The RSS, VHP, and other hindu organizations are forever comparing India to Islamic nations and saying "See! If you tried this in Saudi Arabia, you would be killed!" But so what? Are our standards so pathetically low that we're thrilled about being better than one of the most barbaric nations on the planet? Come on...that's no achievement!<br></br>
flickr photo by Please! Don't Smile. http://flickr.com/photos/khashi/520371068 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

The RSS, VHP, and other hindu organizations are forever comparing India to Islamic nations and saying "See! If you tried this in Saudi Arabia, you would be killed!" But so what? Are our standards so pathetically low that we're thrilled about being better than one of the most barbaric nations on the planet? Come on...that's no achievement!

flickr photo by Please! Don't Smile. http://flickr.com/photos/khashi/520371068 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

Why do Hindutva Types Compare us to Saudi Arabia?

Whenever you point out intolerance in India these days, someone will respond “Please see the Middle East/Pakistan etc and look at how they do these things. If you did this there, you would be beheaded!”

Whether it’s in response to beef bans, or attacks on freedom of expression, a large number of people will point to Islamic countries with great relish to show us just how bad they have it. So according to them, we’re supposed to feel grateful for being in India. It’s almost as if we’re saying “Look! We’re better than these other terrible countries!”

But what kind of standards are you setting for yourself if your only ambition is to simply be better than the worst? It’s as if your feet are trailing in the gutter and you’re thrilled that someone else is sunk up to their waist!

Being better than the worst is not an achievement!

I think the real reason is the subconscious competition many Hindus in India have with Muslims. For them, being better than Islamic countries is good enough. That’s the only race that matters. Forget about the rest of the world and how far ahead they are. As long as India is a better place than Pakistan, they’re happy!

It’s time we lost this obsession with Islamic nations and raised our standards a bit. When talking about freedom of expression, we need to compare ourselves to the US and improve ourselves. When talking about renewable energy, look at Germany and France and emulate their policies. If referring to Internet connectivity, try and follow South Korea. For public/private partnerships, keep the “Swedish model” in mind. There are lots of great countries to imitate in this world. All of them have something to teach us.

Islamic countries are nowhere in the picture. That is NOT your role model! That is NOT your benchmark! Surely we’re better than that. Surely we have better standards. We cannot look to Saudi Arabia and how they don’t allow women to drive, and feel super happy that Indian women can drive! I mean what the hell?

Wake up guys. Stop comparing us to the Middle East. We can do better.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (9)
  • You\'re an asshole (1)
  • Don\'t Agree but Interesting (0)

Comments

  1. Whenever we feel sad, we look at people in worse situations and feel happy instantly. Similarly, political parties make us believe that we are superior to a few, create a roar around it and, unfortunately, succeed. We give in to the hype and lose our own sense of right and wrong. This is exactly what is happening. Our country is going through some silent major changes. We need to hold our ground and not let these goons decide our fate for us.

    Reply

    • In reply to Nisha

      In some way, it seems to be more than that. The tone of the comments could actually be envious. As if they’re looking wistfully at Saudi Arabia and admiring the way they deal with dissent and free speech.

      There’s some kind of love/hate relation at work here.

      Reply

  2. The comparison with Islamic countries is extremely important. Because it tells us what India would like if it were a Muslim majority country. It is silly to blame any individual Muslim, but facts show that Muslim majority countries are black holes where words like democracy, free speech never reach. This fact cannot be wished away. The reason this keeps coming up in India is selective outrage against “Hindu fundamentalism”. You yourself have said before that the pub attack in Mangalore (0 killed, 0 injured) is a bigger issue for outrage than the jihadis who chopped off a professor’s hand because the jihadis didn’t stay and make a statement before the media. Apparently, chopping off a person’s hands is not a big enough statement in itself unless the criminals wait to do a press conference afterwards.

    Incidentally, the 9/11 hijackers also never did a press conference after driving the planes into the World Trade Center, so may be you will count 9/11 also as a small incident compared to the Mangalore pub attack.

