Top Members

India Diary

Jump to page:

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
dr76, Jinn, abu mohammed, Maria al-Qibtiyya, Taalibah, sipraomer
Rank Image
bint e aisha's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
780
Sister
481
bint e aisha's avatar
#466 [Permalink] Posted on 5th February 2019 19:16
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post

Thank you.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
abuzayd2k's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
203
Brother
12
abuzayd2k's avatar
#467 [Permalink] Posted on 9th February 2019 05:11
Late on the night of Thursday, 31 January, a 10-second video clip of an ISIS-type killing of a young Kashmiri woman, appeared and soon went viral in social media. It didn’t identify the victim. Some Facebook pages, perceived to be operating on behalf of militants, labelled her as “the informant responsible for (the top Al-Badar commander) Zeenatul Islam’s killing” in an encounter in January. On the following last three days, no militant group has formally claimed responsibility of killing the young lady in cold blood.

Full story below:

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/ishrat-muneer-a-young-womans-isis-type-killing-shocks-kashmir-but-not-leaders
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#468 [Permalink] Posted on 9th February 2019 05:48
Strange I did not get any Facebook posts on it.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#469 [Permalink] Posted on 9th February 2019 06:03
After reading the Quint article I realize that the ISIS-like phrase in the title of the report made it look like a key-change in the events taking place in Kashmir. To me it does not look like that. Distressing but not a paradigm shift.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#470 [Permalink] Posted on 11th February 2019 07:58
Sharjeel Imam on the Hindu Rashtra


(Sharjeel Imam is a young researcher who had an experience similar to mine in India where increasingly even the cacdemics is being infected by the Islamophobic bias. In this article he captures some of the status quo for Muslims in India.)


India is often portrayed as the world largest democracy yet for its minorities life can seem very different.

The Indian constitution has long been presented as an enlightened document which guarantees equality of status and opportunity to every citizen and helps improve the condition of ‘depressed’ communities.

The recent surge of Hindutva politics is seen as a threat to this secular constitution, and ‘Save the Constitution’ has become the catchphrase of anti-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) forces.

However, the constitution contains certain clauses which discriminate against religious minorities.

In the last seven decades, this constitution has, in many ways, aided the process of reducing minorities, especially the 200 million Muslims, to the status of second-class citizens. The dismal figures among Muslims in relation to poverty, education, employment and political representation clearly demonstrate the lack of foresight regarding the minority issue during the constitution-making process.

The main issues which affect minorities are: Bharat, the Union of States the lack of a safeguard for minorities, the definition of Hindu and Scheduled Castes and Cow protection.

Article 1: ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.

The word ‘Bharat’ reflects an exclusively Hindu imagination of Indian history. The word ‘Union’ was chosen over ‘Federation’ as nationalists, whether Hindu or secular, considered a strong centre necessary.

For the vast subcontinent populated by thousands of linguistic and ethnic communities, ‘federation’ was a significant demand for minorities. A strong centre makes the smaller regional communities irrelevant, or at least weaker politically, and Congress, confident of its national Hindu vote bank, could easily override local aspirations.

It was demonstrated in the cases of Jammu and Kashmir, North Eastern states and Punjab. One Sikh member of the Constituent Assembly, Hukum Singh, complained: “minorities .. have been ignored and completely neglected. The provincial units have been reduced to Municipal boards...there is enough provision in our Constitution...to facilitate the development of administration into a fascist state.”

Lack of Safeguards

The Constituent Assembly debated this issue, and in offices and legislatures, separate electorates and proportional representation were discussed. During the British era, Muslim candidates were elected through separate electorates. After partition, most Congress members refused to consider any safeguards.

Prime Minister Pandit Nehru said at the time: “It is a bad thing for any small group or minority to make it appear to the world and to the majority that ‘we wish to keep apart from you, that we do not trust you’.”

Home Minister Sardar Patel was more direct: “When Pakistan was conceded, at least it was assumed that in the rest of India there would be no attempt to talk of two nations.”

The mood of the assembly was clear, nothing was to be conceded to Muslims.

Proportional representation was demanded by members of parliament including Hasrat Mohani (UP), Hussain Imam (Bihar), Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras). It contrasted with the current system which includes direct elections from self-contained territorial constituencies in the states. In this way smaller and spatially dispersed communities could vote their parties into the houses.

Smaller and dispersed Muslim communities were rarely strong in one particular territory and hence were not able to elect representatives. The case of Gujarat, MP and Rajasthan are especially alarming, where Muslims make up around ten percent of the population and are spread across the state, but have been denied political representation almost completely. It is also true for other provinces including Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Bihar.

