6) Show one Muslim country, which has a Non-Muslim as its President or Prime Minister. Show one Hindu country that has a Muslim as President or Prime Minister. Remember, there is only one Hindu nation and that is Nepal. India is not a Hindu nation.
7) Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has declared a 'fatwa' against terrorists. Show one Hindu Shankaracharya or Sadhu who has given a fatwa against the Hindu terrorists? Mind you Hindu terrorists are LTTE, Bajarang Dal (Dara Singh, Munna Bajarangi etc), Naxalites. There is no Muslim in LTTE, Bajarang Dal, Naxalites & Khalistanis.
Do not tell a lie that Hindus do not have the custom of Fatwa. Sadhu Vedanti has issued a fatwa against Mr Karunanidhi.
8) Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry , etc. have in the past elected Muslims as CM's, Can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of Muslim - majority J&K?
J&K has Muslim majority. Still it had a Hindu King! But that rascal refused to merge with India. Muslim Shaikh Abdulla was demanding merger with India & the Hindu king was not willing. With that experience, why should Kashmiris have a Hindu CM? For gaddari?
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Sagar Tanksali on Oct 06, 2007 09:48 PM Permalink
This is a case of misleading statistics. Yes, statistically 100% of hindu countries (the plural is intentional) have hindu rulers (ignoring the recent developments). On the other hand, 100% of muslim countries have muslim rulers. However, the number of muslim countries is much higher than the number of hindu countries (a paltry 1 - and that too in the past!). India, which has the world's largest concentration of hindus (technically secular) has regularly had muslim / sikh / christian presidents and prime ministers. Now, compare that with the other two secular countires in the world (I just cannot bring myself to compare this great country with the tinpot regimes in the muslim world). US has never had a single non-christian, non-white, non-male president / VP / director CIA (to boot). In fact, except JFK, US never even had a catholic as president either. Turkey, the third secular country in the world actually fares better. Although all its heads of state have been muslim, it did have a woman prime minister in Tansu Ciller. So, on this evidence, India is the most tolerant nation in the world! I saw somewhere "3.5% of hindus are intolerant". Without going into accuracy of this assertion, I'd like to say that as against that, by the same token, more than 15% of muslims, more than 30% of christians must be intolerant bigots. Though what worries me most is, there is a new breed of hardcore extremists emerging these days; they go under the sobriquet "the secular fundamentalist"
Very candid! I am against comparing India with Pakistan or Saudi essentially because I do not consider them as good models, worth comparing with ours. We should look up to better systems & not compare ourselves with god forbidden silly systems.
USA never had a non-Christian, non-female President. Let me proudly declare that we Indians are politically more matured than the US!
Every religon has a percentage of bigots. They are in Hindus, Muslims, Christian & so on. And bigots must be called as bigots! That is the real test of secular society.
Criticising bigots of another religion & shutting your mouth on bigots of own religion is hipocricy.
It is better to be a secular fundamentalist (if there exists any) than to be a religious fundamentalist!
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by V H on Oct 06, 2007 11:20 PM Permalink
Secular fundamentalists.. exists in the form of Marxism, that is responsible for more than 100 million deaths around the world. Its been in action in the form of naxalites in india. hmmm common sense and logic is missed by most indians
You look like an Indian! I am not here for defending Marxists. But please count how many people were killed by Hindus, Muslims & Christians in the name of religion before pointing finger to Marxists.
RE:RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by V H on Oct 07, 2007 03:52 AM Permalink
You are the smart ass, tell us all how many.. Hindus at the most would have killed few thousands. How many died under muslim rule and the partition could be easily in millions Christian rule may be millions(portugue inquistion)
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by cooldude on Oct 06, 2007 09:48 PM Permalink
the tone used by mr.Prabhanjan Butshikan in his posts somehow give me a feeling that he is a muslim using a hindu name on this board. this statement clearly proves this:
"J&K has Muslim majority. Still it had a Hindu King! But that rascal refused to merge with India. Muslim Shaikh Abdulla was demanding merger with India & the Hindu king was not willing. With that experience, why should Kashmiris have a Hindu CM? For gaddari?"
anyways, i dont care about who he is, but, all his opinions are biased towards the muslims. you need to grow up in a muslim dominated city to know what the muslims are upto. i am from hyderabad and i know what happens there in reality.
