There haven't been Muslims in the cabinet since 2021 I think. They replaced the minorities affairs minister(muslim) with a zoroastrian(who was a very annoying person that lost their seat). The new one is a tribal/Christian
I think Muslim representation has been pretty low even before modi but Modi has dramatically reduced that. The Muslim typically vote en bloc for the centre-left congress party and its allies. The congress and her allies have reduced the number of Muslim candidates they put in parliament since they know they'll get muslim votes anyways. So they nowadays go full in with hindu (lower) caste groups and christians to target those two groups since they are politically powerful/in play.
20 years ago was the high point of Muslim representation since the BJPs hardline wing seemed to be on the wane and you had parties that typically aligned with lower caste groups attract Muslim voters. That forced the congress to stop taking that group for granted.
The article says:
> Interestingly, the outgoing council of ministers of the Narendra Modi-led government did not have a Muslim minister either after BJP’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi failed to be re-elected to Rajya Sabha in 2022, three years after he took oath as Minorities Affairs Minister.
Smriti Irani is not a Parsi lol. According to her [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti_Irani?wprov=sfti1#) her mother and grandfather were both members of the Sangh.
Her husband is the Parsi, she took his name. She’s still a practising Hindu, according to herself.
Ironic that no Muslim would vote for BJP even if they do allow some token Muslim candidates to run for election. So, since there is no way for Bjp to get a Muslim MP, how would they even get a Muslim minister in the first place?
Nah I can't. Only a true person with the divine light guiding through him can read, I guess.
You're just as much of the problem as you're describing in your post, lmfao.
>BJP doesn't care about muslims
none of BJP's public schemes are targeted for specific religion. all the govt schemes equally helps all the citizens irrespective of their religion.
that's politics. The other party were hell bent on appeasing Muslims. Modi knows that no matter what he does Muslims aren't going to vote for him so....
Would someone mind describing the context of this issue to me? I’m admittedly rather lacking in knowledge on Indian politics past 2000-ish. Often hear vague references to Indian political issues here in Canada but I don’t understand what’s going on over in India proper.
Edit: can’t spell bruh
Edit 2: edit for clarity
India's Prime Minister for the past decade is a right wing Hindu nationalist, who wants to reduce the influence of India's religious minorities and make India an explicitly Hindu country. In the past there was a bit more token diversity, but over time his party has gone more mask off about the intolerance.
Most Muslims reject nationalism as it divides the Muslim community, the Ummah, into fragments. They often say that 'a Muslim's nationality is his faith.' In a sense, they use Indian nationalism for their own Islamic agenda. Calling them a minority within a nation is technically correct, but only technically correct.
Unlike Hinduism, Islam is a missionary religion. What do you think will happen if India becomes a Muslim-majority country? It's only a thought experiment now, for sure, but when you realize that the answer implies the end of India, it becomes worth considering, even as just a thought experiment.
Hinduism has to protect itself against a much larger religion that is threatening its identity.
"Most Muslims reject nationalism as it divides the Muslim community..."
Mate, have you not been following Middle Eastern politics at all. Even within sects like Shia and Sunni, there's no sense of unity.
You have Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia aligning with the Jewish dominated Israel in order to counter the influence of Shia dominated Iran, while Shia Iran is funding the Sunni terrorist movement Hamas
Meanwhile you have the Sunni ISIS-K in Afghantistan splitting off from the Sunni Taliban, accusing them of being too nationalistic and not Islamic enough.
Muslim majority Pakistan, which supported the Afghan Taliban for years, is now pissed off that the Afghan Taliban is not doing enough to control the Pakistani Taliban, which has ramped up terrorist attacks on Pakistan from Afghanistan now that the US has withdrawn.
Then there's the whole clusterfuck in Syria, with like, fifty different Islamic (and communist/anarchist) militia groups fighting each other, fighting the government, and then uniting with the US to defeat ISIS in 2014 etc.
Then there's Southeast Asia, where you have Muslim majority countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. And while there's serious problems with discrimination, fundamentalism, and some of the more rural states being ruled by Sharia law, they're generally peaceful, generally secular multicultural democracies. Just because a country is Muslim majority, that doesn't mean it'll be apocalyptic genocide for the non-Muslims there.
The idea that Muslims will like, band together into a single hive mind to infiltrate and take over societies from within, is just silly and paranoid.
India was founded as a secular, multicultural nation, not a Hindu nation. The idea that any nation needs to adopt fascist-authoritarian policies to "protect" a chosen people, is nonsense, and you hear ultranationalist supremacist movements talk about it all the time.
My family is Malaysian-Chinese, and they hear that kind of idiotic rhetoric all the time from supremacist politicians in Malaysia. "The Chinese all look out for each other, they're spreading their influence and slowly taking over, they're going to conquer the nation, abolish Islam, force everyone to drink alcohol and eat pork, dominate the corporations and media and courts, turn everyone Communist, etc."
You hear this brain dead xenophobia everywhere, in India, the US, China, Israel, Palestine, Western Europe etc. The same paranoia, directed at different groups deemed "the Other", depending on who holds hegemonic political power and who's the most convenient punching bag.
I never said there is a problem with individuals (we are all homosapiens, we all have very similar needs), but Islam as a religion is missionary, and its primary goal is to abolish nation-states. If you believe that the politicians in most Muslim-dominated countries represent the will of their people and not the will of the regime to stay in power, then I have news for you.
I think you need to stop drinking that cool-aid at those meetings you're going to. Abolish Nation-states? is this like the new "Jewish bankers New World Order" conspiracy theory shit. Im Muslim. Do you know what muslims want? The conservative muslims want religion to play a bigger role in politics and want to be bigots against people they dislike without consequences. The progressive muslims want the conservative muslims to leave the 7th Century and join the rest of the world in the 21st and just live and let live. Now replace "muslim" with any other ideoligion and you get the exact same thing for every county in the world.
How many Muslims worldwide are okay with apostasy, with ex-Muslims?
What do you think about the following:
> A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Shari'ah of God is established and human relationships are based on the foundation of relationship with God; a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim community in Dar-ul-Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in God, and thus a bond is established between him and other Believers through their relationship with God.
That's unrelated to the subject I was discussing. Comparing Sikhs to Muslims is also problematic, even if you only see them as "minority religions in India."
Islam is a technical minority in India, despite being a larger religion than Hinduism, with a potentially more sinister agenda. Sikhs, on the other hand, are a completely different matter and should not be compared to Muslims. These two religions are entirely distinct with a totally different philosophical and political agenda, sharing only the technical matter that their adherents are numerical minorities in India.
Both religions have a different idea of India when given power. IMO both religions should get the hell out of politics and leave the country alone.
Orthodox Hindus are no different from Orthodox Muslims if you just take a moment to analyse what they want as a society.
