I think most people would consider saying if Muslims do not like something they could just leave a it of Hindu nationalism no ?

Actually Bipat on topic after topic when the evidence shows a lack of knowledge your only answer is (a) you live there (b) your family told you so. I wonder who shows more ignorance about India- at least on topics discussed ? By all means I would welcome any contrary evidence to some of the topics for which evidence was presented.

You seem unaware of common dictionary definitions for many words-ethnic, culture, invasion, occupied objective, factual, etc.And the new one you are struggling with Sovereign- someone writes that an Indian state isnt Sovereign and you immediately start going around in circles but will continue to say that a particular state is independent. The discussion would be a lot easier if (a) sometimes you looked up words you struggle with in the dictionary (b) prefaced comments by admitting you had no evidence but people have told you such and such.

EMR and I differ on many topics but my impression he isnt anti Hindu but anti Hindu extremists and their actions.I can understand if you disagree with his opinions ( and considering what seems a relatively peaceful domestic scene in India how serious is Hindu nationalism as a problem today would seem a valid question to ask EMR or yourself).

If I understand the prior post India has now appointed a high cow protection officer ? I guess for foreigner it is rather baffling reading this sort of thing especially considering the sheer poverty of millions and millions but I guess just part of the different priorities for Indians.

Bipat so now you want to defend the caste system ?​​

Yes Bipat you do not read posts- I pointed out clearly several negative aspects of British rue, and also even pointed out items that may have been that I have insufficient opinion to make even an educated guess, and also aspects which are based on hearsay. Then to read your posts where constantly you are writing things that one didnt say, or even remotely mean, is a bit frustrating. And if you read posts carefully you will also note on several occasions where you pointed out through logic or God forbid you presented actual evidence that I was wrong about something I had no problem saying yes I was wrong or poorly worded something.​​​​

And when someone brings up the caste system your instinct is to find something about Britain to mention- my family did suffer some indignities of the British class system but what that has to do with India's caste system is beyond me. And on top of that without British influence concerning civil rights and modern political systems , would India have ever on its own stood up for the lower castes ? ( I dont know the answer to that- just seems an ancient tradition so I am wondering before the British arrived was there an indigenous movement against the caste system ?)

The first attempts at reforms of the caste system was belatedly done by the British in the 1920s, this after 2000 years of it being a daily part of Hindhu life..
It would also be accurate to say that the British were able to exploit the caste system prior to these reforms by reserving certain roles in its administration for higher caste Hindus.
Divide and rule being a far more effective method of British governance than " invasion and occupation ".

EMR can you not see that "caste" means 'class'? It was the division into 'work' areas. Just like everywhere lower class were/are looked down on. The problem in India was that 'names' illustrated your class so it could be impossible to move out of it, however in modern times this is far less so.
As I keep pointing out the President of India is proud lower class.
Also there was no possibility of social reform as in Britain for example as the British were the political 'government'.
There are multiple 'castes' and many not only of the upper classes are proud of their caste/class ---they have clubs-meetings etc.
There was obviously discrimination and which still exists in many minds. Also 'reverse' class discrimination where those of a 'lower' group refuse to allow their daughters to marry a 'higher' class boy. Or even some parents object to marriage with any 'different 'class'.
This is universal behaviour pattern.

1) Morpeth you are so repetitive. I did not say "if Muslims did not like something they could leave it". You kept referring to Hyderabad/Telangana ------I said the Muslims there seem happy otherwise more would have left. People move from State to State all the time.

2) Morpeth YOU provide what YOU call evidence from the particular book or statistics you happen to have read. I provide evidence of those actually there-----NOT just family ------people who live/have lived and experienced what you read about!

3) Again your sarcasm! You use words out of context, or a particular word to describe different situations.
Obviously "sovereign" doesn't apply to individual States of a federation of States.

You had no idea of the system of State rule-----I was trying to explain it to you. Only certain aspects of law and tax are dealt with by Central Government.

Could you define what you mean by "Hindu nationalism".

