6 ms·

They should be labelled as extremists just like many other Islamic organizations in India who have been giving threats to make India an Islamic nation by killin

They should be labelled as extremists just like many other Islamic organizations in India who have been giving threats to make India an Islamic nation by killing all the Kafirs, right?

reactspa 5y ago
Every single political party in Pakistan is an islamic-nationalist party. Yet the Western media never describes them so. Yet the BJP is always suffixed with "hindu-nationalist". Israel has preferential citizenship for Jews. Yet, somehow India is not allowed to have CAA (per western media). Double standards, I suppose.
- naturalauction 5y ago
  India is a supposedly secular country, it's stated in the constitution. Pakistan and Israel explicitly aren't. Also, you are totally wrong about "every single political party in Pakistan being an Islamic-nationalist party." The second biggest party in the Parliament is the Pakistan People's Party, who are secular. Additionally, Israel gets plenty of criticism in international media for its preferential citizenship laws regarding Jews.
  - reactspa 5y ago
    The evidence contradicts you. When PPP was in power, it never tried to re-designate Pakistan from an islamic-state to a secular state.
- dartharva 5y ago
  > Every single political party in Pakistan is an islamic-nationalist party. Yet the Western media never describes them so. Because that is to be expected in an Islamic country. India, on the other hand, is supposed to be a secular nation that prides itself in its diversity. As for CAA and the like, I feel it's mostly a branding problem. Most of the resistance BJP gets is because their PR people aren't able to present or explain their policies in a civil, rational manner. Every time someone tries to challenge them they go apeshit defensive, declaring them anti-national and whatnot, pissing people of even when they could have had good reasons and people would have probably not reacted to them had they only spoken of them properly.
  - reactspa 5y ago
    I like consistency. For consistency's sake, the western media should prefix islamic-nationalist political parties around the world (that would be most political parties in all islamic countries) with "islamic-nationalist". But perhaps you're not that into consistency, in which case I can empathize why you're okay with the status quo. Also, please don't generalize. Not everyone is "proud" of india's diversity. I much prefer how the homogeneity of countries like Japan and China has enabled them to quickly progress. I believe i represent the views of a silent majority in india.
    - dartharva 5y ago
      > I believe i represent the views of a silent majority in india. Correct me if I misinterpreted what you've written, but if you think removing diversity is what the "silent majority" wants, boy, are you living in a delusion. You might be trying to make up explanations to forcibly rationalize bigotry. Ethnic and religious diversity is not something you can just turn into "homogeneity" without large-scale genocide. Besides it was never a significant factor in Japan and China's growth relative to India.
      - naturalauction 5y ago
        Also, just because India is majority Hindu doesn't mean there isn't massive diversity within those populations. India has 22 official languages (and many more which don't have the same level of representation). India will never be ethnically homogenous to the same extent that Japan (a country with two large religions that peacefully coexist) and China are.
    - revendell_elf 5y ago
      I want to respond before you're downvoted to hell. I certainly agree with you that not everyone's proud of India's diversity. It's been more of an issue lately where we've a separate "Personal Law Boards" for certain religious groups and at the same time we call ourselves secular. If India has to really become a secular nation, it has to make sure that it treats everybody the same without any specific laws for specific groups.

They should be labelled as extremists just like many other Islamic organizations in India who have been giving threats to make India an Islamic nation by killing all the Kafirs, right?

reactspa 5y ago

Every single political party in Pakistan is an islamic-nationalist party. Yet the Western media never describes them so. Yet the BJP is always suffixed with "hindu-nationalist". Israel has preferential citizenship for Jews. Yet, somehow India is not allowed to have CAA (per western media). Double standards, I suppose.

naturalauction 5y ago
India is a supposedly secular country, it's stated in the constitution. Pakistan and Israel explicitly aren't. Also, you are totally wrong about "every single political party in Pakistan being an Islamic-nationalist party." The second biggest party in the Parliament is the Pakistan People's Party, who are secular. Additionally, Israel gets plenty of criticism in international media for its preferential citizenship laws regarding Jews.
- reactspa 5y ago
  The evidence contradicts you. When PPP was in power, it never tried to re-designate Pakistan from an islamic-state to a secular state.
dartharva 5y ago
> Every single political party in Pakistan is an islamic-nationalist party. Yet the Western media never describes them so. Because that is to be expected in an Islamic country. India, on the other hand, is supposed to be a secular nation that prides itself in its diversity. As for CAA and the like, I feel it's mostly a branding problem. Most of the resistance BJP gets is because their PR people aren't able to present or explain their policies in a civil, rational manner. Every time someone tries to challenge them they go apeshit defensive, declaring them anti-national and whatnot, pissing people of even when they could have had good reasons and people would have probably not reacted to them had they only spoken of them properly.
- reactspa 5y ago
  I like consistency. For consistency's sake, the western media should prefix islamic-nationalist political parties around the world (that would be most political parties in all islamic countries) with "islamic-nationalist". But perhaps you're not that into consistency, in which case I can empathize why you're okay with the status quo. Also, please don't generalize. Not everyone is "proud" of india's diversity. I much prefer how the homogeneity of countries like Japan and China has enabled them to quickly progress. I believe i represent the views of a silent majority in india.
  - dartharva 5y ago
    > I believe i represent the views of a silent majority in india. Correct me if I misinterpreted what you've written, but if you think removing diversity is what the "silent majority" wants, boy, are you living in a delusion. You might be trying to make up explanations to forcibly rationalize bigotry. Ethnic and religious diversity is not something you can just turn into "homogeneity" without large-scale genocide. Besides it was never a significant factor in Japan and China's growth relative to India.
    - naturalauction 5y ago
      Also, just because India is majority Hindu doesn't mean there isn't massive diversity within those populations. India has 22 official languages (and many more which don't have the same level of representation). India will never be ethnically homogenous to the same extent that Japan (a country with two large religions that peacefully coexist) and China are.
  - revendell_elf 5y ago
    I want to respond before you're downvoted to hell. I certainly agree with you that not everyone's proud of India's diversity. It's been more of an issue lately where we've a separate "Personal Law Boards" for certain religious groups and at the same time we call ourselves secular. If India has to really become a secular nation, it has to make sure that it treats everybody the same without any specific laws for specific groups.