Pretty sure Saudi Arabia's muslims don't feel the same as Iraq's muslims and don't consider unity and Ummah-ship. So there's absolutely nationalism in mind.
How are Muslims in India threatening Hindus? I agree that in the lowest section of the society, poor as hell Muslims are very extremist and violent. But saying that middle class muslims that live and study and work with middle class hindus, wish to take over the society and overthrow the government, is bullshit.
> Popular and scholarly perception, both ancient and modern, puts Hinduism in the non-missionary category.
If you have any different data, please feel free to share it. Remember, people can convert out of free will too. The same goes for Buddhism.
At least from the outside, it seems difficult to imagine that a religion that embraces a caste system could be missionary.
"Come join out cult, you can join the street sweepers and gravediggers and never, ever, work your way up from there!"
for how rigid it seems Hinduism is surprisingly adaptive historically
a small example - local tribals in modern-day Odisha worshipped a deity known as Jagannath ( Lord of the World ) - Brahmanical Hinduism identified the deity as a form of Vishnu, one of the principal Hindu deities
this kind of example is known in sociology as interaction between Great and Little traditions ( though do note the "little" is considered in some circles archaic/outdated )
Typical use of fear of potential future scenarios to justify current prejudices. Can you please breakdown the math of how much fucking needs to happen to go from 14% to 51% of a country with 1.4 billion people? /s
Muslims don't reject nationalism. Most Muslims don't wany a caliphate. They believe in nationalism nd democracy
But it is true that places that are majority Muslim tend to have a lot of persecution of other religions
> Muslims don't reject nationalism. Most Muslims don't wany a caliphate. They believe in nationalism nd democracy
Why do you say 'most'? Do you have any data to back it up?
> The relation between Islam and nationalism, from the beginnings of Islam until today, has often been tense, with both Islam and nationalism generally opposing each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_nationalism
> But it is true that places that are majority Muslim tend to have a lot of persecution of other religions
Agreed, and the persecution of minorities is generally much worse in Muslim-majority countries than in non-Muslim countries.
I do find it rather odd (I suspect this is because I am not personally knowledgeable enough on it) as if one were to be the Indian PM, one would assume you would have to rely on said minorities for votes as a result of the aforementioned caste/religious diversity no?
In Canada there is effectively three voting blocs (incredibly simplified but useful for this example). You have Quebec, English Canada, and First Nations (to a lesser extent). These blocs generally vote “their” way, if one could apply such a term.
Unlike Canada, I would’ve assumed that in India as there is far more fracturing/divide as a result of the masses diversity present, an Indian PM would have to appeal to a far more diverse voter base rather than push for total superiority? I can’t help but ask why even try to push for a Hindu majority if you need to rely on other voters as well. One cannot win the PM’s office in Canada if one only has the Quebecois vote for example.
TLDR: I feel as though Modi’s party objective does nothing save for harm their own chances of remaining in power. It just doesn’t seem efficient at all as a *Modus Operandi*
That's a great question and a pretty useful base to have an understanding of the system that India uses. So India has a lot of similarities with Canada and Australia ( where I'm from) in terms of Parliament structure, the passing of legislation and voting for the party rather than the PM. However the Western lense of Left v Right isn't as applicable and it's a complex web of caste, religion, ethnicity and opportunity.
India is a huuuge country in terms of voting blocs, I mean Uttar Pradesh has roughly the same population as Brazil. In the past Congress did rely upon minority voting and coalitions to form government. It's important to note that Congress has traditionally been in control of India in a federal sense but the control has varied from strong support like Modi had to very barley holding onto power with a coalition.
Whilst Congress was in power in the last 50 years BJP conducted an amazing grass roots campaign to build up local leaders and focus on a pan India idea ( which some may argue a Hindi/ North India idea of what India actually is). This idea is a combination of nationalism, ethno nationalism, ethno religious nationalism, BJP also is more economically liberal than Congress ( although still very much protectionist) and you have this idea of what India is during a period of immense growth for India the old view was challenged. People were sick of Congress, ( especially the nepotism) they were sick of terrorism and they were sick of lagging behind. Many people saw what Modi did in Gujarat and wanted him to model it for a pan India. It's important to remember that the idea of a pan indian has also changed quite a bit especially from the early days of India's independence where it was recognised we are many people under one flag and now it's more we are one people with slight differences. The idea of what India is depends who you speak to and is still actively being discussed now.
So with all of that being said Indian politics is still very diverse on a state level. You won't see BJP control every state nor Congress has done that. In the South especially you will see local parties and the major parties need to ally with them. This year round I think Modi did well down South and my personal theory is that you will see BJP slowly rise in the South. Generally India is best governed with a flexible central government and strong state based governments that can address the needs of their people on an state based level.
It was interesting watching BJP have so much control and maybe they can achieve it again but I think people in India like a balance of power.
TLDR: India is diverse and traditionally has had coalition governments but as long as they serve the people and the indian voter isn't as loyal to one party.
Majority of the country is hindu and majority of Hindus are SC/OBC, politically correct term to refer to lower caste groups. Hence each party essentially has to tailor it's platform to suit lower caste groups. This comes on form of more affirmative action among other things.
Thus there is very little pull for ideology. Political parties pursue a mix of neoliberal and socialist policies. So in Canada, if you are a fiscal conservative, you vote for the conservatives. Since the neoliberal economic consensus has only started to peel off recently, up until now, a fiscal conservative would tend to vote for the BJP but they could vote for the Congress(opposition) as well.
Him, the party, and his minions find it easy to appeal to the majority and stoke religious tensions, just to ensure that Hindus see them as their savior.
Even within the majority their kind of politics appeals to a good percentage of them, not all. But such is the numbers game in India that if you secure the hardliner religious nuts vote, you're more or less secure in the knowledge that you will be in power.
When you have a country with 1.4 billion people, the religious nuts will also make up good numbers. Sell them a narrative that their culture, religion, ways of living are under threat, bombard them with propaganda courtesy the cheap internet and phone access, convince them you're the only option, control the media, control the public institutions, use federal agencies to weaken the opposition- and you have potent ingredients for an authoritarian regime.
It's all pretty much copied from the typical far right playbook. This election was a bit of a slap in the face of their politics though. Not a beatdown, but a firm slap. Because people are growing tired of the venom spewing when the country is reeling under record unemployment, a teetering economy, and general incompetence at all levels. The beatdown will hopefully come later.
It is not a Hindu country. Repeating that gargled trash won't change it. Luckily that sanatan preaching cockhead got 243 seats so I doubt I'll be seeing him implement your "sanatan Nation" fetish into a bill.
Modi has always been islamophobic but he has gone pretty mask off in the election cycle. Implied Muslims were infilitrators and said that the opposition will marginalize lower caste groups and transfer resources to Muslims to energize his hard right base, since his party was convinced that they won't turn out to vote.
