Friday, January 26, 2024

Indian Muslims: The Poorest Group in Modi's Hindu Rashtra

Muslims are the poorest group in India. They will most likely face further marginalization after the recent inauguration of the Ram Temple built on the ruins of the historic Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The medieval mosque was demolished by right-wing Hindu groups in 1992. While consolidating the power of the upper caste Hindus in India, the newly built Ram Temple, inaugurated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, will also not benefit the vast majority of Hindus either. It will, however, help Mr. Modi's BJP party win the upcoming election by a wide margin. 

Average Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure in India. Source: Hindustan Times

Analysis of 2021-22 data from AIDIS (All India Debt and Investment Survey) and PLFS (Periodic Labor Force Survey) shows that Indian Muslims have the lowest asset and consumption levels among major religious groups in the country. Even upper caste Muslims (Ashrafs) are poorer than Hindu OBCs (Other Backward Castes). 

Average MPCE (Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure) for Muslims is only Rs. 2,170, lower than Rs. 2,470 for Hindus, Rs. 3,194 for Christians and Rs. 3,620 for Sikhs.  Average MPCE for upper caste Hindus is Rs. 3,321, the highest of all groups. 

Average Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure by Caste in India. Source: Hindustan Times

The economic inequality is the lowest among Muslims, far lower than among various Hindu castes. Average MPCE for lower caste Muslims is Rs. 2,164 while it is Rs. 2,180 for upper caste Muslims (Ashrafs). Inequality among Hindu castes is the highest. Lower caste Hindus average MPCE is only Rs. 2,095, far lower than Rs. 3,321 for upper caste Hindus. 

India is almost totally dominated by the upper caste Hindus. It is not just the 220 million Dalits (untouchables), or the 190 million Muslims, or the 110 million from “scheduled tribes” (Adivasis)  who are under-represented in positions of power and privilege, but also the 40-50% of Hindus who come from the widest tier of the pyramid, the shudras or laboring castes, known as Other Backwards Classes (OBCs), according to a report in The Economist Magazine. Here's an excerpt from The Economist:

"Out of the 89 highest-ranked civil servants in the central government, according to a recent survey, just four are not upper-caste Hindus, and not one is an obc. Two-thirds of the Supreme Court’s 31 judges and more than half of all state governors are high-caste Hindus. When the home ministry recently formed a panel to revise the criminal code, its five experts were all men, all from north India and all from upper castes. The trend is just as stark outside of government. A study published last year of the mainstream Hindi and English press revealed that out of 121 people in senior jobs, such as editors, all but 15 were upper caste. Not a single one was a Dalit."

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

South Asian Contrasts: Ayodhya and Kartarpur

India Ranked as Most Racist in the World

Indians Admire Israel and Hitler

Caste Apartheid in India

Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India

Who Killed Karkare?

Procrastinating on Hindutva Terror

India's Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs

Hindutva Government in Israeli Exile?

Growing US-India Military Ties Worry Pakistan

The 21st Century Challenges For Resurgent India

Riaz Haq's YouTube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network

13 comments:

Vineeth said...

I haven't lived that much outside my home state (Kerala), so I do not know firsthand how bad the situation of Muslim community is in comparison to that of Hindu castes in the north. Aside from its high literacy (almost 100%) and relatively high socio-economic and human development indicators, Kerala is also a religiously diverse state with Muslims constituting 25% of the population, Christians another 20% with Hindus being the rest 55%. Unlike northern India or even neighbouring Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Kerala hasn't faced Muslim invasions and has never been ruled by Muslim dynasties. (The only exception to this was a short-lived invasion of northern Kerala by the Mysore rulers Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan.) Both Islam and Christianity first arrived in these parts a millenia ago via traders from the Middle East, and not through Muslim invasions or colonial Europeans as in the north. Due to this long history of coexistence without sectarian or religious conflicts, the relations between Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities here have been very amicable. There are no takers for a "Two nation" (or "Three nation") theory here. All three communities consider themselves first and foremost to be ethnically the same people - Malayalis (or Keralites) who speak the same language (Malayalam) and share essentially the same culture (aside from differences in faith). And for this reason, BJP's Hindutva narrative have so far failed to garner much support here even among Hindus, and so is the case of Islamist ideologies among Muslims.

