4 ms·
FYI, Indian Muslims have their own personal law while the rest of the population follows uniform civil code. They get Hajj subsidies and other perks that no oth
by vakataka 7y ago
FYI, Indian Muslims have their own personal law while the rest of the population follows uniform civil code. They get Hajj subsidies and other perks that no other community gets. As for taking refugees, a country can deny entry based on any number of reasons. In 2018, the number of refugees taken in by the US has gone down. That doesn't mean US is less secular. I agree Indian constitution is not the most secular but it definitely is not anti-minority.
- iamshs 7y agoHindus are also given subsidies for travel to their religious sites, inside India and to China. Mansarovar Lake and Amarnath pilgrimage. So that is one propaganda point of yours busted. Let's bust the second point: Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?
- vakataka 7y agoThat's a strawman argument. Even if what you say is true, are you proposing no communities other than minorities should get any perks? Also, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Most of what you are saying seem to be just your opinions.
- iamshs 7y agoSo why did you bring up subsidy as an argument for Muslims? Was that not a strawman? Every single thing I said in this thread can be googled. Nothing in here is my opinion by an established fact. And facts can hurt because they ain't easy to counter. So go Google it, I ain't doing your homework for you.
- vakataka 7y agoI can say the same thing and just dismiss all your points. You are creating false equivalence between Hajj and amarnath. The Indian government controls all Hindu temples and derives revenue. So what is the problem in subsidizing these when the profit from these sites is used up within the country? On the other hand, Hajj spending goes out of the country and is a dead investment. And mind you, only Hindu institutions come under government purview by law. None of the minority institutions are touched.
- iamshs 7y agoDismiss them all you want, I am setting your propaganda straight. There ain't no false equivalence there. Subsidy for religious pilgrimage for Hindus and Muslims exists, and you cherry picked Muslim subsidy only and I set it straight. So Hindu pilgrimage subsidy is acceptable because the money is spent inside India? Taxpayer money is still being spent on a religious cause and Mansarovar is in China and not India.
- vakataka 7y agoWhy are you cherry picking only mansarovar to further your propaganda? There are thousands of Hindu sites inside India that provide employment opportunities and revenue to the state. And yes Hajj doesn't do that. If stating that is propaganda then so be it.
- iamshs 7y agoBecause it is wastage of taxpayer money on religious purposes, and despite your propaganda Hindus get 10 times more share of the pilgrimage subsidies.
- vakataka 7y agoIdeally the state shouldn't spend a rupee on any religious subject. But the Indian law allows the government to take the revenue from Hindu institutions while minority institutions are exempt. If we are to accept your point, the government shouldn't take the profits from the Temples either. You just don't seem to see this at all.
- selimthegrim 7y agoHaj subsidy is history. Why are you still harping on it? (And by the way, it went to Air India tickets at inflated prices). If this money actually gets spent on Muslim girls' education now like government claims I will feed Najma Heptulla and Modi laddus myself. I also agree that government should not take money from temples without temple boards' consent.
- eklavya 7y ago"Why are only Muslim refugees being expelled, and why is there a specific citizenship law that gives Indian citizenship to Hindus and excludes Muslims?" That bill deals with religious oppression in the neighbouring countries in India (mostly legacy of partition). Are muslims being oppressed in the islamic neighbouring countries?
- iamshs 7y agoRohingyas are genuine refugees that have been oppressed. That bill codifies that Muslims cannot be oppressed, which is a patently false observation that a supposedly secular country should not have to resolve to.
- eklavya 7y agoThat would sure seem to be the case unless you see from where refugees are allowed. They are not allowed from all over the world, only areas dealing with partition or Indian history.
- iamshs 7y agoRohingya is in immediate neighbourhood, you don't have to circumnavigate the globe from Myanmar. India and Myanmar share a border.
- eklavya 7y agoI am saying again and again partition and Indian history. Nepal is also a border state. China is also a border state, uighurs aren’t included.
- iamshs 7y agoMaybe familiarise yourself with Indian geography; you see between Xinjiang and India, there is this mountain range called Himalayas. Pretty big mountains those ones. Nepal has no internal disturbances, and India-Nepal border is absolutely open allowing free flow of people.
- cscurmudgeon 7y agoMuslims also get Haj subsidy.