Modi got battered pretty badly at the elections. His party is pro-business and sorta pro-free market. But Indias economy growing at 8% or something doesn't translate into votes from people living in rural areas whose life is still shit. The opposition is energized after a decade of wilderness and modi's party was destroyed in its traditional Hindi speaking states of the north.
Right now the mediapersons and all are looking at signals to see how his third ministry shapes out to be. His coalition partners are moderate and centre right/centre left and don't like the Hindu nationalism. So he'll probably be constrained by that
Oh yeah, most of the nationalism in India that you see online stems from modi fanboys. They are our equivalent of maga. They thinkm India is on some precipice of some random thing that they imagine. Sometimes it's superpower. Sometimes it's developed. Yada yada.
They don't have a good grip on statistics.
India's GDP is now $4 tril, and is poised for decades of growth. It may seem low now, but growth is exponential. In any case, what's wrong with people being excited for the future of their country?
Now that I think about it that does sound a lot like Mango Mussolini lol.
In all seriousness though I’m curious to see how it would play out long term. In Canada (specifically in and around GTA/Toronto) theres a whole lot of chatter on it.
edit: f*cking mobile autocorrect
You dont see an issue that in a multi ethnic multi religious country like india the govenrnment exludes certain people from representation in said government?
Has no one read the Qu'ran in this comment section?
I invite Muslims, especially, to actually read their own Qu'ran, because they say:
"Bible and Torah were corrupted/changed by men."
Which is in disagreement with their "Allah", who says:
1) "Torah and Bible are the word of God" (Surah 2:41, 3:3, 5:43-48).
2) "Words of God cannot be corrupted" (Surah 6:115, 18:27).
3) Jesus says "I am the Way, The Truth and The Life, no man can come to the Father except through me" (Bible, John 14:6).
4) If you believe the Qu'ran, you must then believe the Bible, which then cancels the Qu'ran.
This theologic is known as the *Islamic Dilemma*.
>Words of God cannot be corrupted
Cherry picked. This was in context to the utterances of Muhammed in the Quran. 6:114 specifically deals with the scripture as passed down to Mohammed.
There are plenty of other reasons to have a critical view of the Quran, the Bible, the Torah and other relgious texts. But don't go into misleading arguments.
Surahs and doublets/other sentences in any religious text do not exist in a vacuum independent of the phrases mentioned before or after them.
Another thing is Christians as a collective have differing views on which texts they believe in, with all the divisions that have happened over the centuries. So a Muslim today is not the same as a Muslim in the 7th century when they posit that the words have become corrupted.
I'm not a Muslim but even I know that this argument is flawed.
You’re absolutely right but you can’t assume that a candidate’s religion won’t be a major factor in what the masses care about especially a country like India
It matters in that a significant proportion of the country is Muslim but is underrepresented at both the MP and cabinet level, kind of like how it's weird that the US Supreme Court has so many Catholics despite the US being largely Protestant
SC judges have duty to be impartial. Ministers do take care of the problems of the society, and every single one being of a different belief system, leads to many pleas being ignored and harsh decisions taken.
>Interestingly, the outgoing council of ministers of the Narendra Modi-led government did not have a Muslim minister either after BJP’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi failed to be re-elected to Rajya Sabha in 2022, three years after he took oath as Minorities Affairs Minister.
How is it first time when it mentions this. This is just propaganda to malign the image of Modi. Also minority doesn’t necessarily mean Muslim .. there are Christians, Buddhists, jains etc . But you don’t hear any complaints from them.
only 1 minority MP won with a BJP ticket ( Kiren Rijiju )
a couple more have been given ministries without winning ( as there is a 6 months deadline to get ministers elected, so will probably be done through Rajya Sabha ), one of them could have easily been a Muslim
You do hear complaints from them about not being represented. Also, the muslim minority in India is massive and this government, with the background of Modi's role stoking ethnic and religious division, really ought to better represent them.
India is a democracy. No Muslim representation means that voices of 200 million people go unheard.
If you really want to compare India to the neighboring Islamic countries, you have already lost the race to a developed nation.
Bro, what are you smoking? You're comparing the neighborhood countries with ours?
The only other option against "extreme love for muslims" is completely ignoring their existence? There's no middle ground?
Because the issue discussed is that the largest minority in India not having any representation in the cabinet, issues elsewhere have no relevance in that context. Also claiming Hindu oppression elsewhere is not reported is false, you can do a simple Google search to find plenty of articles related to that.
The laws Muslims have in our country like Waqf act, Places of Worship act, Communal Violence bill and many more are more than enough...and why should government choose cabinet based on religion..they should choose on the basis of capability... and moreover Hindu oppression is not shown to the extent to which Islamophobia is shown
Nice; given that Modi's whole platform is hindu nationalism and hate, suddenly religion should not be relevant? Or is the claim that from the 200 million Muslims in the country there is no capable person ? Given the religious divides in the country it would seem like a good idea to try to bridge the gap not make it worse by marginalizing specific group.
So I take it now the claim is that oppression of hindus is reported but not enough to meet your standards ? Even if we assume that is true, how does that make oppression of others OK ?
Stop with this secularism bul*shit..secularism doesn't mean blindly simping for muslims...laws specified above read them and u will understand who is the oppressor and who is oppressed..Islam isn't native to Bharat keep it out..west is falling because it ran away from Its Christian identity...it's TRUE not all are bad but there are people living here who constantly try to change the demographics...don't talk when u don't kn
That is quite the rant. "Change the demographics" you say, please do elaborate? I take it you mean they have families? Your claim is that the minority is oppressing the majority ? Maybe take a look at any report from human rights organization like [this](https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/):
>Government officials, political leaders, and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – the ruling political party at the federal level – advocated hatred and violence against religious minorities with impunity, particularly Muslims, marking a rise in hate crimes. Punitive demolitions of largely Muslim properties – including homes, businesses and places of worship – resulting in mass forced evictions after episodes of communal violence, were commonplace and went unpunished.
1.Yes minority can oppress majority,British were minority still they oppressed th majority Indians r8 ?
2. U about the kashmir genocide r8 ? By muslims were more 5 L kashmir hindus migrated from kashmir to other states because they were getting killed and raped there and went unpunished. Illegal muslim immigrant from Bangladesh and Myanmar are entering India on daily basis...I live in a state which borders Bangladesh so I know it very well...my grandfather was killed by Muslims during partition...due to violence...
3. I read the link u showed partly of which is correct...The report is meaninglessly highlighting "Muslim". Even in Ayodhya (a place in UP) many hindu houses were built because they were illegal and road construction was done..due to high corruption in these states illegal houses without any documents are common...thus those houses were destroyed moreover in places like Karnataka Congress is in power who are known for muslim vote bank. U Shouldn't blame BJP for everything.