By the looks of it, it seems to be a different story in the northern states. Perhaps the growth of militant Hindutva ideology is largely to blame for this as relations between the two communities hasn't been this bad not too long ago, although there seems to have been some undercurrent of resentment against Muslims on account of certain past events - like the widespread destruction of historic temples under some (but not all) Muslim rulers, as well as the wounds of partition. With such a history and the presence of two religious or ethnic groups living in close proximity, there are bound to be some tensions, but under the decades of rule by Congress and other like-minded parties, an idea of secular nationalism managed to keep a lid on such tensions.

That said, I can't help but wonder if things would have come to pass this way for India's Muslims had there been no partition. At that time of Jinnah, Muslims constituted around 25% of undivided India's population - a large minority. But the fertility rate of Muslims was higher than Hindus, with the result that if we add up populations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh today, Muslims would constitute almost 35% of the population, with populous provinces like undivided Punjab and undivided Bengal being Muslim-majority. Would Muslims of undivided India (or "Akhand Bharat" in Sangh parivar terminology) have suffered persecution with such numbers? The Hindutva movement would have struggled to get the brute electoral majority to push their agenda as their numbers would have been offset by large numbers of Muslim MPs from Punjab, Bengal and Sindh (not to mention MPs from secular parties and those from southern states where BJP's hold is weak to non-existent). In fact, the prospect of "Akhand Bharat" should be a greater terror for Sangh parivar than it would be for the subcontinent's Muslims.

But I guess it is pointless to wonder "what could have been" over this since partititon seems to be an irreversible reality that we need to live with.

By the way, are there any reasons to suppose that the tiny minority of Hindus in Pakistan is doing any better than their Muslim counterparts in India? The reports I read in DAWN about the marginalization of that community and the abductions and forced conversions of Hindu minor girls gives me an impression that they are not.

Vineeth said...

To add to my previous comment, it does not mean everything is well with Kerala's Muslim community as well. Though they may be more secure and affluent than their counterparts in other states, Kerala's Muslims still trail the state's other two religious communities when it comes to social development indices. For example, the fertility rate among Muslims here is significantly higher than both Hindus and Christians. There seems to be greater conservatism among the Muslim community on such issues as women's rights and participation in jobs. The smaller Christian community tends to be the leader in nearly all of these social indices, and the fact that Catholic church runs a large portion of educational institutions and hospitals here also helps. (Though ours is a Hindu family, both my brother and sister studied at schools run by Christian missionaries, as is the case with many Muslim families here as well.)

Also, when I worked at the office of an Indian IT major in Kochi (Kerala), I happened to notice that Malayali Christian women often outnumbered their Hindu counterparts across all teams while Muslim women were quite rare. I do not know about the exact reasons for this, or if this trend is restricted to the IT sector alone. Perhaps Muslim community does not like the perception of a "liberal" intermingling of genders in this industry and therefore does not prefer to see their daughters working in the sector, or it may be that their girls are married off immediately after graduation and do not work afterwards.

I have also noticed a growing trend towards religious conservatism among Muslims here especially in the last two decades. Muslim women traditionally only wore a loose shawl or dupatta to cover their heads earlier and veils like hijab and the niqab were almost non-existent until a couple of decades ago, but now such Arab attire is increasingly becoming common sight. I suspect that there has been a steady infusion of Wahhabi influences during the last couple of decades since many Keralite Muslims work in the Gulf nations, especially Saudi Arabia. (But now that the Saudis themselves are liberalizing their society, perhaps the trend towards conservatism among Muslims here would be reversed too.) There have also been an incident where members of a local Islamist group hacked off the palms of a Christian college lecturer on an accusation that he belittled or insulted Prophet Muhammad, and another infamous case where a group of Hindus and Christians (both men and women) converted by a radical Islamist preacher ran off to fight for the Islamic state in Syria and Afghanistan. Such incidents have given rise to a fear that though Hindutva may have failed to gain a foothold among the state's Hindus, Islamist radicalization has started to spread its tentacles among its Muslims.

To sum up, from Kerala's example I have reasons to suspect that an innate conservatism among Muslims may also be an additional factor in their relative social and economic backwardness. The question of women's rights and participation in job sectors is especially relevant here as societies generally tend to progress in proportion to the education, rights and independence of their womenfolk.

Riaz Haq said...