Anticipating such problems, many Muslims asked for proportional representation. Mohani argued that this was not a communal, but a political issue. Acknowledging the futility of communal parties, he advised Muslims to form political parties open to people of all religions. But he was worried about the survival of these weak political parties. He said: “If they do not allow even this concession of proportional representation, even a party like the Socialist Party who got 35 percent of votes in the elections in the UP, could not get single seat.”

However, the proposal was denied because it would lead to fragmented houses and unstable governments and that it would be too complicated.

Muslims received no statutory representation in offices or legislatures.

The celebrated concept of ‘secularism’ further shut down any hopes, as it does not matter whether a religious community is being discriminated against, our constitution is secular and hence consciously blind to it.

In addition to the lack of political representation, Muslims are absent from the administration, army, various police and paramilitary forces. These bodies have repeatedly shown their communal bias across the seven decades, and have resulted in the loss of thousands of Muslim lives.

Defining Hindu and Scheduled Castes

Article 25 of the Indian constitution, besides declaring freedom of religion, also directs the government to undertake “social welfare and reform” for “Hindu” institutions.

The term Hindu shall be “construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion”. This Hindu category excludes Muslims and Christians. Professor Pritam Singh argues that “the overriding concern” behind this article was “to prevent the exodus of Dalits from the Hindu fold”.

This stand is further vindicated when we pay attention to the definition of Scheduled Castes, the system which divides Hindus into a rigid discriminatory hierarchy. The Indian Constitutional Order of 1950 says: “No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.”

Muslims and Christians remain outside this “Hindu” or “Indic” category. It is illogical, as both Sikhism and Buddhism were significant anti-caste movements of their times, and like Islam and Christianity, believe in the equality of human beings.

Landless Muslim castes, who have been engaged in menial professions for generations have been denied this urgently needed ‘depressed’ status for seven decades, and have been pushed into further impoverishment, as they are hardly supported by any relevant programs for affirmative action at the central state level. This issue has also not been on the agenda of most Dalit activists, as it would mean cutting into the same reservation pool and increased competition.

Cow Protection

Cow protection has resulted in the lynching of many Muslims in recent years. These bloody incidents have a long history. Since the late 19th Century, it acquired a mass base among Hindus of Punjab and North India. By 1893, the first rural attacks on Muslims around Baqrid happened in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Baqrid attacks occurred on a much larger scale in 1917, when hundreds of villages were targeted in the Shahabad region on the UP-Bihar border. During the 1920s one of the bloodiest episodes was in Baqrid. In 1946, the biggest Baqrid attacks happened, with the attack on around 2,000 villages in Bihar, leaving tens of thousands of Muslims dead.

The British administration had tried to defend the Muslim lives on many occasions, but the cow protection movement overwhelmed the administration. In this context, the constitution declares that the state shall take steps for “prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves”.

Many Muslim and tribal members of the assembly opposed it, as they saw the consequences of this declaration for the beef-eating communities, but they were voted down. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, who had threatened to resign when an MP proposed a cow protection law, curiously did not resign when many state legislatures passed it. Both Nehru and Hindu revivalists were satisfied. The British administration attempted to defend the Muslim right to cow slaughter, while parties like Congress and the BJP put Muslims behind bars.

Congress nowadays raises the slogan of “Save the Constitution” to get gullible Muslim votes.

It is true that the BJP is more aggressively anti-Muslim, and uses more obvious Hindu symbols, but to what extent this sloganeering can result in further anti-Muslim constitutional changes is a question which no one has seriously discussed.

What privileges do Muslims enjoy constitutionally which we would lose in an emerging Hindu Raj? Our share in administration and politics is already at the lowest possible level. Any radical anti-Muslim changes like seizing the waqf lands, or declaring Muslims non-citizens would invite international condemnation and a nationwide Muslim response.

What may happen is that we might lose a few fellowships or the status of a few minority institutes. It is the insecurity of Hindutva forces that mean they regularly talk about making India a Hindu state. This is intended to make the constitution look impartial, and frighten the Muslims into defending it. However, they should be seeking major amendments to improve their condition. This spectre of a ‘Hindu state’ also helps Congress to frighten Muslims and ensure their subservience in a stable and democratic Hindu India.

Source TRT
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
abuzayd2k's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
203
Brother
12
abuzayd2k's avatar
#471 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 02:49
From Wikipedia:

On 14 February 2019, a convoy of vehicles carrying security personnel on the Jammu Srinagar National Highway was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber at Lethpora (near Awantipora) in the Pulwama district, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The attack resulted in the death of 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)[a] personnel and the attacker. The responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. A local youth named Adil Ahmed Dar was identified as the attacker.

From CNN:

Tehran, Iran (CNN)A suicide bombing hit a bus carrying members of the Iranian military's elite Revolutionary Guard in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, killing at least 23 and wounding 17, according to the semiofficial Fars News Agency.