    Let’s put emotion aside and analyze the situation from a market point of view. All behavior is governed by incentives. Suppose there are two airlines: HF Airways and MF Airways. Suppose MF Airways really sucks and is late 99% of the time. But HF Airways also sucks and is late 50% of the time. Do you think giving bad reviews to HF Airways and mostly ignoring MF Airways will make HF Airways change its ways? You can give HF Airways all the gyaan you want about raising standards, but as long as MF Airways is still late 99% of the time, HF has no incentive to improve. Each time you give them a bad review, HF Airways will just laugh and point to MF Airways. You can say that such laziness on part of HF is deplorable, but it will be a reality. So, if you want change, you MUST start by pressurizing MF Airways…the airline that sucks much worse. Only when MF Airways record starts improving will HF feel the pinch and rush to raise its level. Now suppose that HF stands for “Hindu Fundamentalism” and MF for “Muslim fundamentalism”…

    You will probably get angry and block my comment for saying this (just like yesterday). I wish you a great time receiving praise from people who think *exactly* like you.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sumit

      I’ve never blocked any comment that is not abusive or spammy, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s just the usual paranoia you have which makes you feel everyone is against you and that forces in the world are trying to suppress your voice etc.

      Second, it’s no good to talk about how Muslim majority countries behave if India becomes the same way with a Hindu majority. In fact, lots of Hindus actually seem jealous of the way Saudi Arabia functions. That’s why they say “Try and do this in Saudi Arabia and see what happens!”

      Sorry, but as I said in my post, I want more from India than to merely be better than Saudi Arabia.

      This post is not about Muslim/Hindu violence. It’s about Hindus being jealous of Islamic nations.

      P.S. You want to know why I feel the Mangalore pub attack was more important? It’s because it was part of an organized political trend as opposed to a random act of violence. Rare, random attacks by crazy individuals is less politically worrying than a concerted effort by parties to engage in brazen open violence.

      But this is not the post to discuss that.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        To suggest that attacks by violent Islamic jihadis are a rare event in the world today! What can I even say….

        Sigh…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Who’s talking about the world? I’m not interested in the world. Only in India. And in India, “jihadist attacks” are pretty unheard of. Anything that happens is the work of one or two psychotic individuals…which every country has.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        In India, jihadist attacks are unheard of? Baap re…

        In this day and age, to say that you are not interested in a global phenomenon seems spectacularly myopic. The reconnaissance for the 26/11 attacks was done by an American (David Headley) & a Canadian (Tahawwur Rana), some money came from Spain and the training was done in Pakistan! There are kids from Paris and Marseille and North Carolina and Frankfurt and London and Sydney and Mumbai and Bangalore hopping on planes to go fight in Syria!

        When a court in Iraq sentenced Saddam to death, Bangalore witnessed arson and rioting in protest. In Mumbai’s Azad Maidan, even policewomen were molested and Amar Jawan Jyoti was desecrated because apparently Muslims in Myanmar are being oppressed! And yes, a shopping mall was also attacked in my sleepy little Hindi heartland hometown because of those Muslims in Myanmar! When some little known paper called Jylands-Posten in Denmark made some cartoons, rioting happened in Delhi! Denmark…freaking far away Denmark! Policemen in Kolkata were shot dead because America was fighting Afghanistan!

        And you are telling me that when it comes to Islamic jihad, we shouldn’t see it as something global!

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        If you want, we can have a discussion about global Islamic terrorism somewhere else. As the title of my post makes it painfully clear, I’m only interested in talking about India. And as I’ve shown you before, nuance is important. Islam in India is very different from Islam in the Middle east.

        26/11 was entirely the work of outsiders – not the work of Muslims within India. If one or two crazy people from Bangalore go to Syria, that means exactly nothing. It’s a big country. Some random shit is always happening.

        If you really want to make me afraid, show me a mainstream Muslim political party that wants to impose Sharia in India, wants to prevent women from driving, and wants to ban free speech in India. Show me that, and I’ll take your threat of Islam in India seriously. Otherwise, it’s just occasional stuff by individual unorganized crazy people.

        Right now, it’s only Hindu political organizations that want to ban speech, ban beef etc. I think you’re so focused on Muslims as a threat that you’re ignoring the real one.

        India has much more to fear from the RSS and VHP than from unorganized random Muslims today.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        But you can’t restrict yourself to talking about India in what is a global phenomenon. Can you imagine a climate scientist in India saying: my model does not take melting of Antarctic Ice into account. Antarctica is far away and nobody even lives there. Why care :) ?

        Actually, there is a mainstream political party in India that has already passed a law to overrule a Supreme Court decision so that the supremacy of Islamic Law can be established.

