Live data from Hacker News

India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

bbc.co.uk

361–370 of 440 posts

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#361
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP labeled RSS as terrorists for its members atrocities. Seems you are agreeing with him. So tell me. Are you consistent with your labeling? Are you labeling a religion as terrorist because of some of its people?

[flagged]

I did not event bait you. I was replying to OP and you inserted yourself.

You got yourself tangled because you could not honestly answer the question. Since you became aware you are not consistent.

See OP mentioned RSS as Religious terrorists because of its members. So to the logical conclusion Hindus are terrorists because of its has organizations like RSS/Guj riots involved in it. So you just called a million Hindus terrorists. Anyway whatever makes you happy.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#362
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I did not event bait you. I was replying to OP and you inserted yourself. You got yourself tangled because you could not honestly answer the question. Since you became aware you are not consistent. See OP mentioned RSS as Religious terrorists because of its members. So to the logical conclusion Hindus are terrorists because of its has organizations like RSS/Guj riots involved in it. So you just called a million Hindu…

> So you just called a million Hindus terrorists.

Yeah keep spreading lies if it helps. It really shows you and those that you support in revealing light.

This is very good because these chats and their logic is public and for all to see and make their own judgements. Thanks for making my job easier.

Pray enlighten me where I have been inconsistent without shoving your words on my mouth, and where I have called a million Hindus a terrorist.

You remind me of Sambit Patra the BJP spokesperson who was asked about the number of zeros that are in trillion when he was going on and on about Indias trillion rupees economy. All this Patra could respond with is invective that the person who asked the question should go and ask Rahul Gandhi -- a cheap rhetorical device used to clutch at straws when one does not have substance to offer.

I rest my case

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#363
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean this is utterly condescending and racist. There is nothing racist about the international community raising concerns about violations of basic democratic rights such as free speech and right of assembly. > I think anytime anything happens to some minority in the the Great USA, us Indians also need to call our MP and ask them to create noise. I would support Indians doing this. Please raise concerns with your…

[flagged]

> India has taken in Rohingya refugees just like Tibetan …

Since we are talking about this government could you point me to stats on Rohingya's given asylum in India. How many has been given asylum ? I presume you were speaking from a position of knowledge. On lack of a response I will update my assumptions about your good faith.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#364
post #149

> protected India's farmers from the free market What does this line mean in the article? The author is highly biased against free markets.

India does not have free market in Agriculture. The sector itself is extremely subsidised. No political party has the capability nor will to touch those provisions.

The current farm laws are teeny tiny step towards that. The current ruling party would oppose them had they been introduced by previous Government.

As with every thread on India here, There are a ton of people who feel strongly about things, Including some Canadian citizens :)

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The Act only codifies into law commitments the Indian Government made when India split into India and Pakistan. (Disclaimer: not an expert) As far as I understand it, the specific thing that is problematic is that the rule discriminates by religion. The original agreement did not, and even if it did, why would you want to take a policy enacted half a century ago and implement it unchanged without revising it to be…

To explain why the ACA was needed you first need to understand some history and facts on the ground.

Pre 1947, India was all of modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Afghanistan. When the country was partitioned, it was partitioned into Pakistan (modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh) which was set up as an explicitly Muslim nation with a state religion and an explicitly secular India which welcomed all religions. There was a massive migration of people which was extremely violent. It would not be exaggeration to call it a holocaust. Neighbors joined mobs and killed neighbors of the wrong religion, entire trains were burned. There was plenty of violence on both sides of the new border. As this violence was stopped, Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah made an appeal to people to stop leaving because the more people that left and hence abandoned businesses and jobs, the more the economy was hurt. As part of this appeal a promise was made that any Muslim who wanted to migrate to Pakistan at a later date would be permitted to do so and be treated as if he or she had migrated at that time and any non-Muslim who wanted to migrate to India would be treated the same in India. The promise was further voted on and approved by a precursor to the constituent assembly of India which setup the constitution.

As it turns out, at the end of the day, virtually all non-Muslims who lived in modern Pakistan left for India. Lahore, a city in modern Pakistan was 50% Hindu, 20% Sikh in 1945. Today it's 99% Muslim. In contrast more Muslims live in India today than in Pakistan. What this means in practice is that the non-Muslims who chose to remain in Pakistan were the ones who were relatively wealthy and/or powerful and often individuals with large businesses who decided not to leave due to a combination of wanting to protect their assets and a reliance on the promises made in case things change. As the years went on, many of these individuals wanted to get the hell out of Pakistan so they liquidated their property and came to India, often with large amounts of liquid assets. Now, if you are an enterprising, corrupt immigration official, they were great targets and they would often end up having to pay material percentages of their assets as bribes. These individuals have a further problem. Unlike Muslim refugees from Pakistan, when they left Pakistan, their Pakistani citizenship would be revoked so they were stateless and desperate. The ACA was primarily designed to solve this problem.

India has taken in and continues to take in plenty of Muslim refugees, far more than the US or the EU takes in. There is a recognition that the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India are to this date discriminated against in Pakistan as Mojahirs, entire sects of Islam like the Ahmadis, who choose not to ascribe to the harsh interpretation of Islam are classified as non-Muslim and then have to deal with frankly ridiculous treatment. However, when these refugees come to India, they are typically destitute. So there is no incentive to bother them to try and get them to cough up bribes. As a result there was no problem to solve.