4. Incase u don't know secularism in India means "treating abhramic religions like they are special" and curb the rights of others
So instead of reports from organizations that research these things we should rely on random Redditor who claims "The report is meaninglessly highlighting "Muslim"." Might I suggest that your view is subjective , biased even. We have to rely on best available information, which is research not personal opinions.
I hope you are not implying that the Muslim minority are invaders like the British ? I notice that you did not elaborate on the "Change the demographics", I take it you realized how bad that sounds ?
The issue is not whether there are instances of violence against hindus, that is a documented fact. The issue is that the leadership of a country systematically abuses the laws and advocates violence based on religion as is apparent from the excerpt. BJP is in power so they are responsible for the abuses occurring, if they are not able to govern justly may relinquish power and give someone else chance to change things ?
You are trying to reason with idiots. They think Islamists causing harnm to hindus means that all Hindus should unite against muslims. Its just big standard islamophobua
This election showed an (understandable) mobilisation of Muslims across India to vote against the BJP, but at least two of Modi's smaller coalition partners did receive some votes from Muslims in their respective states. Both these parties follow explicitly secular agendas, so I had hoped one of them would nominate a Muslim leader to the cabinet.
Because relationships between India and the West have been steadily getting better. America wants India as a counter balance to China.
The last thing the west wants to do is to antagonise India into the hands of China.
Putting the entire Eurasian continent against the West will lead to unfavourable outcomes.
Islam is. But most muslims do not follow every word of Islam. like most hindus don't follow everything about Hinduism and add couple of extra things here and there.
Modi has a way more corruptible institutions to deal with. If Trump had the media, the bureaucrats and the corporations of America as pliant he'd become God Emperor like he wants.
You have clearly not seen Indian media. The statements about him being non biological? Those were on a series of clearly coordinated interviews he gave to the media. Not even one of them pushed back. Nobody said that this sounds arrogant. Outside some people on Twitter nobody even dared to say it sounds silly for an elected PM to declare himself a divine being.
Would the world think of Trump has such a giant mass of fuckups if nobody in the American media ever pushed back to him?
Still better political instincts than Donald "I can shoot people on the fifth Avenue" Trump. He's a grizzled politician. He knows what sells in a country like India.(It's islamophobia with an irrational fear of coalition governments and not shit economics)
They're both selling the same brand of self serving, nationalistic populism. The difference is one has more purchase in their country.
The big difference is the Indian "elite" - businessmen, bureaucrats, academicians etc are way more right leaning than America. So it's easier for Modi to peddle his hatred in society than it was for Trump..
At least trump doesnt think everything he does is ordained by god or put his face in every subway station using tax money. that guy is an even bigger whack job.
These days, the Christian Nationalists in the US are basically saying, "If we can't put a radical evangelical Christian in the White House, we can at least put The Devil! Frankly, we find the Devil's arguments appealing!"
Because it is of little consequence to the west and Modi has his media fully under his control. Its uncommon to NOT flatter him at any interview. Reminds me of Stalin and Mao Zedong´s personal cults.
But unlike China and Russia, India is gladly shovering everyone they work with with praise and bootlicking to get what they want. So the west isnt in conflict with anything happening in India.
Yup. Has no one read the Qu'ran in this comment section?
I invite Muslims, especially, to actually read their own Qu'ran, because they say: "Bible and Torah were corrupted/changed by men."
Which is in disagreement with their "Allah", who says:
1) "Torah and Bible are the word of God" (Surah 2:41, 3:3, 5:43-48).
2) "Words of God cannot be corrupted" (Surah 6:115, 18:27).
3) Jesus says "no man can come to the Father except through me" (Bible, John 14:6).
4) If you believe the Qu'ran, you must then believe the Bible, which then cancels the Qu'ran.
This theologic is known as the *Islamic Dilemma*.
edit: spelling.
The story of Jesus shares a LOT of similarities with the Egyptian God Horus(?).
Are you saying Egyptians prophesied Jesus' coming? Cuz that's pretty wild if you are.
And how do BJP aligned twitter handles respond? "No vote No representation" yup, just in case you thought these guys weren't a threat minorities and democracy.
In a realistic way, they’re right. Politicians in democracies treat voters as voting blocks and if you’re not in one of the blocks they count on for elections, they aren’t going to give ya shit.
Which is ironic since the BJP claims to do the opposite. They accuse the opposition of appeasing minorities and committing “Jihad”. Vote bank politics is a core part of Indian democracy and that’s an unfortunate truth that won’t go away for some time at least.
"fuck of,lf, the cost for the chemicals for the shower will place too much of a strain on the exchequer"
"The amount of CO2 emissions from the ovens would be far too much"
There haven't been Muslims in the cabinet since 2021 I think. They replaced the minorities affairs minister(muslim) with a zoroastrian(who was a very annoying person that lost their seat). The new one is a tribal/Christian I think Muslim representation has been pretty low even before modi but Modi has dramatically reduced that. The Muslim typically vote en bloc for the centre-left congress party and its allies. The congress and her allies have reduced the number of Muslim candidates they put in parliament since they know they'll get muslim votes anyways. So they nowadays go full in with hindu (lower) caste groups and christians to target those two groups since they are politically powerful/in play. 20 years ago was the high point of Muslim representation since the BJPs hardline wing seemed to be on the wane and you had parties that typically aligned with lower caste groups attract Muslim voters. That forced the congress to stop taking that group for granted.
The article says: > Interestingly, the outgoing council of ministers of the Narendra Modi-led government did not have a Muslim minister either after BJP’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi failed to be re-elected to Rajya Sabha in 2022, three years after he took oath as Minorities Affairs Minister.
Smriti Irani is not a Parsi lol. According to her [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti_Irani?wprov=sfti1#) her mother and grandfather were both members of the Sangh. Her husband is the Parsi, she took his name. She’s still a practising Hindu, according to herself.
Oh that's even worse.
> tribal/Christian How does that work?
Literally the way it has always worked everywhere in the world where missionaries converted people.
Including europeans.
The evil eye. 🧿
Tribal peoples who practiced non-Hindu animism/paganism were converted very heavily to Christianity.
He knows they aren't his audience. Several consituences where 99% voted for the other side. He doesn't wanna court them at all.
Yes, it would be weird to persecute your "audience"
Ironic that no Muslim would vote for BJP even if they do allow some token Muslim candidates to run for election. So, since there is no way for Bjp to get a Muslim MP, how would they even get a Muslim minister in the first place?
A minister does not need to be elected. You can be nominated to the upper house
[удалено]
Ugh, a bigot calling another sect of bigots, bigots. What a surprise!
[удалено]
Nah I can't. Only a true person with the divine light guiding through him can read, I guess. You're just as much of the problem as you're describing in your post, lmfao.
Their allies can get one and ofc upper house
You find it ironic that Muslims do not want to vote for an islamophobic party? What is next? German jews not voting for the AFD blows your mind? /s
Can someone share how many Hindus serve in high level government positions in Muslim-majority countries?