        Two words: Shah Bano.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’m only interested in India. And my observation is that Islam in India is not the same as Islam in the Middle East. They have the same name…that’s it. And once again, here enters the concept of nuance.

        No one is holding up the Congress as a paragon of governance. In fact, Shah Bano was made possible only due to a lack of a uniform civil code. Be that as it may, this is still civil law we’re talking about. Sharia law or Islamic law goes way beyond civil matters and address criminal law as well.

        Sorry, but there is no mainstream political party that support Sharia law in India. Not even one.

        Also, can we please talk about current events? The Shah Bano case was almost 40 years ago. Saddam died a decade ago. Bringing up outdated events is not going to help your cause.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        The Shah Bano incident is from 1986: that’s not 40 years ago. Isn’t it common in Indian secular discourse to criticize the RSS because ONE of its ex-members killed Gandhi 67 years ago?

        You were asking me about mainstream political parties. With the exception of the BJP, Shiv Sena and perhaps the Akalis, almost every single political party in India already supports Islamic law being supreme in all civil matters. Do you think this is negligible?

        Speaking of free speech, Queen Sonia even wrote to the Danish government to prosecute the Mohammad cartoonists! Yes, mainstream political parties in India have gone far enough to use our diplomatic resources to try to censor free speech in some distant corner of faraway Denmark!

        Speaking of criminal matters and recent affairs, here is the Communal Violence Bill drafted by Sonia ji’s NAC

        http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/draft/NAC%20Draft%20Communal%20Violence%20Bill%202011.pdf

        The Bill claims to tackle communal violence against any “group”. As per 3(e) of the Bill, ONLY a minority can qualify to be a group under this Act. Extremely severe criminal penalties are prescribed under this Bill, but they are only for those who create a hostile environment against a minority! Yes, if someone is rioting, the Communal Violence Bill of 2011 says: check the religion of the victim. If the victim is from a minority religion, only then take action.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        No one would criticize the RSS if its main leaders (and followers) didn’t glorify Godse even today. So that act 67 years ago is still being supported today. Big difference.

        I definitely think India should have a uniform civil code. But since it doesn’t extend to criminal law, it’s not terribly significant. It’ll be nice, and we should work towards it. But it’s hardly a threat to fabric of India. Criminal law is a different matter.

        Also not that when Islamic civil law comes into conflict with the law of the land such as child marriage, Islamic law loses. It can’t be in conflict wih the Constitution.

        If your point about the Danish cartoons is that India is intolerant of free speech, then that is a no-brainer. I’ve been talking about it on my blog for years. Neither the Congress, nor the BJP is a big supporter of freedom of expression.

        As for the communal violence bill…it only goes to show that the Congress is not by any means a “liberal” party. When it introduced the bill, it was roundly criticized by liberals, and everyone was talking about it. It was finally forced to reword the bill and remove any reference to “minorities” etc.

        Finally, this entire discussion really has nothing to do with my main post on why the so many Hindutva followers keep glorifying the Middle East. So let’s stay on topic.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “No one would criticize the RSS if its main leaders (and followers) didn’t glorify Godse even today. So that act 67 years ago is still being supported today. Big difference.”

        Bhagwad, we were comparing to Shah Bano case from 29 years ago. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the Congress leadership does not glorify Rajiv Gandhi even today? In fact, what else does the Congress do except glorify Rajiv Gandhi :)

        No, my point about Sonia Gandhi writing to the Danish government was to show you a mainstream party that goes out of its way to suppress free expression…even trying to use diplomacy to intimidate people in distant countries. Like you asked me to, I showed you a mainstream party that believes in supremacy of Islamic law.

        I find it highly specious argument to say that because Islamic law doesn’t extend to criminal matters, its not significant! To handover the rights of Muslim women and children to the whims of barbarians and say that it’s not “significant”! These women and children are not property of the Muslim community as a whole, they are equal citizens deserving equal protections. The undercurrent of this kind of thinking extends into criminal matters as well. The country was brought to a standstill last week because a man was lynched over beef. Barely 2-3 days after that, a 4 year old girl was also lynched to death in the same Uttar Pradesh because the innocent little child was not wearing her hijab properly. You didn’t see this outrage on the front pages because there is an unwritten code that says it was an “internal matter” of Muslims.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Even the BJP likes to suppress free expression. That doesn’t mean the BJP believes in the supremacy of Islamic law does it?