4) "India" has not created a "cow protection officer". One State has appointed a Minister for cow welfare.

Morpeth if you saw daily the cruelty and neglect of cows perhaps you wouldn't ask this question. Many very poor keep or share a cow for milk but do not have the knowledge or means to care for it properly. Even euthanasia is not done when needed as it costs to get a vet.

Yes there is objection in many States at the slaughter of cows for meat-----as I said the same objections in the UK slaughter of horses for meat---Why is one preference wrong not the other???

Hardly a good advertisement for a religion and a society that believes in equality for all is it...
Once a cleaner of shit always a cleaner of shit., never let them cross my threshold or mary my daughter...
How many Brahmin caste marry Dalits., go to the same private schools, mix socially., share the same swimming pools, eat from the same plate.
Social mobility , advancement based on ability not caste or class as you term it is the sign of a modern society..
2000 years to get where India is today, with the first advances made during the period of British rule, Don,t you agree it has taken too long.

EMR can you not see it is no different from the UK class system? Christians distinguished between those allowed in the front pews of the church!!!
How many nobility in any country marry their servants?

You seem to describe Indian class systems as being unchanging over the centuries-----they are not.
As I said the names indicate 'work' origins. Which leads to discrimination by those of that mind.

Inter-class marriage happens in India particularly since the number of girls in colleges increased. (I can't give figures).
Of course anyone can go to a private school if they have the money and anyone can swim in a pool. Use any restaurant.

Social mix is a different matter as even within the same class many Indian people tend to be restrictive.
Hindus do not tend to eat from the same plate regardless of 'class'.

EMR how much social mixing in the UK was there before WW2---- This war tended to bring people together more, along with growth of socialist politics.

​​​​I think you are confusing real life in the UK with episodes of Downton Abbey.
When others suggest as you have in this post that India has a long way to go before it achieves the social mobility. equality, respect for the law and others religion and practices seen elsewhere you usually accuse us of being ignorant etc.
Nice to see that you are now demonstrating the same levels of " ignorance"..

Not quite sure what you are saying!

EMR are you really saying that in Western countries including UK there is equality, respect for the law and others religions?
Suggest you put that question on TIO!

​​​​​​
I don't recall anyone being murdered for eating meat, mass riots and killings, over plans to demolish a place of worship and replace it with another, attacks for wearing the wrong shoes, using the wrong well, swimming pool, riding a horse at a wedding...
Its not that I am shocked or surprised at such events but your objection to them being discussed or that they even exist.

EMR, I have frequently said that in a population of a billion+ any atrocity can happen. Murder happens for a variety of reasons.
Why do you want to particularly to discuss Indian crime?

I don't recall major gun crime, school children stabbing each other, FGM, in India.
What is your point in these posts EMR??

​​​​​​
Killings based on religion or social status are not crimes but a reflection of deeper problems in a society
FGM does exist in India, sadly it does.
Would you call an attack by a Muslim in the names of their religion a "crime".
​​​​​​Eq uate it to a mugging or street crime.
​​​​
That actions by a Muslim extremist are no different to the actions of some in India., they are just as reprehensible
Once you admit that then this discussion can end.

EMR ---what a strange view you have! You think some killings are not crimes?????
Murder is a crime regardless of the motive. The sentence is the same.
Yes you are correct there is a small amount of FGM in India by small Muslim groups.

Its you comparing killings on religious or the practices of others as being just a crime and not signs of a deeper problem that suggests you have a different moral compass to normal people.
Would you classify terrorism a just a crime then.
Shooting innocent demonstrators as just a crime.
The gang rape of Little children from a different religious or ethnic group as just a crime.

EMR obviously an act which causes multiple deaths is more serious.
Rape and or cruelty to a child before killing is difficult to even think about. (The torture and murder of little Daniel Pelka is a crime I find difficult to forget).
These atrocities happen in wars and peacetime and can happen in many countries.
What do you mean by Just a crime?

EMR what is your purpose in these posts?