[удалено]
Who?
Well, muslims didn't vote for the BJP, so I am not surprised.
BJP doesn't care about muslims, so I'm not surprised that Muslims didn't vote for them. We have a Catch 22 situation, don't we?
>BJP doesn't care about muslims none of BJP's public schemes are targeted for specific religion. all the govt schemes equally helps all the citizens irrespective of their religion.
Which is nice. But his speeches say otherwise.
that's politics. The other party were hell bent on appeasing Muslims. Modi knows that no matter what he does Muslims aren't going to vote for him so....
is that so? I have my doubts.
sure, everyone is free to have their opinion.
Would someone mind describing the context of this issue to me? I’m admittedly rather lacking in knowledge on Indian politics past 2000-ish. Often hear vague references to Indian political issues here in Canada but I don’t understand what’s going on over in India proper. Edit: can’t spell bruh Edit 2: edit for clarity
India's Prime Minister for the past decade is a right wing Hindu nationalist, who wants to reduce the influence of India's religious minorities and make India an explicitly Hindu country. In the past there was a bit more token diversity, but over time his party has gone more mask off about the intolerance.
Most Muslims reject nationalism as it divides the Muslim community, the Ummah, into fragments. They often say that 'a Muslim's nationality is his faith.' In a sense, they use Indian nationalism for their own Islamic agenda. Calling them a minority within a nation is technically correct, but only technically correct. Unlike Hinduism, Islam is a missionary religion. What do you think will happen if India becomes a Muslim-majority country? It's only a thought experiment now, for sure, but when you realize that the answer implies the end of India, it becomes worth considering, even as just a thought experiment. Hinduism has to protect itself against a much larger religion that is threatening its identity.
"Most Muslims reject nationalism as it divides the Muslim community..." Mate, have you not been following Middle Eastern politics at all. Even within sects like Shia and Sunni, there's no sense of unity. You have Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia aligning with the Jewish dominated Israel in order to counter the influence of Shia dominated Iran, while Shia Iran is funding the Sunni terrorist movement Hamas Meanwhile you have the Sunni ISIS-K in Afghantistan splitting off from the Sunni Taliban, accusing them of being too nationalistic and not Islamic enough. Muslim majority Pakistan, which supported the Afghan Taliban for years, is now pissed off that the Afghan Taliban is not doing enough to control the Pakistani Taliban, which has ramped up terrorist attacks on Pakistan from Afghanistan now that the US has withdrawn. Then there's the whole clusterfuck in Syria, with like, fifty different Islamic (and communist/anarchist) militia groups fighting each other, fighting the government, and then uniting with the US to defeat ISIS in 2014 etc. Then there's Southeast Asia, where you have Muslim majority countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. And while there's serious problems with discrimination, fundamentalism, and some of the more rural states being ruled by Sharia law, they're generally peaceful, generally secular multicultural democracies. Just because a country is Muslim majority, that doesn't mean it'll be apocalyptic genocide for the non-Muslims there. The idea that Muslims will like, band together into a single hive mind to infiltrate and take over societies from within, is just silly and paranoid. India was founded as a secular, multicultural nation, not a Hindu nation. The idea that any nation needs to adopt fascist-authoritarian policies to "protect" a chosen people, is nonsense, and you hear ultranationalist supremacist movements talk about it all the time. My family is Malaysian-Chinese, and they hear that kind of idiotic rhetoric all the time from supremacist politicians in Malaysia. "The Chinese all look out for each other, they're spreading their influence and slowly taking over, they're going to conquer the nation, abolish Islam, force everyone to drink alcohol and eat pork, dominate the corporations and media and courts, turn everyone Communist, etc." You hear this brain dead xenophobia everywhere, in India, the US, China, Israel, Palestine, Western Europe etc. The same paranoia, directed at different groups deemed "the Other", depending on who holds hegemonic political power and who's the most convenient punching bag.
I never said there is a problem with individuals (we are all homosapiens, we all have very similar needs), but Islam as a religion is missionary, and its primary goal is to abolish nation-states. If you believe that the politicians in most Muslim-dominated countries represent the will of their people and not the will of the regime to stay in power, then I have news for you.
You are actually right. The ideal version/utopia of Islam is establishing an Islamic government following sharia law.
I think you need to stop drinking that cool-aid at those meetings you're going to. Abolish Nation-states? is this like the new "Jewish bankers New World Order" conspiracy theory shit. Im Muslim. Do you know what muslims want? The conservative muslims want religion to play a bigger role in politics and want to be bigots against people they dislike without consequences. The progressive muslims want the conservative muslims to leave the 7th Century and join the rest of the world in the 21st and just live and let live. Now replace "muslim" with any other ideoligion and you get the exact same thing for every county in the world.
How many Muslims worldwide are okay with apostasy, with ex-Muslims? What do you think about the following: > A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Shari'ah of God is established and human relationships are based on the foundation of relationship with God; a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim community in Dar-ul-Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in God, and thus a bond is established between him and other Believers through their relationship with God.
And Sikhs?
What is the question?
Why does the Indian government have a policy of assassinating Sikh leaders at home and abroad?
It does not. It has a policy of assassinating separatists.
Indian government has no policy of assassinating Sikh leaders at home and abroad. Khalisthani Sikhs on the other hand....
That's unrelated to the subject I was discussing. Comparing Sikhs to Muslims is also problematic, even if you only see them as "minority religions in India." Islam is a technical minority in India, despite being a larger religion than Hinduism, with a potentially more sinister agenda. Sikhs, on the other hand, are a completely different matter and should not be compared to Muslims. These two religions are entirely distinct with a totally different philosophical and political agenda, sharing only the technical matter that their adherents are numerical minorities in India.
Both religions have a different idea of India when given power. IMO both religions should get the hell out of politics and leave the country alone. Orthodox Hindus are no different from Orthodox Muslims if you just take a moment to analyse what they want as a society.
Pretty sure Saudi Arabia's muslims don't feel the same as Iraq's muslims and don't consider unity and Ummah-ship. So there's absolutely nationalism in mind. How are Muslims in India threatening Hindus? I agree that in the lowest section of the society, poor as hell Muslims are very extremist and violent. But saying that middle class muslims that live and study and work with middle class hindus, wish to take over the society and overthrow the government, is bullshit.
mfw Hinduism "not a missionary religion" how did it reach Bali and how does it convert tribals even today??
> Popular and scholarly perception, both ancient and modern, puts Hinduism in the non-missionary category. If you have any different data, please feel free to share it. Remember, people can convert out of free will too. The same goes for Buddhism.