        As far as civil law goes, Muslim women can always choose to get married under the neutral special marriage act 1954. It’s their choice.

        And actually, the whole country heard of the death of the 4 year old girl. And it was treated as the act of a single psychotic guy. Which it was.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I agree with your last sentence, Bhagwad.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ash

        i.e. India has more to fear from these political organisations than from random attacks.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ash

        Dear Ash, here is some older gyan from Bhagwad:

        “The first is that Muthalik blatantly and openly went after all women who “offended Hindu culture.” In other words, he was moralizing to the whole country – sending out a message that no one was safe who dared go against his personal little outlook – and he was entitled to his actions. The hand choppers attacked a specific person. In reality, this too is a way of threatening everyone, but they weren’t so damn blatant about it. They didn’t stand in front of media people and proclaim their bigotry to the whole world. Muthalik on the other hand gave press statements claiming to be the moral voice of the country.”

        Uffff…these are my most favorite lines ever ever ever said by anyone :-) Chopping off hands isn’t a blatant act, apparently! Because they didn’t stand in front of media after that :-) Somehow those hands chopped off didn’t send any message to anyone. People who write against Mohammad or draw cartoons never felt any threat due to that incident. Interestingly, the Charlie Hebdo attackers also didn’t do a press conference. They weren’t “blatant” as Shri Bhagwad would say. Neither did the 9/11 hijackers after driving their planes into the WTC…. Charlie Hebdo murders, 9/11 attacks: everything pales in comparison to the terror of the Mangalore pub attack! #Justsaying.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        On the contrary, terrorists are very blatant about their actions – they want media coverage just like Muthalik. Terrorists don’t run away and hide their faces after the fact. They’re willing to sacrifice their lives.

        The hand chopping incident was a rare, random act by goons. Who ran away afterwards. There are psychos everywhere. Muthalik incidents however, are neither rare, nor random. And they are blatant about it. The common man feels much more threatened.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        After the Mumbai serial blasts, the conspirators ran away to Pakistan! The 26/11 bosses are also hiding in Pakistan! Hafiz Saeed is definitely not blatant; he insists vehemently that he has nothing to do with 26/11 and calls himself a selfless humanitarian. The guys who have been recently convicted for the 2006 Mumbai local train explosions are also apologetic. Not blatant.

        Hence, please add 26/11, 2006 Mumbai local train bombings and Mumbai serial blasts to the long list of events which do not deserve as much outrage as Muthalik’s pub attack.

        Be a little consistent, at least! Will you judge the seriousness of a crime by its heinousness or by how blatant the perpetrator is? Has it occurred to you that the reason Muthalik dared to be “blatant” is because his actual crime was very small? If arrested, he would get bail in a day. On the other hand, the guys who chopped off the hands would receive long and very harsh prison sentences if they didn’t run away. That is why people “blatantly” break traffic laws all across India.

        I actually feel some pity for the jihadis who chopped off those hands. Poor fools thought that their heinous crime was enough to make a public statement. They didn’t actually need to risk being sent for a decade behind bars by waiting and holding a press conference. Little did they understand that liberal apologists would bury the news of their crime because it didn’t fit their narrative.

        The 9/11 hijackers were luckier. They chose America. If 9/11 had happened in India, people like Bhagwad would have ignored it by pointing out that the perpetrators weren’t blatant enough to hold a press conference.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        What, are you saying that 26/11 didn’t get coverage by the “sickular” media? :D – because it looks like that’s what you’re saying. And if that was true, you might have a point. But it isn’t.

        Also, you’re no longer talking about a local law and order issue if the criminals are from another country. That’s for the government to worry about. It has nothing to do with Muslims in India.

        Ergo, false analogy. You really must learn to see the salient points in a situation and be able to judge their relevance. One would think I shouldn’t have to point this out to you.

        Finally, you’re confusing legal response with something else. No one is advocating a lesser legal response regardless of “blatancy”. We’re only talking about public outrage and fear. If you think this is about legal responses, then I seriously doubt you realize what my stand is in the first place.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        No, I am only pointing out the absurdity of deciding the “outrage level” for a crime on the basis of how blatant the perpetrator was. That’s why I am asking whether you will apply this standard to 26/11. You give explanations like “the criminals ran away” and “they didn’t hold press conferences” as excuses for why liberals didn’t outrage over an event. What kind of standard is this?