for any citizen, it should be country first, then state or city and then religion. but, in the case of muslims, its always religion(qaum) first, mohalla next and country comes in the very end of the chain.
vedanti is a one off sadhu who issued a fatwa. otherwise, have u ever heard of any other sadhu or someone issuing a fatwa ever before? on the other hand, we can see every other mullah or muslim leader issuing some fatwa or the other against someone or the other every other day. the tragedy is no one ever questions these fatwas.
some mullah sitting in calcutta issues a fatwa against tasleema nasreen. what did our so called "SECULAR GOVERNMENTS" in west bengal and the center do? any actions?
You think you can smell somebody's religion. Good idea, but your nose is faulty. You get wrong smells & incorrect inferences.
You think for any citizen country comes first & then religion (Muslims are an exception according to you). Go back to history & you will get a long list of traitors who sold the country for paltry sums. They were all Hindus. Remember the battles we lost, invariably some Hindu took money & turned away from battle field. It was Hindus who invited Gazanis & Ghories to attack on this land!
Integrity & national pride are not gifts monopolized by a community. Traitors are in every society. Everybodies shit stinks. If you believe that Hindu shit doen't, then your god save you!
If govts are hesitating to act against Mullhas declaring fatwas against Taslima Nasreen, please kick on there asses! But remember, when the Jat-panchayants of Hindus pass on capital punishments on young boys & girls for inter-caste marriage, tell your govts to stop those fatwas too!
RE:RE:RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by V H on Oct 06, 2007 11:23 PM Permalink
Yes hindus sold this nation for paltry sum in the past.. fast forward to future.. hindus still continue to do it today by handing over everything to a white lady who has slightest idea about anything. And that party of Hindus is called Congress... to which you attach your affiniity with
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Prabhanjan Butshikan on Oct 06, 2007 11:32 PM Permalink
No bigger nonsense than this! Not even Congress enemies will call it a party of Hindus. You know better which is the party of Hindus. Bother about them.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by V H on Oct 07, 2007 03:55 AM Permalink
Nonsense? If Congress is not filled with Hindus, who apparently are the majority in India, what does it say about state of Hindus in a democracy? Where does your equal repsenstation login go? You talk with twisted tongue
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Prabhanjan Butshikan on Oct 06, 2007 09:02 PM Permalink
Accepted. Its a recent development. But Hindu Nepal did not have any Muslim PM. Thats the point.
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Swaran Singh on Oct 06, 2007 09:07 PM Permalink
6.Nepal is a nation of Hindus so is India and if you keep on provoking them, Very soon you will see the results a Hindu Rashtra. You take their democratic difference of opinion as lack of their unity but it is not true. 7. Vedanti is an Isolated case of stupidity. And DAra Singh a bloody barbarian. I appeal to the Parliament of India to amend the retribution and put him in front of a firing squad. Millions of Indians will join to shoot him and avenge the murder of Timothy and Mathew. 8. Hari singh was attacked by Pakistan which Indian forces stopped at LOC but Sheikh Abdullah never wanted to Join India. He wanted to be PM of Kashmir a separate country so Nehru put him behind bars and installed Bakshi Gulam Muhammed. And Mind it frontiers of India are the frontiers of Kashmir......Not an inch will be given away. Come whosoever we have to develop strength of mind to face these bloody terrorists. Lahu mangti hai zameen e watan....
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Prabhanjan Butshikan on Oct 06, 2007 09:26 PM Permalink
We know how strong was Nepal as a Hindu Rashtra. If India becomes a Hindu Rashtra, it will be as strong as Nepal. But I bet India is not destined to be a Hindu Rastra. We will not allow it to happen!
RE:Answers to Rajendra - continued1
by Swaran Singh on Oct 06, 2007 09:43 PM Permalink
Prabhanjan Sir, Who we? You and many more. Dont underestimate Hindus. I am least inclined to make a Hindu Rashtra but it is not Impossible. Terrorists, Congress Party, Karuna nidhi and Mulayam Singh and any desparate upcoming politicians can make India a Hindu Rashtra. As far as Nepal is concerned, It is developing in terms of military power and Economy. Dont underestimate them. Nepalis are the warriors and the strength of a nation lies in the dignity and minds of its subjects.