‘Too much poison’: Attacks on Indian Muslims grow after Ram temple ceremony | Islamophobia | Al Jazeera

As India marks Republic Day, many fear the dawn of a new nation where minorities are made to feel like ‘rubbish’.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/26/too-much-poison-attacks-on-indian-muslims-grow-after-ram-temple-ceremony


Mumbai, India – Driving through the Mira Road neighbourhood of Mumbai was a usual affair for 21-year-old Mohammad Tariq, who ran errands on his father’s white loading auto carrier.

But on Tuesday, participants in a Hindu nationalist rally stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road. Young boys – mostly teenagers – dragged him out. They punched and kicked him and thrashed him with batons, flag staffs and iron chains, his 54-year-old father, Abdul Haque told Al Jazeera. Since then, Haque said, “[Tariq] has been terrified.”



The rally, which was shared over multiple live streams, turned into a mob, targeting several Muslims in the locality, rampaging through their shops and damaging vehicles while chanting “Jai Shri Ram” (Victory to Lord Ram). Similar rallies, often to the beat of booming far-right pop music, took place outside mosques and Muslim neighbourhoods across several states in India.

The trigger was the consecration of a Ram temple in the ancient city of Ayodhya in northern India by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday. The temple is being built on the site where the 16th century Babri Masjid stood until 1992, when Hindu far-right mobs tore down the mosque, triggering nationwide riots that killed more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims.

Addressing the country from Ayodhya, Modi said that the “wheel of time” had turned, rejecting criticism over the increased religious tensions that have been simmering in India since he came to power in 2014. “Ram is not a problem but a solution,” he said. “We are laying the foundation of India for the next 1,000 years. We take a pledge to build a capable, grand, divine India from this moment.”

Yet, as India celebrates its Republic Day on January 26, the inauguration of the temple, the Indian state’s role in it, and the violence and vandalism that religious minorities have faced since then are, to many, markers of a country that has moved away from the Constitution adopted this day in 1950.

Soon after the consecration, a Muslim graveyard was set ablaze in the north Indian state of Bihar, a Muslim man was paraded naked in southern India, and a saffron flag representing militant Hinduism – was hoisted atop a church in central India.

“This country is increasingly unrecognisable to me, where Muslims are like rubbish for them,” said Haque, on his way to a police station with his son after the Tuesday attack. “There were so many people [during the Mira Road attack] but no one stopped them from beating my child. It is shameful for society. It is a city of the blind.”

Riaz Haq said...

Narendra Modi is celebrating his scary vision for India’s future - Vox


https://www.vox.com/2024/1/27/24049025/india-ayodhya-ram-mandir-narendra-modi-bjp-babri-masjid

National festivities this week danced on Indian secularism’s grave — and pointed to an existential threat to Indian democracy.

By Zack Beauchamp



On Monday, tens of millions across India celebrated the opening of the Ram Mandir — a huge new temple to Ram, one of Hinduism’s holiest figures, built in the city of Ayodhya where many Hindus believe he was born.

The celebration in Ayodhya, presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, attracted some of India’s richest and most famous citizens. But in the pomp and circumstance, few dwelled explicitly on the grim origins of Ram Mandir: It was built on the site of an ancient mosque torn down by a Hindu mob in 1992.

Many of the rioters belonged to the RSS, a militant Hindu supremacist group to which Modi has belonged since he was 8 years old. Since ascending to power in 2014, Modi has worked tirelessly to replace India’s secular democracy with a Hindu sectarian state.

The construction of a temple in Ayodhya is the exclamation point on an agenda that has also included revoking the autonomy long provided to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, creating new citizenship and immigration rules biased against Muslims, and rewritten textbooks to whitewash Hindu violence against Muslims from Indian history.

Modi has also waged war on the basic institutions of Indian democracy. He and his allies have consolidated control over much of the media, suppressed critical speech on social media, imprisoned protesters, suborned independent government agencies, and even prosecuted Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi on dubious charges.

For many Hindus, the inauguration of the Ram Mandir was a meaningful religious event. But viewed from a political point of view, the event looks like a grim portrait of Modi’s India in miniature: a monument to an exclusive vision of Hinduism built on the ruins of one of the world’s most remarkable secular democracies.

Understanding the temple’s story is thus essential to understanding one of the most important issues of our time: how democracy has come under existential threat in its largest stronghold.

How the Ayodhya temple dispute gave rise to Modi’s India
The dispute over Ayodhya has become a flashpoint in modern Indian politics because it speaks to a fundamental ideological question: Who is India for?