        As for dismissing something as a “local law and order situation”, that’s just an arbitrary choice liberals are making based on what narrative they want to push. Last year a stone was tossed into a church in Mumbai. It made instant headlines. Turns out the guy who did it was a neighborhood illegal gambler who was angry at the church for complaining to the police about it. Not a local law and order issue apparently.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        26/11 was pretty blatant don’t you think?

        In any case, blatancy is just one factor – it’s not the only one. Obviously. The outrage is merely a function of how safe/unsafe ordinary citizens feel after a crime. And if the crime is committed by a person who is “blatant”, then citizens are worried that they’ll do it again…especially if they’re not arrested and jailed despite the blatancy.

        That is why there’s less outrage about this Bajrang Dal fellow called Poojary or something. He wasn’t a “regular” guy – he was involved in politics which is anyway viewed as a thug’s life. Mind you, I’m not saying the investigation shouldn’t be conducted just like any other. I’m saying that the amount of public attention it gets depends on how unsafe the public feels. It’s that simple.

        Reply

  3. And you want to talk about advanced countries. That’s awesome. Let us find out how many American liberals are saying that Republican Presidential candidates must wear an Islamic skull cap to prove that they are truly secular?

    You are wondering why Hindutva types point to Saudi Arabia. Okay…have you wondered why secular types complain about someone not wearing a skull cap? For Indian seculars, a politician cannot be truly secular unless he wears the religious clothing of another faith?

    Reply

    • In reply to Sumit

      I live in the US right now and I have never heard liberals in general asking Republicans to wear skull caps to prove their secular credentials. And I follow American politics pretty closely.

      You really need to find representative articles and news stories. Did something like that happen? You have to show that it’s a trend. And it’s not a trend.

      But this is besides the point. You haven’t explained why VHP, RSS etc love Islamic countries so much.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Hey Bhagwan,
        I never said something like that happened in US. THAT is what I am pointing out to you :-)
        But in India secular types are demanding that Modi prove his secularism by wearing a skull cap!!

        The whole point of your article was asking why Hindutva types are hung up on Saudi Arabia rather than looking at developed democracies such as US and those in Europe. That is why I asked you the counter question of why “secular types” in India are hung up on which politician is wearing a skull cap!!!

        In America they don’t ask a politician to prove he is secular by wearing a skull cap. Why not ask the secular types in India why they are bringing down the sky over Modi not wearing a skull cap? Dress is personal choice no? He can’t be secular unless he wears Islamic clothing? What kind of logic is this coming from secular types in India?

        You want Indian political discourse to rise higher? I am all for it. Ask both sides. Tell Hindutva types to move beyond Saudi Arabia. Tell secular types to move beyond demanding that people wear skull caps.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Then by all means, talk about why people ask Modi to wear a skull cap. Who is complaining?

        It’s not as if anyone is forcing Modi to wear a skull cap via the law right? Let people demand whatever they want. They have freedom of expression and Modi has the freedom to not listen to them.

        But when Hindutva types support legal bans, lynching, and physical intimidation and other forms of violence and then point to Saudi Arabia as justification, that’s a far more serious and disturbing trend.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Which “Hindutva type” has supported lynching? Only yesterday you were saying that the crime is solely on the people who did it. Now you want to blame a whole group of “Hindutva types”.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’m not blaming all Hindutva types for actually committing the crime. Did I say that “Hindutva types” need to be put in jail? No, I didn’t. So that’s an invalid argument.

        And the VHP, RSS etc have very openly supported the intimidation of writers, and other forms of violence.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        The people pointing to Saudi Arabia and talking also haven’t broken any laws and enjoy their freedom of expression.

        If secular types can say : “he isn’t secular unless he wears a skull cap”, what’s wrong with Hindutva types saying: “he isn’t a true Indian if he eats beef”?

        You wanna raise the level of debate…it has to be on both sides!!! You can’t single one side out and go after them.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Did I say that they don’t have freedom of expression?

        If people pointing to Saudi Arabia have freedom of expression, then I am simply using my freedom of expression to call them illogical idiots.

        What is the problem here?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Did I say that you have no right to call them idiots? I just said that your one sided outrage is biased and unfair.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        But look at the comparison – you’re comparing calls to wear a skull cap with pointing to Islamic countries in support of intimidation and repressive ideas!

        The former is a non-issue. I don’t care if Modi wears a skull cap or not and it has zero potential impact on me and doesn’t go against everything India stands for.

        The second…well. Let’s just say that these people shouldn’t call themselves Indians. If they would rather live in an Islamic country, they should voluntarily settle there.

        Not everything deserves the same amount of outrage.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Well, I am sure you are a perfectly sensible person who knows that Modi’s choice of wearing or not wearing skull caps is a complete non-issue. But there is a HUGE number of secular types who did make a big deal out of it. You know that.

        They said that a person isn’t qualified to hold elected office in this country because he doesn’t wear a skull cap. How is that not an outrage? Should those of us who don’t wear skull caps be told that we cannot enter public life? Do we become lesser citizens because we don’t wear skull caps? How is this not a serious infringement of rights? I don’t think you wear a skull cap. How do you feel about such things being said? What if “Hindu types” were to say that people who eat beef aren’t qualified to hold public office? How are such demands by seculars any different from religious conservatives who demand that women should wear burqas?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Whoever said that not wearing a skull cap should mean disqualification? Was it said by a lot of people? Where? When? Were they even serious? Did they try and pass a bill? Did they have a public discussion? Did a politician say it in a speech? Were there editorials? Debates?

        Pointing to Saudi Arabia when it comes to condoning intimidation on the other hand…not the same thing. And unlike the “skull cap” non issue, it’s a big thing. The VHP national spokesperson just day before compared India to Saudi Arabia in a speech.

        Not everything deserves the same outrage.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Absolutely it was said by a lot of people. There were 100s of articles saying that Modi does not deserve to hold office because he didn’t wear a skull cap. It became a huge huge issue!
        Yes, numerous public discussions, numerous editorials…

        Don’t you think you are being an apologist? You are trying to make excuses for that immense cacophony of people talking about Modi not wearing the skull cap by saying “were they serious”. Surely you realize that you cannot be the arbiter of what is a big issue. When a secular says that not wearing a skull cap means you are not secular, it bothers me just as much as it might bother someone who is told that he is not patriotic if he eats beef.

        Incidentally, I should remind you that Shri Digvijay Singh has recently said that the Indian National Congress would be in favor of a nationwide ban on cow slaughter.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Wait a minute. Deserve to hold office, or ineligible to hold office? These two things are very different as you should know.

        As long as there was no legal angle to it, it wasn’t serious. That’s how I decide if something is serious or not. When it enters the realm of the law, it becomes serious.

        You can call anyone unpatriotic if they eat beef – no problem. But as soon as you start making legal restrictions and start calling mob lynching “mistakes” etc, that’s far more serious.

        In any case, this once again has nothing to do with my post – so let’s drop it here.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        As I pointed out to you, the Congress has recently openly come out in favor of a BAN on beef.

        You asked for a mainstream political party that imposes Islamic law. I showed you the Congress. So, far you have made the following excuses:

        1. Shah Bano case is old.

        The case may be old, but the law is still in force. And still supported by Congress. Imagine if someone protesting Jim Crow laws in 1960 was told to relax because the law is old. So what? It’s still in force!

        2. There is some big difference with Shah Bano because apparently top leaders of BJP still glorify Godse.

        Huh? And Congress leaders don’t glorify Rajiv Gandhi? Are you serious?

        3. Congress actions on Danish cartoonists show that India is not serious about free speech in general.

        Ok…. but that still shows that the Congress is a mainstream party in India that will go to great lengths to suppress free speech.

        4. When the Congress introduced Communal Violence Bill, it was criticized by liberals.

        Hmm…I don’t remember such criticism from liberals, but maybe it happened. The NAC which cleared the Bill, was a council of people who all called themselves prominent liberals. In any case, it still shows what the Congress wanted to do. Your question was about intent of parties, not what they actually accomplished.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        How does it matter whether the Congress supports a ban on beef? You haven’t shown me how the Congress supports Islamic law any more than the BJP does.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Really? The Shah Bano case is not a major example of Congress explicitly supporting the supremacy of Islamic law?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        You really need to give something more recent than a 29 year old case. Personally, anything more than 10 years ago is irrelevant in my eyes. The country moves on and changes. That’s why I never bothered about the 1984 Sikh riots. Too long ago – doesn’t interest me.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        It’s not just an incident, Bhagwad. The law enacted by Congress is in force to this very day. It is just remarkable that you think that oppressive laws on the books should automatically become irrelevant to public discourse after 10 years of being passed… Shah Bano is not history…it’s the present…Muslim women are living under the law to this very day!

