any Guru. These are communities or sects among Sanatan Dharm, that along with the basic religion also follow the principles of Mahavir Swami and Guru Nanak Saheb. Does that mean majority Hindus have got nothing to do with these Gurus? We too respect and imbibe the ideals by Mahavir Swami and Guru Nanak ji. We celebrate Mahavir Jayanti.

Sindhis too follow the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev, they consider him as their first Guru. Does that make Sindhis non Hindu? Certainly not. Following the principles of a great Saint does not make one follow a separate religion.

Jains, Sikhs are all thoroughly fused and mingled with the "majority Hindus" as you define them. They may have been made separate by Political means but ask a common Sardar or a Jain, do they really identify themselves different on a spiritual level? Why would they when what they follow is Sanatan Dharm.

When I go to our local temple, there are many turbaned Sikhs praying there. And also a huge number pay obeisance at Maa Vaishno Devi, Jwala jee, Chintpurni, Kapalmochan etc.