The relevant history here starts in the early 16th century, when a Muslim descendant of Genghis Khan named Babur invaded the Indian subcontinent from his small base in central Asia. Babur’s conquests inaugurated the Mughal Empire, a dynasty that would reign in what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for generations. At least a remnant of the Mughal state survived until the British seized India in the 19th century.

The mosque in Ayodhya was a product of the early Mughal Empire, with some evidence suggesting it was built almost immediately after Babur’s forces conquered Ayodhya in 1529. Called the Babri Masjid — literally “Babur’s Mosque” — it was a testament to the impact the Mughal dynasty and its Muslim rulers had on Indian history and culture.

During the British colonial period, different Indian factions diverged sharply on how to remember the Mughal empire.

For Mahatma Gandhi, who led the mainstream independence movement, the Moghul Empire was a testament to India’s history of religious diversity and pluralism. Gandhi praised the Moghul dynasty, especially its early leadership, for adopting religious toleration as a central state policy. “In those days, they [Hindus and Muslims] were not known to quarrel at all,” he said in 1931, blaming current sectarian tensions on British colonial policy.

Vineeth said...

That there was considerable destruction of temples in the subcontinent under Muslim rule is an undeniable fact. For example, inscriptions in the Qutb Minar in Delhi reportedly boast that the complex was built using architectural members taken from 27 Hindu/Jain temples in the area that were ordered to be demolished by Qutb-ud-din Aibak. Allauddin Khilji of the Delhi Sulatanate was a notorious destroyer of temples during his campaigns. The famed Somanath temple in Gujarat was destroyed multiple times - starting with Mahmud of Ghazni and then Allauddin Khilji and finally by Aurangazeb. Its ruins were being converted into a mosque at the time of Indian independence when Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the first Home Minister of India, ordered that the temple be rebuilt at the site. Even many ancient temples that were fortunate to survive the Muslim invasions bear the scars of damages inflicted by the invading iconoclasts in the form of defaced statues lacking heads and limbs (eg: cave temples at Ellora). It is also an accepted historical fact that both the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and Shahi Eidgah in Mathura (which are seemingly the new targets of the latest Hindutva crusade after Babri Masjid) stand on the site of temples destroyed on the orders of Aurangazeb. Both structural evidence in the form of surviving temple walls, pillars and foundation in the mosques, as well as contemporary historical accounts attest to this. The present day Kashi Vishwanath temple (Varanasi) and Krishna Janmabhoomi temple (Mathura) that stand adjacent to these mosques were rebuilt at a later period by Hindu rulers, but their original location were those where the mosques now stand. As for Babri mosque, though the Archaeological Survey of India says that it found remains of a pre-Islamic structure beneath it during their excavations, I do not know if there is really any conclusive evidence that the original building was a temple, or that it was demolished by Babur. Perhaps it could be the case that the temple that stood there was already demolished during the Delhi Sultanate, and that Babur, or one of his Generals, ordered the construction of a mosque at the empty site commemorating his conquest.

However, it must also be emphasized that with the notable exception of Aurangazeb (who was more of a religious puritan or even a fanatic), other Mughal emperors like Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jehan were generally tolerant. Akbar is known to have celebrated Hindu festivals like Holi in his palace and established a library to translate Hindu scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Upanishads into Persian. Shah Jehan's heir-apparent Dara Shikoh (who was killed by Aurangazeb) was a liberal scholar who even wrote a book titled "Majma-ul-Bahrain" (The Confluence of the Two Seas) exploring parallels between Sufi mysticism and Vedanta. The patronage of music and dance in the courts of these liberal Mughal rulers led to the development of Hindustani classical music and Kathak dance through a fusion of Indian and Persian elements. Now that's the real "Mughal culture" that I would like to advertise.

Though I consider these campaigns of mosque demolitions to avenge the acts of intolerant rulers centuries ago as senseless and a waste of time and money, I do think it would have been better for everyone concerned had the Muslim community in India acknowledged (and distanced themselves from) the destructive acts of some of these intolerant Muslim rulers in the past, and voluntarily given up these contentious lands in return for funds and plot to build a new mosque elsewhere. That would have pretty much taken the wind out of the sails of Hindutva movement long ago. But as it transpired, some selective whitewashing of history by some left-leaning historians here gave the Indian Muslim community a mistaken impression that these centuries-old Hindu claims on these plots were outright falsehoods (which it is not).