        Only a few comments above, you were justifying the secular types dredging up the assassination of Gandhi from 67 years ago. The justification given is that apparently BJP leaders glorify Godse to this day. For mysterious reasons, you are not aware that Rajiv is glorified by Congress to this day.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Actually the law introduced by Congress has been diluted down by the SC. Moreover, the BJP is now in power and can revoke the law whenever it wants. Does this make the BJP communal and do they support Sharia law?

        If the RSS didn’t glorify Godse, we would all have forgotten him. Just like Germany doesn’t glorify the holocaust, so no one cares about it anymore. But as long as the RSS continues to make it an ongoing issue, it’s not in the past.

        Also, what point are you trying to make when you say that the Congress glorifies Rajiv Gandhi? It’s like saying the sky is blue – a completely irrelevant statement out of nowhere.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Oh…and I am glad to see secular types have “moved on” from the murders of two Gau Raksha Dal activists just in the last week..one in Mangalore and one in Gurgaon. Seculars must have an internal automatic technology to move on from these events without stopping. The narrative must go on… #Inconvenientfacts

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’ve looked into these cases. They’re political/business/mafia related. Very cold blooded killings – certainly not acts of religious passion, unlike Dadri. See the discussion on Google+ here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ManikTyagi/posts/PKuzoC1SwTV

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Oh good. Investigation completed. Then, I guess we can apply the same principle to the cold blooded murders of Narendra Dabholkar, M M Kalburgi and conclude right away that those had nothing to do with religious passion. Or will you devise a new yardstick for those cases? In this country, where a stone thrown at a church in Mumbai made instant headlines, a man hacked to death doesn’t get coverage because he belongs to the wrong religion…. instead the investigation is completed on the spot over the internet and the secular types move on…

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        What about those murders? They were planned and obviously political. People who fly into a religious rage don’t try and escape, or they find safety in numbers like the mob at Dadri.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Ok…then this murder in Mangalore must also be political. The guy who died was from Bajrang Dal. Hmmm…so guess which political party is the likeliest suspect to have planned his murder? Surely secular types are going to write just as many articles about Prashant’s death as they wrote for CPI’s Govind Pansare. A week has passed since the murder of Prashant and no articles have appeared yet. I should take this to mean that secular types are taking their time to produce really hard hitting articles of the highest quality on this issue, right?

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        I’m sorry what? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Too many question to which you’re expecting some answer and I have no idea what you’re asking about.

        In any case, this has deviated enough from my main post about how Hindutva people glorify Saudi Arabia. So please let’s drop this here. If I someday write a post about whatever it is you’re trying to say, we can discuss it then. Ok?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Yes sir, indeed let us drop it here. Indeed let us drop Prashant Poojary. Let us drop Sandeep Kataria. Let us drop the 167 people who have died at hands of left wing terrorists in 2015 alone. Let us drop the six people who were murdered at Modi’s rally in Patna. Let us drop the 60 people who were burned alive in Godhra. And let us drop the ocean that has collected from these drops.

        You are right: I am asking too many questions. We all are. A billion Hindus are waking up and asking a billion questions. And if you try to answer all of them, some of them or any of them, you will be led too deep into the dark recesses of your own being. And somewhere within, your carefully constructed walls of hypocrisy might crumble and you might run into the ghost that you have been running from. That ghost is your own self, the fact that you are actually one of us, an “ansh” of eternal Bharat.

        Om Asato Maa Sadgamaya
        Tamaso Maa Jyotir Gamaya
        Mrityor Maa Amritam Gamaya
        Om Shantih Shantih Shantih..

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Huh? What’s the use of trying to speak some language no one can understand. Show off value…and what is there to even show off?

        What are “left wing terrorists”? And what is “ansh”? You know what…never mind! Let’s just drop this here.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Wow….. you don’t know what the word “ansh” means? Congratulations…..you might have raised self hatred to a whole new level.