Could something different have been done? Sure. But legislatures are sausage factories. The government needed to ensure that it had the votes for legislation that made it easier to immigrate from a country which has sent terrorists to India and taken over a major city and killed hundreds of people there and attacked parliament. And this legislation solved the actual problem and got passed. You can't let the perfect, particularly when the so called perfection is mostly cosmetic, be the enemy of the good.

Again, any refugee from anywhere in the world, of any religion can seek asylum in India. It's fairly straightforward to be allowed to live and work in India, far easier than anywhere in the West, no matter your religion or background. Refugees can get Indian citizenship by following a series of steps, typically in 12-14 years. The ACA does not change any of this. The ACA simply gives affect to the promise made in 1947 which was also voted on by the constituent assembly and is hence binding on Parliament that non Muslims who did not emigrate at that time from certain areas would be treated as if they had emigrated at that time if they emigrated at a later date. It creates a process by which these individuals, who still have to go through the same security checks etc as any other refugee from Pakistan can get citizenship in 5 years. Rather than getting permanent residence in 5 years, while still being stateless, they are granted Indian citizenship.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#366
post #95
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, complete propaganda by the Indian govt. I have family there so I can confirm. The Indian media is completely sold out to the govt and will only present highly selected and curated pictures. Social media is where they can't control the narrative. The Indian govt unleash sate sanctioned mobs on these protestors, desperate resort to break up the protest. Now they had to ensure that the truth stays under wraps. Hen…

"The Indian media is completely sold out to the govt and will only present highly selected and curated pictures." Sounds familiar...

It may sound similar to how china or russia control media, or how trump supporters think the liberal media is controlled.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#367

HN seems to be promoting only anti-India narratives these days. One of the outrageous comments is asking US persons to get involved in this. This is a direct attack on the sovereignty of India. Anyone questioning this line of thinking is getting flagged. The general consensus seems to be that the Western powers are paragons of justice who can dictate what other countries (note that India is a democracy. Most of these…

> HN is now nothing more than an echo chamber that seems to promote only one kind of narrative

Yeah the correct and the logically sound kind :) For everything else there are government cosy media channels

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I looked at the comments by green accounts, and most are actually anti Indian government, rather than pro Indian government.

It's a normal discourse in an active democracy. Sometimes people power dominates, sometimes the government in power gets its way.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they? If they had done basic research, they wouldn't even have come up something as asinine as this. Fact: women contribute to farm work as much as men in Punjab: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/in-punjab-women-take-c... . So women are a part of the protest because they are also affected by this. Why even bring this up at all? > We are talking about areas around Delhi where women and children have mu…

There's no need for personal attacks. You have conviniently ignored the link I shared that indicates coercion. While it's great that women actively participate in events in Punjab, a quick glance at the difference between male and female litery rates shows there's some distance to cover. Being better than UP and Bihar isn't exactly an achievement. My comment didn't even specially talk about Punjab. The protests also…

I could have done better at the personal attacks but it's hard to tow the line when genuine grievances of peacefully protesting farmers are ignored for months and one negative attack is suddenly all that is talked about. That to me indicates malice and I cannot respond in good faith when that is done.

> a quick glance at the difference between male and female litery rates shows there's some distance to cover.

How is that relevant? You are pulling at straws here. Women work in the fields along with men. Anti-farmer laws affect both men and women, young and old. Supreme Court of India brings it up as if it matters, when it doesn't and clearly ignore the demographics at play, hinting at something without saying it. The literacy rate needs to be worked on but that's not the concern here.

How many people can you coerce to attend protests? Hundreds, probably at most. Not thousands. Some of the people have been protesting in frigid temperatures for months. Do you mean to say they are all paid? That doesn't even make sense and is logistically infeasible.

The Supreme Court allows seems to consider freedom of expression differently though, when it comes to granting bails to journalists in favour of the government versus cartoons that suggest contempt of court.

So no, I don't trust them to make the right call. Farmers should continue peacefully protesting, as is their fundamental right.

Notice in all this, you haven't said anything about: the right of farmers to protest and what they are protesting about.

Re: India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi

#370
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not event bait you. I was replying to OP and you inserted yourself. You got yourself tangled because you could not honestly answer the question. Since you became aware you are not consistent. See OP mentioned RSS as Religious terrorists because of its members. So to the logical conclusion Hindus are terrorists because of its has organizations like RSS/Guj riots involved in it. So you just called a million Hindu…

> So you just called a million Hindus terrorists. Yeah keep spreading lies if it helps. It really shows you and those that you support in revealing light. This is very good because these chats and their logic is public and for all to see and make their own judgements. Thanks for making my job easier. Pray enlighten me where I have been inconsistent without shoving your words on my mouth, and where I have called a mil…

This is very good because these chats and their logic is public and for all to see and make their own judgements. Thanks for making my job easier. - that goes either way. All can see that you are trying to diverge the conversation instead of answering.

You refusal to answer the question indicates that you agree with it. Else its a simple answer.

Let me ask myself that question. Do you consider a group of people a terrorists simply because some members indulge in it. NO I DO NOT.

That's it man. No grand conspiracy. No name calling nothing. Why not a simple answer. All are inherently biased. But that should not deter us in calling out inconsistently.

Post reply on HN