Riaz Haq said...

Vineeth: "That there was considerable destruction of temples in the subcontinent under Muslim rule is an undeniable fact"

I suggest you read real history of India and not rely on the fake version promoted by the Hindu Nationalists.

Established historians like Romila Thapar and Audrey Truschke both dispute the Hindutva accounts of temple destructions by Muslim rulers of India.

Prominent Indian Historian on Hindutva History

https://thewire.in/history/what-history-really-tells-us-about-hindu-muslim-relations

From the historical perspective, we may well ask whether the division had evidence to support it. Supposedly irrefutable evidence of division is said to lie in the Muslims over the last 1,000 years having victimised the Hindus, treating them as enslaved. Why do historians question this theory? It is claimed that when the Muslims invaded India and came to power, they victimised and enslaved the Hindus for 1,000 years. The image projected is that of violence and aggression of one against the other. Now that the Hindus are in power they should have the right to avenge themselves. However, the historical sources researched by professional historians read differently and do not rejuvenate this view of colonial historians.


------

American historian Audrey Truschke who studies India traces the early origins of Hindu Nationalism to the British colonial project to "divide and rule" the South Asian subcontinent.

https://www.riazhaq.com/2022/08/nehrus-secularism-was-aberration-modis.html

She says colonial-era British historians deliberately distorted the history of Indian Muslim rule to vilify Muslim rulers as part of the British policy to divide and conquer India. These misrepresentations of Muslim rule made during the British Raj appear to have been accepted as fact not just by Islamophobic Hindu Nationalists but also by at least some of the secular Hindus in India and Muslim intellectuals in present day Pakistan, says the author of "Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King". Aurangzeb was neither a saint nor a villain; he was a man of his time who should be judged by the norms of his times and compared with his contemporaries, the author adds.


Vineeth said...

I judge Aurangazeb by the standards of his predecessors - Shah Jehan, Jehangir and above all, Akbar. I don't buy Hindutva arguments that the "Mughals" were intolerant or that they persecuted Hindus as I am well aware of general policy of religious tolerance of above three emperors, but it is a fact that Aurangazeb did not share that philosophy of toleration, nor did most rulers of the Delhi Sultanate (except Razia Sultana perhaps).

If you wish to have an objective understanding of the history of Muslim rule in the subcontinent, I would suggest to you (in return) to read a book on the subject rather than draw conclusions from random articles with political undertones. There are many books that have been written by Indian historians, and one book I would recommend is "The Wonder that was India - Vol 2" by S A A Rizvi that covers the period of Muslim rule (succeeding the seminal Vol 1 of the series written by A L Basham that covered pre-Islamic India). The destructions of temples during Muslim invasions are covered extensively in the book. This is what he says in the introduction to the book:

"Akbar (1556-1605), the contemporary of Queen Elizabeth I and the first of the four great Mughal emperors, fully realised that the Empire could
stand only on a basis of complete toleration. All religious tests and
disabilities were abolished, including the hated poll-tax on unbelievers.
Rajput princes and other Hindus were given high offices of state, without
conversion to Islam, and inter-communal marriages were encouraged by
the example of the Emperor himself. If the policy of the greatest of India's
Muslim rulers had been continued by his successors, her history might
have been very different."

"The great-grandson of Akbar, Aurangzib (1658-1707), reversed the
policy of toleration. Restrictions were placed on the free practice of Hindu
rites, and preferment at court was confined to orthodox Muslims; later the
tax on non-Muslims was reimposed. After nearly a century of equality this
was bitterly resented by many Hindus, especially by the chiefs, many of
whom had loyally served the earlier Mughals. The main resistance came
from the Western Deccan, where, around Poona, the Maratha chief, Sivaji
(1627-80) laid the foundations of a new Hindu empire. At about the same
time the Sikhs of the Panjab, incensed at the new policy and the
persecution of their leaders, reformed their faith, and were welded into a
closely knit martial brotherhood. When the aged Aurangzib died, the
Mughal Empire was virtually at an end."

Aside from Aurangazeb's general policy of intolerance towards Hindus and Sikhs, he did order the destruction of Somanath temple and forbade its reconstruction (stipulating that it be converted into a mosque in case Hindus attempted to rebuild it). He also ordered the destruction of the temples that stood at the site of present day Gyanvapi (Varanasi) and Shahi Eidgah (Mathura). Now, our left-wing historians may argue that these acts by Aurangazeb were driven by political rather than religious considerations, but they wouldn't deny that act itself. It is a similar case with the mass destructions of temples (including Ellora) during the expedrions of Allauddin Khilji and the other rulers of the Delhi Sultanate.

