W(h)ither BJP?

Re: # 79
Ahmedis in India are more fanatical Muslims than even DeoBandis or Meerut.
They must find it strange to be at receiving end now.

Chowk Staff - Why hasn`t Saminasha been banned permanently?

This is what she posted in her own ``WTF`` thread:


#97 by Saminasha on September 30, 2005 9:38am PT
Stuka,

Fuck you. Seriously. Make all your references than act like it was out of innocence

Stuka #71: ``Romair: You have repeatedly stated that the BJP stands for a ``Hindu India``, the implication being that Muslims are not Indians. ``

I have never once stated this. Once again, I will ask you the same question. Kindly point out where I have stated this....Or kindly do not put words in my mouth........

What I have stated is that BJP practices religious communalism. And to me, that makes it a non-secular party (though in various other inviduals` opinions, it still remains secular). However, where in the world did I say that BJP does not consider Muslims to be Indians?

So please point it out, and I will accept it......Otherwise, please accept that you are misquoting......

Re: #80 by Myself

Sorry for the typing error.

The full sentence was:

The American Government admitted that it`s denial of visa to Modi was based on THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT`S OWN COMMISSION`s REPORT WHICH INVESTIGATED THE GUJRAT INCIDENT.

Re: #64 by dost-mittar


[Arrey yaar, who is asking you to take me seriously? By all means don`t if it makes you feel better. If Modi`s being declared an unwelcome person in Europe and America does not make him suspect in your eyes, none of his speeches will. I don`t think that he is so stupid as to have publicly called for the killing and rape of muslims.]


This is incredibly shallow. And yes, henceforth I won`t take you seriously.
ON THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT``S OWN COMMISSION WHICH INVESTIGATED THE GUJRAT INCIDENT. The Indian Administration which was then being run by such luminaries as Laloo and the Rajiv Gandhi`s Italian wife.



[As for Farzana Versey, she has responded to charges of treason before and can do so again, if she likes. All I would say to you is to distinguish between anti-establishment and anti-national. ]

You are also pretty slippery, like many others on this site. But you won`t slip by where I am concerned. I WAS NOT DEBATING WITH YOU WHETHER SHE IS ANTI-NATIONAL. My point a) was that EVEN IF SHE IS NOT ANTI-NATIONAL, just because she lives in India does not make her more of an Indian.

But you skillfully avoided that argument.



[You can click on the following url to see who I would have voted for in the last election, btw my predictions made there have mostly come true:http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003195&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1]

I did click, and came up with this gem:

``These changes are meant to demonise Muslim Indians and paint them as unpatriotic and disloyal to the country.``


As usual, no proof. Only your FEELINGS that they are out to demonize Muslims.


I think you fancy yourself as a level-headed kind of bloke - even-keeled, fair to both sides.

But you are not, I`m afraid. Your approach is more emotional than reasoned. This leads me to suspect (although it doesn`t have to be true) that you have some kind of Muslim influence in your life - either a family member, or a very close friend.

In any case, even if this is not true, you are definitely not a reasonable person. Because that word has ``reason`` in it, and requires some reasoning.

Re: # 78

Satyamvada,

You are so right.

I feel no sadness when these Ahmadis are getting rammed in Pakistan.
They wanted Pakistan, and were only gleeful when Sikhs and Hindus were getting
butchered and exterminated in Pakistan and did nothing.
Nobody is going to come to Ahmadi`s help.

Next is Ismaili`s turn and then Shias and then Barelvis and so forth.

Same thing with these Sindhi Muslims. They would rather live with UP and Bihari muslims
than Sindhi Hindus who had lived there for centuries.

It is their time to feel the pain that Hindus and Sikhs had to go through because of
their hate.

Dont believe all the claims and opinions of liars like YLH ( who quotes
from the paki Ayesha Jalal - her dissertation advisor was a commie Indian)
Look at the original works/docs yourself,
Just take a look at the demands that Jinnah and the muslim league made, see
if it was feasible to accept those demands and still have a democratic united country.

Whatever his faults. Nehru (and Patel and others in the Congress) made the
right decision in agreeing to the Partition, otherwise, India would have been
completely balkanised by now.

Kaalchakra wrote:i The country was once divided and millions were forced to flee their homes and butchered over fears of such things as Ram Rajya and Vande Mataram.

This is absolute nonsense. Kaalchakra you need to learn to read the urdu media
of both pakistan and india to understand the mentality of the groups involved.
What is said in english is different than what is said in urdu. Note even Mushy does
the same - he says onething in English to the world media and then alludes to
hudaibiya in his urdu speeches at home.

India was divided because a group of people wanted a dar-ul-islam.
The Jinnah faction of the group wanted to take as much as possible at one stroke, create a
strong dar-ul-islam and then attack the weak dar-ul-harb India.
Another faction in the group (like Maulana Azad and other mullahs - now the mma in
pakiland) wanted to stay within the dar-ul-Harb and convert it from within. The education system in India is so sanitised that all this is not taught.
Jinnah and his faction had a lot of Ahmedis in it. That is why YLH and his ilk take
recourse to Jinnah`s lone speech. The Ahmedis thought that they could get more
powerful by creating pakiland, it so happened that the mullahs also migrated to
pakiland and made it pure dar-ul-islam as desired.
So the world indeed got a pure paradise.

India and Hindus/Sikhs in particular were saved because of partition (not withstanding the whacko claims about akhand-bharat).

Indians need to be extremely careful about the words they use, and the meanings they assign to words and phrases. The country was once divided and millions were forced to flee their homes and butchered over fears of such things as Ram Rajya and Vande Mataram.

stuka#69:

I did not make the statement that you quoted.

#65 by jang on September 29, 2005 7:26am PT


in other words, commies are grouped with prostitutes and pimps.


That`s just plain silly...hookers don`t get paid on the basis of seniority...It`s a very capitalistic enterprise....

BJP philosophy

http://www.bjp.org/philo.htm

#68 go to item 30 a, b, c, ...

http://foia.state.gov/FORMS/visa/ds0230.pdf

``Everything I quote about BJP is based on what is on their own website. ``

Romair: You have repeatedly stated that the BJP stands for a ``Hindu India``, the implication being that Muslims are not Indians. I have searched high and low on the BJP site and have not founfd the BJP asking for Hindu Rashtra.

Okay, u clarify and tell me what the BJP stands for in your opinion?

Stuka #69: ``You seem to be borrowing from Romair`s speech. When has the BJP declared Muslims to be non Indians.``

Could you point out exactly where I stated that BJP had declared Muslims to be non-Indians. Everything I quote about BJP is based on what is on their own website. However, if you can point it out, I will accept it. If you cannot point it out, then could I know your motivations for mentioning my name?

````They have to firmly declare to fight the Wahaabis in Muslims but SIMULTANEOUSLY they have to acknowledge a Muslim to be Indian.``
``

Dost Mittar

You seem to be borrowing from Romair`s speech. When has the BJP declared Muslims to be non Indians.

The BJP is considered communal because of two things:

Uniform Civil Code and Article 370.

What is so communal about having the same laws regardless of religion? It is in fact the opposite of Communal. Also, why the hell is every mainstyream political party so much for Article 370? What do Indian Muslims have to do with Kashmir if they themselves live in Ahemedabad or Patna?

If anything, IF Muslims in rest of Iindia support Article 370 (and that is a BIG IF as I have seen no proof that it is the case) then it proves Muslim communalism and nothing else. The removal of the article would be of benefir to all Indians outside Kashmir, regardless of religion. If Muslims would rather support traitor Kashmiri Muslims then look for their own benefit, it is the ultimate proof of communal thinking on their part.