        And you have never heard “asato ma sadgamaya”? Being an Indian? It sounds like “show off” to you… baap re… I didn’t realize what kind of person I was dealing with.

        Out of curiosity, do you speak any Indian language? Even one or two words? Can you at least say “Hello” or “Thanks” in any Indian language? Honest question.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Lol, look at the words you use – “self hatred”. Really? How did you get this magical piece of insight? Oh let me guess – you used crazy assumptions that are not backed by fact didn’t you?

        P.S. My mother tongue is English. Remember that language is nothing but a sequence of sounds. It’s a tool to communicate ideas. No need to get senti and all over it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Wow…an Indian whose mother tongue is English! Surely you do understand that while a language may be a sequence of sounds, unless you know the key to the sequences used by Indians, you can’t understand….umm…India? Good good…I like it…Indians who only speak English :) Hope you have the correct accent too…I guess you must sound like Queen Elizabeth, don’t tell me you have acquired some low class Southern drawl…you live close enough :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        Lol, there you go with statements that mean nothing. You can perfectly understand India with any language on the planet. Language is just a tool – don’t think it has magical powers or anything.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        It’s not magic. Language is a gateway into the ethos of a nation and a culture. Can you understand India speaking only Icelandic?

        Btw, I am a Hindutva type and I am not jealous of Saudi. I am jealous of Israel. Yesterday some barbarians dared to touch a Jewish holy site. Can’t wait to see the fun :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Sumit

        No, language is not a gateway. You can very well understand India speaking Icelandic if there are enough others also speaking the same thing, along with television channels, magazines, newspapers etc.

        Reply

  4. The fact is that the Hindunazis, for all their alleged aversion to Christianity and Islam, actually are in love with both religions and helplessly admire them. They adore the extreme fringe of both faiths – the Saudi Wahhabis and the evangelists in Amerikastan – and want to make Hinduism just like them. That’s why their primary attempt is to homogenise Hinduism, force it into a strait jacket, in which no variation, cultural, dietary, or in terms of free thought, is to be tolerated. That’s why these Sadhvis and other parasites make demands of Hindu couples to breed four or seven children each. That’s why they use beef as an issue to force through Hindu fundamentalism nationwide, even though many, many Hindus eat beef and most of the rest don’t care who eats it or not as long as they don’t. That’s why they talk about the need of Hindus to have “suicide bombers” and self-righteously unleash their troll army to bully dissenters online. Fortunately, India is far too diverse – and Hinduism is far too resilient – to fall to the Hindunazis. They might love Hitler’s edict – “Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Fuhrer!” but they’ll never get any of those things.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

      The saddest thing is the delusion that they “represent Hinduism”. RSS, VHP etc have fooled themselves into thinking that people support them just because of the “Hindu” tag. This leads them to make hilarious statements like “The sentiments of 1 billion Hindus were hurt”. Really? Did they poll each and every one of those 1 billion Hindus?

      Most Hindus don’t care. They have better work to do.

      Reply

  5. Bhagwad Jal Park Sir,

    Indeed, Indians seem to have this knack of competing with Muslims, and that too radical ones. They have the mentality: “At least we’re better than them” rather than “We must still do better”.

    This I attribute to the inferiority complex Indians have gained due to the legacy of a 1000 years of Islamic tyranny and 250 years of British mercantilism. As a Tamil, I must admit we Tamils were far less affected by both parties, so we can think of the future, but the rest of India has that problem. But it’s already been 70 years since independence, and relegating to medievalism at this critical juncture between the modern era and the fast flying robotic future is colossal stupidity to put it in simple terms. And this I say as a 23 year old aspiring futurist.

    As is, Islam and Muslims will never be able to survive the information/robotic era with their jammed medieval mentality, so they can only be written off. It’s either “modernize or perish” for them now. The irony is, Arabs from the Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) are enjoying life like there’s gonna be no tomorrow, every single day, while scores of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and in some cases even Indian Muslims offer themselves as fodder for Islamic Jihad. The irony of all ironies is that South Asian Muslims go feral over what happens in the Middle East instead of caring for themselves, while this mass dispelling of emotions is not at all reciprocated by Iranians, Turks nor Arabs.

    These are the types our Hindutva friends would love to emulate and take India along with the Islamic world back to the stone age or the medieval age while countries like US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc, break all speed limits as they enter the robotic era.

    Thanks.

    Reply

Speak Your Mind

*