Also, Romila Thapar's expertise as a historian is on ancient (i.e. pre-Islamic) India and I do not think she has written any books about the periods spanning Muslim rule. Therefore, the views she has expressed about the period may have been influenced more by her political views as a left-leaning historian than by her academic expertise about that era.

Zen, Germany said...

@Vineeth

You cannot even compare Malayalee muslims with North Indian muslims when it comes to social status. You aptly noted relative under accomplishments of Kerala (or south indian) muslims. Reasons here are complex and historic.

First and foremost is the rejection of Kerala muslims of British established english education, and subsequent use of Arabi-malayalam. This kept Muslims in kerala perhaps 50 years behibd upper caste Hindus and Cristians. Morally, it was the right thing to do, but history is harsh and later generations judged Muslims harsh for that choice. Christians on the other hand had the opposite advantage and profited handsomely by the presence of missionaries.

Relative uderrepresentation of Muslims women in IT and urban jobs also have complex socio economic reasons. One thing is the emphasis of Muslims on building local, family oriented communities unlike that of upper caste Hindus and Christians. Another one is the notorious dowry system which prohibits or indefinitely delays the marriage of Christian women -- which effectively forces them to take dangerous jobs in countries as far as Libya and Israel.

I think in the long run, Muslims in Kerala seem to have found a sweet spot where there is high education, social standards without much compromising family model.

Vineeth said...

Delayed marriage of women is actually a sign of their social progress. (Just look at the trends in the West.) Women who prioritise education and career generally do not choose to marry early, and when they do, they do not prefer to have more than one or two kids. And this generally results in lower numbers of pregnancies and therefore lower population growth rates. Kerala's Muslim women have generally progressed more in comparison to their counterparts in other states with regard to both education and employment, and the fertility rate among Kerala's Muslim community is also lower than their compatriots in other states. However, within Kerala, its Muslim community still lag behind both Christians and Hindus in all these social indices. It isn't really dowry that is delaying the marriage of Hindu and Christian women here, but the greater emphasis they place on higher education and employment. Since Kerala has a dearth of employment opportunities (thanks to a long history of militant left-wing trade unionism), both Hindu and Christian families here seem to be more open about the idea of their daughters going outside the state (or even country) for jobs than Muslim families who still seem very conservative about the idea.

Zen, Germany said...

>It isn't really dowry that is delaying the marriage of Hindu and Christian women >here, but the greater emphasis they place on higher education and employment.

That is the nicer representation, as far as India is concerned. Tell me how many of these women go for nursing or higher studies due to genuine passion for learning or service (just a minority).

On the other hand, you are right that by western standards, delayed marriage and lower fertility is a sign of social advancement. But that doesn't mean that that is fundamentally a good thing. We are gradually beginning to enter a phase where western societies (or societies like south korea and china which are modelled after west) are panicking to raise fertility. Marrying at 35 and getting first child at 42 has little biological justification. Muslims lacked (or still lacks) sophistication to present an intellectual counter-argument to western based concept of family development, that's why we tend to take western narrative of progress for granted.

SAMIR SARDANA said...

WHAT HAVE INDIAN MUSLIMS ACHIEVED IN HINDOOOSTHAN ?

DOOM AND DESTRUCTION ?

BABRI,THEN RAM TEMPLE AND THEN CAA,NRC AND NOW THE DISASTER OF THE UCC IN PAHADISTAN !

PAHADISTAN = UTTARAKHAND !

THIS STATE OF LIMPET,IMPOTENT MONGRELS,HAS INTRODUCED A UCC - BANNING POLYGAMY !

THEY HAVE A "MINI ME CHAIWALA CM",CALLED PUSHKAR DHAMI !

NOW WHAT IS THE IQ OF THIS HINDI MEDIUM CLOWN ?