Both attacks look to be very similar and both countries are pointing fingers at Pakistan for the attacks.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
184
Brother
329
#472 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 04:19
That also right at the time when MBS was supposed to visit. I sense some "false flag" work here.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#473 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 08:07
The Pulwama Attack on CRPF


In spite of the significance of this episode I simply not getting time to post on this event and the events in the aftermath. I shall simply collect some material from the net in the coming posts.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#474 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 08:09
Shams Kabir on Bigotry in Reaction to Pulwama


Shams Kabir always hits the nail on its head. I've not seen him missing it ever. He writes on the CONDITIONAL GRIEF OF THE BIGOTED & HYPOCRITICAL (Sufyan Sadiq)

The fidayeen attack on CRPF personnel left 40 dead in Pulwama. It has led to a massive outpouring of grief all over the country.

People are showing their solidarity for the slain personnel in many ways. Most of them are over the top. A march before their wedding by a couple in Baroda for example. The sheer weight and force of the notions of the grieving lead one to question whether this expressed grief is all kosher. Whether this is the normal?

On the aspect of normal. There were 25 CRPF personnel killed in Sukma. And then there was the largest attack on security personnel in India - the Dantewada attack that left 76 CRPF personnel dead. The grief expressed by the nation was not a patch on what is on display now. Why is that? Because no Pakistan was involved? What is more important - commiserating with forces and the families of the fallen soldiers or being able to blast Pakistan, bash Muslims and thrash Kashmiris(all the last three at once). We seem to have plumbed for the latter combination quite expectantly. The Minorities Panel has also made the allegation that minorities are being targeted using the attack as an excuse. It will go largely ignored.

Another aspect is the treatment by media. Just some 12 days back the CRPF veterans were at Jantar Mantar protesting their second class treatment as an armed force. And they wanted a humane rationalisation of their salaries and pensions. No media bothered. These salaries and pensions are drawn for the families of CRPF personnel. Today the same channels are falling over each other in feeling for the families of the fallen CRPF soldiers. It all looks and sounds as hypocritical as it can get.

As regards the CRPF. It is a force mentioned in detail in charges of human rights abuses in the valley by the UN Human Rights Council report. The same one over which the Indian establishment lost its marbles. Why it did so is unimaginable. Kashmir has featured as a site for human rights abuses by the state for the last two decades in the annual reports of Human Rights Watch. The only people who should have lost their marbles are the Kashmiris over the fact that it took more than two decades for censure by the UNHRC.

Canada had denied entry to a former officer of the CRPF, alleging that the agency "committed widespread and systemic human rights abuses". It will continue to deny entry to such officers it had stated. So it might seem that all is kosher with the CRPF though actually the world is not fooled.

The Canadian immigration department had said that it barred the retired general under paragraph 35(1)(b) of their rules that declares inadmissible the entry of a -

"senior official in the service of a government, that in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systemic or gross violations of human rights violations, or genocide".

According to the 1993 Human Rights Watch report, the security forces use rape as a method of retaliation against Kashmiri civilians during reprisal attacks after militant ambushes. This is the not so mentioned aspect of the Kashmir conflict. For obvious reasons. It makes the Indian state look quite ugly. But then there are the inescapables. The usage of a human shield in direct contravention of the Geneva convention. The use of pellets that have blinded toddlers. These cannot be easily suppressed. Not in the new age of twitter and WhatsApp.

As I have indicated to people - the Indian state is waging war in Kashmir. A war in which it is arraigned against its own citizens. Indian citizens. And it is using foul means to push its agenda and win the war. It must expect foul means being practised against it. After all, it is a war.

There is no surprise in the reaction of our media. There is no surprise in the pushback of the Kashmiris. Our media is composed of presstitues (a portmanteau or सन्धि coined by another journalist Gerald Celente and not the moron general). The Kashmiris are at war.

As regards the over-cooked on patriotism citizens I only have this to say, "be consistent in your grief and not so blatantly conditional. I know you will never grieve for Kashmiris but atleast feel consistently for the forces and not only when Muslims or Kashmiris are involved."

And let me in you on a fact - the first thing I did was place calls of concern to some Kashmiri friends. It is expected of this country to react such when a Muslim community is involved. Or even Sikhs. My fears were justified.

"Dogs allowed but no Kashmiris" is what a sign reads at a restaurant in India today. And it has not been taken down yet.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#475 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 08:41
Pulwama bomber was detained six times in less than two years
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,728
Brother
2,140
Maripat's avatar
#476 [Permalink] Posted on 18th February 2019 09:00
A pig named Salim Barkati:

report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top

Jump to page: