5 ms·
That'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 rel
by vakataka 7y ago
That'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.
- vakataka 7y agoHaj subsidy is not history. It is targetted to be removed by 2022. I was harping on it because the other commenter cherry picked it and it is good to have discussions on matters that are usually brushed under the carpet. I am glad that you at least partially agree with me on unfair govt policies.
- selimthegrim 7y agoAligarh has to abide by reservations and you're saying none of the minority institutions are touched?
- vakataka 7y agoAMU is a public central university. My argument is specifically about places of worship. Educational institutions are an entirely different discussion.