Hacker News Reader

Comment by thanks1banks2 | Hacker News Reader

India is a secular state. We treat all religions with equal respect.

This is in the constitution.

This issue is an internal matter following due process within our parliamentary framework.

Secular in name only. The current party has been anti minority with significant frequency and protectionist of hindu beliefs.

It is the reason why Kashmir never merged with the rest of India.

Stop spreading falsehoods and partial truths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

Literally religion had nothing to do with abolishment of article 370. India is secular and this government is much more secular than any Congress coalition in the past few decades. NDA government is not a appeasement government.

> Secular in name only. The current party has been anti minority with significant frequency and protectionist of hindu beliefs

And yet the current Government has increased minority affairs budget substantially over the years[1].

1. https://m.timesofindia.com/business/india-business/62-increa...

Lol. Lets just say it thus; In the usa we have freedom of religion, but a minority of religions have a majority of special rights. The same is true for India.

If India is so secular why is there a tax law called Hindu Undivided Family or HUF, which Muslims cannot use to reduce their taxable income? How can a damn tax law be applicable on basis of religion?

If it is so secular then why does Indian Constitution term Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Hindu religion umbrella. Since when is it for the constitution to define religions?

If India is so secular than why does it ban beef, sacred animal only to Hindus?

If it is so secular then why does it welcome Hindu refugees from Pakistan and expels Muslim Rohingya refugees?

I'm not sure why you're avoiding talking about the role of Pakistan in creating the whole conflict in Kashmir. Pakistan invented out of the whole cloth an armed struggle aspect to the Kashmir situation.

It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.

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.

Hindus 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?

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.

So 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.

I 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.

Dismiss 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.

Why 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.

Because it is wastage of taxpayer money on religious purposes, and despite your propaganda Hindus get 10 times more share of the pilgrimage subsidies.

Ideally 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.

Haj 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.

Haj 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.

Aligarh has to abide by reservations and you're saying none of the minority institutions are touched?

AMU is a public central university. My argument is specifically about places of worship. Educational institutions are an entirely different discussion.

"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?

Rohingyas 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.

That 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.

Rohingya is in immediate neighbourhood, you don't have to circumnavigate the globe from Myanmar. India and Myanmar share a border.

I 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.

Maybe 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.

You know people can travel to different countries which are separated by mountains, oceans, deserts right? But those people won’t get citizenship unless the partition and Indian history part holds.

My family is Ahmedi. We left India in 1947. Pakistan stripped us of our right to vote in 1974-84. I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.

I am sorry, I forgot about that. It's not feasible though, at least in the present scenario. I wish it was different.

> I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.

Please don't snark on HN. It's against the site guidelines and degrades your serious point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Muslims also get Haj subsidy.

If India is so secular, why is polygamy allowed for Muslims, but not Hindus ?

Equal treatment does not mean same treatment.

A doctor treats both men & women equally, so he gives the woman estrogen and the man testosterone. Would you prefer it if the doctor gave everyone estrogen ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com