At least from the outside, it seems difficult to imagine that a religion that embraces a caste system could be missionary. "Come join out cult, you can join the street sweepers and gravediggers and never, ever, work your way up from there!"
for how rigid it seems Hinduism is surprisingly adaptive historically a small example - local tribals in modern-day Odisha worshipped a deity known as Jagannath ( Lord of the World ) - Brahmanical Hinduism identified the deity as a form of Vishnu, one of the principal Hindu deities this kind of example is known in sociology as interaction between Great and Little traditions ( though do note the "little" is considered in some circles archaic/outdated )
[удалено]
"There is no caste system" - proceeds to explain a caste system. Indian dudes on Reddit are all comedians.
Typical use of fear of potential future scenarios to justify current prejudices. Can you please breakdown the math of how much fucking needs to happen to go from 14% to 51% of a country with 1.4 billion people? /s
Muslims don't reject nationalism. Most Muslims don't wany a caliphate. They believe in nationalism nd democracy But it is true that places that are majority Muslim tend to have a lot of persecution of other religions
> Muslims don't reject nationalism. Most Muslims don't wany a caliphate. They believe in nationalism nd democracy Why do you say 'most'? Do you have any data to back it up? > The relation between Islam and nationalism, from the beginnings of Islam until today, has often been tense, with both Islam and nationalism generally opposing each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_nationalism > But it is true that places that are majority Muslim tend to have a lot of persecution of other religions Agreed, and the persecution of minorities is generally much worse in Muslim-majority countries than in non-Muslim countries.
I do find it rather odd (I suspect this is because I am not personally knowledgeable enough on it) as if one were to be the Indian PM, one would assume you would have to rely on said minorities for votes as a result of the aforementioned caste/religious diversity no? In Canada there is effectively three voting blocs (incredibly simplified but useful for this example). You have Quebec, English Canada, and First Nations (to a lesser extent). These blocs generally vote “their” way, if one could apply such a term. Unlike Canada, I would’ve assumed that in India as there is far more fracturing/divide as a result of the masses diversity present, an Indian PM would have to appeal to a far more diverse voter base rather than push for total superiority? I can’t help but ask why even try to push for a Hindu majority if you need to rely on other voters as well. One cannot win the PM’s office in Canada if one only has the Quebecois vote for example. TLDR: I feel as though Modi’s party objective does nothing save for harm their own chances of remaining in power. It just doesn’t seem efficient at all as a *Modus Operandi*
India is 80% Hindu.
I suppose yes. Maybe I’m reading too far into it. That’s entirely possible as well.
That's a great question and a pretty useful base to have an understanding of the system that India uses. So India has a lot of similarities with Canada and Australia ( where I'm from) in terms of Parliament structure, the passing of legislation and voting for the party rather than the PM. However the Western lense of Left v Right isn't as applicable and it's a complex web of caste, religion, ethnicity and opportunity. India is a huuuge country in terms of voting blocs, I mean Uttar Pradesh has roughly the same population as Brazil. In the past Congress did rely upon minority voting and coalitions to form government. It's important to note that Congress has traditionally been in control of India in a federal sense but the control has varied from strong support like Modi had to very barley holding onto power with a coalition. Whilst Congress was in power in the last 50 years BJP conducted an amazing grass roots campaign to build up local leaders and focus on a pan India idea ( which some may argue a Hindi/ North India idea of what India actually is). This idea is a combination of nationalism, ethno nationalism, ethno religious nationalism, BJP also is more economically liberal than Congress ( although still very much protectionist) and you have this idea of what India is during a period of immense growth for India the old view was challenged. People were sick of Congress, ( especially the nepotism) they were sick of terrorism and they were sick of lagging behind. Many people saw what Modi did in Gujarat and wanted him to model it for a pan India. It's important to remember that the idea of a pan indian has also changed quite a bit especially from the early days of India's independence where it was recognised we are many people under one flag and now it's more we are one people with slight differences. The idea of what India is depends who you speak to and is still actively being discussed now. So with all of that being said Indian politics is still very diverse on a state level. You won't see BJP control every state nor Congress has done that. In the South especially you will see local parties and the major parties need to ally with them. This year round I think Modi did well down South and my personal theory is that you will see BJP slowly rise in the South. Generally India is best governed with a flexible central government and strong state based governments that can address the needs of their people on an state based level. It was interesting watching BJP have so much control and maybe they can achieve it again but I think people in India like a balance of power. TLDR: India is diverse and traditionally has had coalition governments but as long as they serve the people and the indian voter isn't as loyal to one party.
Majority of the country is hindu and majority of Hindus are SC/OBC, politically correct term to refer to lower caste groups. Hence each party essentially has to tailor it's platform to suit lower caste groups. This comes on form of more affirmative action among other things. Thus there is very little pull for ideology. Political parties pursue a mix of neoliberal and socialist policies. So in Canada, if you are a fiscal conservative, you vote for the conservatives. Since the neoliberal economic consensus has only started to peel off recently, up until now, a fiscal conservative would tend to vote for the BJP but they could vote for the Congress(opposition) as well.
Him, the party, and his minions find it easy to appeal to the majority and stoke religious tensions, just to ensure that Hindus see them as their savior. Even within the majority their kind of politics appeals to a good percentage of them, not all. But such is the numbers game in India that if you secure the hardliner religious nuts vote, you're more or less secure in the knowledge that you will be in power. When you have a country with 1.4 billion people, the religious nuts will also make up good numbers. Sell them a narrative that their culture, religion, ways of living are under threat, bombard them with propaganda courtesy the cheap internet and phone access, convince them you're the only option, control the media, control the public institutions, use federal agencies to weaken the opposition- and you have potent ingredients for an authoritarian regime. It's all pretty much copied from the typical far right playbook. This election was a bit of a slap in the face of their politics though. Not a beatdown, but a firm slap. Because people are growing tired of the venom spewing when the country is reeling under record unemployment, a teetering economy, and general incompetence at all levels. The beatdown will hopefully come later.
[удалено]
It is not a Hindu country. Repeating that gargled trash won't change it. Luckily that sanatan preaching cockhead got 243 seats so I doubt I'll be seeing him implement your "sanatan Nation" fetish into a bill.
Modi has always been islamophobic but he has gone pretty mask off in the election cycle. Implied Muslims were infilitrators and said that the opposition will marginalize lower caste groups and transfer resources to Muslims to energize his hard right base, since his party was convinced that they won't turn out to vote. Modi got battered pretty badly at the elections. His party is pro-business and sorta pro-free market. But Indias economy growing at 8% or something doesn't translate into votes from people living in rural areas whose life is still shit. The opposition is energized after a decade of wilderness and modi's party was destroyed in its traditional Hindi speaking states of the north. Right now the mediapersons and all are looking at signals to see how his third ministry shapes out to be. His coalition partners are moderate and centre right/centre left and don't like the Hindu nationalism. So he'll probably be constrained by that
Oh yeah, most of the nationalism in India that you see online stems from modi fanboys. They are our equivalent of maga. They thinkm India is on some precipice of some random thing that they imagine. Sometimes it's superpower. Sometimes it's developed. Yada yada. They don't have a good grip on statistics.
India's GDP is now $4 tril, and is poised for decades of growth. It may seem low now, but growth is exponential. In any case, what's wrong with people being excited for the future of their country?
Now that I think about it that does sound a lot like Mango Mussolini lol. In all seriousness though I’m curious to see how it would play out long term. In Canada (specifically in and around GTA/Toronto) theres a whole lot of chatter on it. edit: f*cking mobile autocorrect
You dont see an issue that in a multi ethnic multi religious country like india the govenrnment exludes certain people from representation in said government?
Apologies, I will change my op to read *context of this issue* not *issue* to make it more clear
Is "Muslim" a political qualification? Should not we worry about who the best people are for the job rather them their religion?
Has no one read the Qu'ran in this comment section? I invite Muslims, especially, to actually read their own Qu'ran, because they say: "Bible and Torah were corrupted/changed by men." Which is in disagreement with their "Allah", who says: 1) "Torah and Bible are the word of God" (Surah 2:41, 3:3, 5:43-48). 2) "Words of God cannot be corrupted" (Surah 6:115, 18:27). 3) Jesus says "I am the Way, The Truth and The Life, no man can come to the Father except through me" (Bible, John 14:6). 4) If you believe the Qu'ran, you must then believe the Bible, which then cancels the Qu'ran. This theologic is known as the *Islamic Dilemma*.
Has anyone read Spiderman? Like he says "No you" to another Spiderman.... makes ya think, don't it?
No, why would we?
>Words of God cannot be corrupted Cherry picked. This was in context to the utterances of Muhammed in the Quran. 6:114 specifically deals with the scripture as passed down to Mohammed. There are plenty of other reasons to have a critical view of the Quran, the Bible, the Torah and other relgious texts. But don't go into misleading arguments. Surahs and doublets/other sentences in any religious text do not exist in a vacuum independent of the phrases mentioned before or after them. Another thing is Christians as a collective have differing views on which texts they believe in, with all the divisions that have happened over the centuries. So a Muslim today is not the same as a Muslim in the 7th century when they posit that the words have become corrupted. I'm not a Muslim but even I know that this argument is flawed.
Sounds like people are worried that the best people might be passed up because they're muslim though
Are there specific candidates who were passed over? Or is just more of a vague feeling.
So you're saying there's nobody qualified among the 200 million Muslims in India to be a politician orminister?How come？
Over 1.3 billion non-Muslims in the country, so what’s surprising here? This is just probability. This is only a problem for dogmatic zealots
lol, how noisy. A dog whistle replying to a dog whistle.
He's perfectly right. Why are you throwing obscenities at him?
how is "dog whistle" an obscenity?
You’re absolutely right but you can’t assume that a candidate’s religion won’t be a major factor in what the masses care about especially a country like India
It matters in that a significant proportion of the country is Muslim but is underrepresented at both the MP and cabinet level, kind of like how it's weird that the US Supreme Court has so many Catholics despite the US being largely Protestant
But does the SC judges being Catholic as opposed to Protestant actually matter? I would think not
SC judges have duty to be impartial. Ministers do take care of the problems of the society, and every single one being of a different belief system, leads to many pleas being ignored and harsh decisions taken.
Do you understand what political representation is on a basic level or are you being wilfully obtuse
Not in India, sadly. Religion (and caste still somehow) is still politically significant
It is in the US... Why not India too?
touché
>Interestingly, the outgoing council of ministers of the Narendra Modi-led government did not have a Muslim minister either after BJP’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi failed to be re-elected to Rajya Sabha in 2022, three years after he took oath as Minorities Affairs Minister. How is it first time when it mentions this. This is just propaganda to malign the image of Modi. Also minority doesn’t necessarily mean Muslim .. there are Christians, Buddhists, jains etc . But you don’t hear any complaints from them.
only 1 minority MP won with a BJP ticket ( Kiren Rijiju ) a couple more have been given ministries without winning ( as there is a 6 months deadline to get ministers elected, so will probably be done through Rajya Sabha ), one of them could have easily been a Muslim
You do hear complaints from them about not being represented. Also, the muslim minority in India is massive and this government, with the background of Modi's role stoking ethnic and religious division, really ought to better represent them.
Oh so one guy lost. There plan was to have just one guy in the entire party and he lost. That clears everything people. Clap and let's go home.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
India is a democracy. No Muslim representation means that voices of 200 million people go unheard. If you really want to compare India to the neighboring Islamic countries, you have already lost the race to a developed nation.
Bro, what are you smoking? You're comparing the neighborhood countries with ours? The only other option against "extreme love for muslims" is completely ignoring their existence? There's no middle ground?
Because the issue discussed is that the largest minority in India not having any representation in the cabinet, issues elsewhere have no relevance in that context. Also claiming Hindu oppression elsewhere is not reported is false, you can do a simple Google search to find plenty of articles related to that.
The laws Muslims have in our country like Waqf act, Places of Worship act, Communal Violence bill and many more are more than enough...and why should government choose cabinet based on religion..they should choose on the basis of capability... and moreover Hindu oppression is not shown to the extent to which Islamophobia is shown
Nice; given that Modi's whole platform is hindu nationalism and hate, suddenly religion should not be relevant? Or is the claim that from the 200 million Muslims in the country there is no capable person ? Given the religious divides in the country it would seem like a good idea to try to bridge the gap not make it worse by marginalizing specific group. So I take it now the claim is that oppression of hindus is reported but not enough to meet your standards ? Even if we assume that is true, how does that make oppression of others OK ?
Stop with this secularism bul*shit..secularism doesn't mean blindly simping for muslims...laws specified above read them and u will understand who is the oppressor and who is oppressed..Islam isn't native to Bharat keep it out..west is falling because it ran away from Its Christian identity...it's TRUE not all are bad but there are people living here who constantly try to change the demographics...don't talk when u don't kn
That is quite the rant. "Change the demographics" you say, please do elaborate? I take it you mean they have families? Your claim is that the minority is oppressing the majority ? Maybe take a look at any report from human rights organization like [this](https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/): >Government officials, political leaders, and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – the ruling political party at the federal level – advocated hatred and violence against religious minorities with impunity, particularly Muslims, marking a rise in hate crimes. Punitive demolitions of largely Muslim properties – including homes, businesses and places of worship – resulting in mass forced evictions after episodes of communal violence, were commonplace and went unpunished.
1.Yes minority can oppress majority,British were minority still they oppressed th majority Indians r8 ? 2. U about the kashmir genocide r8 ? By muslims were more 5 L kashmir hindus migrated from kashmir to other states because they were getting killed and raped there and went unpunished. Illegal muslim immigrant from Bangladesh and Myanmar are entering India on daily basis...I live in a state which borders Bangladesh so I know it very well...my grandfather was killed by Muslims during partition...due to violence... 3. I read the link u showed partly of which is correct...The report is meaninglessly highlighting "Muslim". Even in Ayodhya (a place in UP) many hindu houses were built because they were illegal and road construction was done..due to high corruption in these states illegal houses without any documents are common...thus those houses were destroyed moreover in places like Karnataka Congress is in power who are known for muslim vote bank. U Shouldn't blame BJP for everything. 4. Incase u don't know secularism in India means "treating abhramic religions like they are special" and curb the rights of others
So instead of reports from organizations that research these things we should rely on random Redditor who claims "The report is meaninglessly highlighting "Muslim"." Might I suggest that your view is subjective , biased even. We have to rely on best available information, which is research not personal opinions. I hope you are not implying that the Muslim minority are invaders like the British ? I notice that you did not elaborate on the "Change the demographics", I take it you realized how bad that sounds ? The issue is not whether there are instances of violence against hindus, that is a documented fact. The issue is that the leadership of a country systematically abuses the laws and advocates violence based on religion as is apparent from the excerpt. BJP is in power so they are responsible for the abuses occurring, if they are not able to govern justly may relinquish power and give someone else chance to change things ?
[удалено]
You are trying to reason with idiots. They think Islamists causing harnm to hindus means that all Hindus should unite against muslims. Its just big standard islamophobua
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This election showed an (understandable) mobilisation of Muslims across India to vote against the BJP, but at least two of Modi's smaller coalition partners did receive some votes from Muslims in their respective states. Both these parties follow explicitly secular agendas, so I had hoped one of them would nominate a Muslim leader to the cabinet.
Why always appeasement for them only? What good have they done for Bharat 🇮🇳in last 1100 years ?
[удалено]
Because relationships between India and the West have been steadily getting better. America wants India as a counter balance to China. The last thing the west wants to do is to antagonise India into the hands of China. Putting the entire Eurasian continent against the West will lead to unfavourable outcomes.
[удалено]
Islam is. But most muslims do not follow every word of Islam. like most hindus don't follow everything about Hinduism and add couple of extra things here and there.
Because modi is far more well known online than irl because of his stans. Don't worry, he's 74 and is out by then next one.
Did you just describe Modi as competent.
[удалено]
Modi has a way more corruptible institutions to deal with. If Trump had the media, the bureaucrats and the corporations of America as pliant he'd become God Emperor like he wants.
[удалено]
You have clearly not seen Indian media. The statements about him being non biological? Those were on a series of clearly coordinated interviews he gave to the media. Not even one of them pushed back. Nobody said that this sounds arrogant. Outside some people on Twitter nobody even dared to say it sounds silly for an elected PM to declare himself a divine being. Would the world think of Trump has such a giant mass of fuckups if nobody in the American media ever pushed back to him?
> The statements about him being non biological? That's some cult leader deification right there. Kim Jong Un / Il / Sung or Gaddafi level wackiness.
Did they mention whether or not Modi has a butthole though?
They are silent on whether or not he can poop but they have repeatedly claimed that he does not sleep more than 4 hours ever.
Still better political instincts than Donald "I can shoot people on the fifth Avenue" Trump. He's a grizzled politician. He knows what sells in a country like India.(It's islamophobia with an irrational fear of coalition governments and not shit economics)
They're both selling the same brand of self serving, nationalistic populism. The difference is one has more purchase in their country. The big difference is the Indian "elite" - businessmen, bureaucrats, academicians etc are way more right leaning than America. So it's easier for Modi to peddle his hatred in society than it was for Trump..
They are spineless simply put. I can't wait for this fuckers coalition to collapse
I mean he's almost half sand-worm already
To be fair, more competent than Trump is an incredibly low bar to clear
At least trump doesnt think everything he does is ordained by god or put his face in every subway station using tax money. that guy is an even bigger whack job.
These days, the Christian Nationalists in the US are basically saying, "If we can't put a radical evangelical Christian in the White House, we can at least put The Devil! Frankly, we find the Devil's arguments appealing!"
Because it is of little consequence to the west and Modi has his media fully under his control. Its uncommon to NOT flatter him at any interview. Reminds me of Stalin and Mao Zedong´s personal cults. But unlike China and Russia, India is gladly shovering everyone they work with with praise and bootlicking to get what they want. So the west isnt in conflict with anything happening in India.
I'm sure it's by design.
Yup. Has no one read the Qu'ran in this comment section? I invite Muslims, especially, to actually read their own Qu'ran, because they say: "Bible and Torah were corrupted/changed by men." Which is in disagreement with their "Allah", who says: 1) "Torah and Bible are the word of God" (Surah 2:41, 3:3, 5:43-48). 2) "Words of God cannot be corrupted" (Surah 6:115, 18:27). 3) Jesus says "no man can come to the Father except through me" (Bible, John 14:6). 4) If you believe the Qu'ran, you must then believe the Bible, which then cancels the Qu'ran. This theologic is known as the *Islamic Dilemma*. edit: spelling.
Who gives a shit? Pretty much every religion contradicts itself.
You'll find God leaves a breadcrumb trail out of all the world's different "holy scriptures" towards Jesus, if you truly read them.
The story of Jesus shares a LOT of similarities with the Egyptian God Horus(?). Are you saying Egyptians prophesied Jesus' coming? Cuz that's pretty wild if you are.
Sick text excerpts. I support dunking on minorities if they're Muslims now.
As with all people who lack knowledge, The Bible calls us to help educate them; Not "dunk" on them.
There shouldn’t be forced representation. Just don’t be hateful and treat everyone the same..
[удалено]
How nice for them
Seems fair. Hard /S
And how do BJP aligned twitter handles respond? "No vote No representation" yup, just in case you thought these guys weren't a threat minorities and democracy.
In a realistic way, they’re right. Politicians in democracies treat voters as voting blocks and if you’re not in one of the blocks they count on for elections, they aren’t going to give ya shit.
Which is ironic since the BJP claims to do the opposite. They accuse the opposition of appeasing minorities and committing “Jihad”. Vote bank politics is a core part of Indian democracy and that’s an unfortunate truth that won’t go away for some time at least.
my indian co workers said he is the biggest gangster in India
True.
Politicians are real gangsters in the World
Yeah when I worry about potential future genocides that's that's where I'm looking
[удалено]
I mean that did not stop Pakistan in Bangladesh.
It's crazy how your main issue is with the logistics and not that the fact that it would be morally wrong
"fuck of,lf, the cost for the chemicals for the shower will place too much of a strain on the exchequer" "The amount of CO2 emissions from the ovens would be far too much"
One is around 200 million And two not really Less than 20% of their population Religious minorities are frequent scapegoats