HE SAYS THAT THE GANGA STARTED IN HIS STATE AND SERVED INDIA,AND SO, HAS UCC !!

https://www.news18.com/india/like-ganga-starts-in-uttarakhand-and-serves-india-ucc-has-begun-here-but-will-reach-all-dhami-to-news18-8770558.html

THE HINDOO VANAR DOES NOT KNOW THAT,THE GANGA MOVES FROM PAHADISTAN,TO BAY OF BENGAL,AND DIES THERE ! IT SERVES LESS THAN 20 PERCENT,OF INDIAN LANDMASS !

THESE PAHADIS ! LIKE ANOTHER DEMENT LIMPET PAHADI - AJIT DOVAL !

ON THE SAME DAY,A MADRASSA WAS DEMOLISHED IN HALDWANI !

https://www.news18.com/india/haldwani-news-malik-garden-encroachment-in-haldwani-lathi-charge-stone-pelting-police-8771727.html

NO COINCIDENCE !

TRUTH IS THAT HINDOOS AND ESPECIALLY PAHADIS ARE KNOWN NOT TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SATISFY 1 WIFE - AND THEIR SADISTIC JOY OF DEPRIVING OTHERS OF THEIR JOY = DNA OF THE PANWARI BRAHMIN AND BANIA HINDOO ! THE SAME IS MANIFEST IN THE HINDOO HATE OF DALITS AND OPPRESSION OF WOMEN ! THE AIM IS TO DEPRIVE THE HINDOO WONEN AND DALITS,OF THE JOYS,WHICH THE IMPOTENT BRAHMINS AND BANIA IMPOTEBNTICAS,CANNOT UNDERTAKE !

DASHRATHA,THE FATHER OF RAMA PRODUCED RAMA WHEN HE WAS 60000 YEARS OLD ! TRYING HARD - WITH NO LUCK ! THAT IS THE DNA OF THE HINDOO BANIA BRAHMIN

Book I : Bala Kanda – The Youthful Majesties of Valmiki Ramayana
Chapter [Sarga] 20

षष्टिर्वर्षसहस्राणि जातस्य मम कौशिक || १-२०-१०
कृच्छ्रेणोत्पादितश्चायं न रामं नेतुमर्हसि |

“Sixty thousand years have passed from my birth, oh! Vishvamitra, and this Rama is engendered at this age, that too with tribulations, hence taking Rama with you will be inappropriate of you. [1-20-10b, 11a]

THEN THERE IS THIS VERSE OF THE RAMAYANA ON KAUSHALYA AND A HORSE

Book I : Bala Kanda – The Youthful Majesties

Chapter [Sarga] 14

Queen Kausalya desiring the results of ritual disconcertedly resided one night with that horse that flew away like a bird. [1-14-34]

THEN WE CONE TO MAHABHARATA - OF PANDAVAS AND KAURAVAS - WHOSE FATHERS WERE IMPOTENT AND THEY WERE PRODUCED BY UNNANTURAL UNIONS,WITH 3RD PARTIES ! THE APOGEE OF FILTH AND OBSCENITY !

WHY ARE THESE HNDOOO CHARACTERS - ALL DYSFUNCTIONAL AND IMPOTENT ? BECAUSE THAT IS THE DNA OF THE HINDOO ! THIS IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE HATE AND FRUSTRATION AGAINST MUSLIMS !

WHICH IS Y SEETA CALLED RAMA - AN IMPOTENT PANSY

Book II : Ayodhya Kanda – Book Of Ayodhya Chapter[Sarga] 30

किम् त्वा अमन्यत वैदेहः पिता मे मिथिला अधिपः | राम जामातरम् प्राप्य स्त्रियम् पुरुष विग्रहम् || २-३०-३

“What my father, the king of Mithila belonging to the country of Videha, think of himself having got as so-in-law you, a woman having the form of a man?”

AMBEDKAR SAYS IN “SELECTED WORKS OF AMBEDKAR”,AS UNDER :

The idea underlying Sanghalan is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which so painfully make him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh and which have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting himself.

UCC IS A WAY FOR THE HINDOO LINPET RSS TO VENT HATE ! MANY STATES IN NORTH WILL ADOPT UCC - JUST BEFORE THE POLLS !

WILL JEASH AND HIZBUL FOCUS ON PAHADISTAN ? I SEE TEMPLES AND HARDWAR,OF THESE MORON LIMPDICKS,WHERE ANYONE CAN ENTER AND BLOW IT SKY HIGH OR I LOOK AT THE SKY !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpjP_5lwCjs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F4wcB87MiY

DRONES ARE ALREADY FLYING FROM PAKISTAN TO PUNJAB ! THERE IS ENOUGH NITRATE IN PAHADISTAN ! 100 MILLION HINDOOS COME TO HARIDWAR EVERY YEAR !

INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RESERVOIR OF MUSLIM HATE IN PAHDISTAN - AND GENERATE ISLAMIC REVOLUTIIONARY ENERGY ! dindooohindoo

SAMIR SARDANA said...

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN CHAISTHAN ! IT IS A BOGUS NATION AND A DUBIOUS DEMOCRACY !

INDIAN SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED AS VOID THE CHAIWALA ELECTORAL BONDS ! THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT HAS OFFSET THE SIN OF THE RAMA TEMPLE JUDGEMENT !

QUESTION IS – HOW CAN IN LA-LA BANANA REPUBLIC OF HINDOOSTHAN – COULD SUCH A LAW BE PASSED?

NETAS IN LOK SABHA ARE ILLITERATE SCUM ! THEY WILL PASS ANY LAW ! JUST LIKE ARTICLE 370, AFSPA.THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT !

WHY WAS EB STARTED ? NOT TO STOP BLACK MONEY ! FOR MONEY LAUNDERING AND ANONYOUS LEGAL BRIBES WITH TAX OFFSET

AS I SAID `- BUYER OF EB,IS A SHELL COMPANY,SAY "X"!

EB IS A BEARER BOND,AND THEN THAT BOND IS GIVEN TO "ADA",BY "X" - WHO GIVES IT TO BJP,WHO ENCASHES IT,IN 2 WEEKS ! "X" IS ON RECORDS ! END OF STORY !

ADA PAYS THE BOND VALUE IN CASH TO "X" PLUS SAY 10% ! THIS IS BLACKMONEY INTO WHITE PLUS BRIBE PLUS TAX BENEFIT

THE REAL REASONS, FOR EB,ARE 2 !

1- BANIA JAIN PANDIT PARTY - BJP - WANTED TO GIVE A TAX REBATE ON A BRIBE ! SO CAME THIS SCHEME !

ADA GIVES RS 10000 CRORES TO BJP ! ADA USES A SHELL COMPANY WITH A LOSS IN INDIA,,TO BUY THE BREARER BONDS ! NOW THAT SHELL COMPANY HAS RS 10000 CRORES TAX ASSESSED LOSS. THE SHELL GIVES THE BOND TO "ADA",WHO GIVES IT TO BJP,AND BJ ENCASHES THE SAME.

AFTER 3 YEARS,ADA ACQUIRES THE SHELL AND SETS OFF THE TAX LOSS - SO A GAIN OF RS 3000 CRORES !

THE 2ND REASON !

BANIA SCUM PARTY REALISED IN 2018,THAT THE DAYS OF USING BHANG AND MOON SHINE TO BUY VOTES ARE OVER ! THAT HAPPENS ONLY IN SCUM HOLES OF GOA AND PAHADISTAN ! NOW YOU NEED A MEDIA PROPOGANDA BLITZ ! FOR THAT YOU NEED BILLIONS IN USD ! IN WHITE !

Y ?

CEC WILL CHECK THE NEWS ADVERTS,AND ASK THE MEDIA FOR THR SOURCE OF FUNDS ! FOR BANIA BJP TO PAY BANIA ZEE - BANIA BJP NEEDS WHITE MONEY ! BUT THE BJP WANTS A SCHEME,WHERE THE WHITE MONEY,COMES ONLY TO BJP -SO THEY CHOOSE SBI,WHICH REPORTS CONGRESS FUNDINGG TO BJP - AND TEHN BJP SENDS THE ED AND DRI !

SO CONGRESS HAS NO MEDIA POWER ! CONGI USES SOCIAL MEDIA - WHCIH IS USELESS !

NOW COMES THE POLL RALLIES ! FOR THAT,CASH IS REQUIRED, AND NOT WHITE MONEY ! FOR THAT, THE CHAIWALA USED DEMO, TO WIPE OUT, THE CASH AND WILL SCRAP THE RS 2000 NOTE SOON !

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON,WHICH EVEN THE JUDGES OF THE APEX COURT MISSED - AS THEY DO KNOW NOT KNOW THE VERMINS,THAT EXIST IN THE BJP,AND HOW LOW THEY CAN GO !

ADA USES A LOSS MAKING SHELL,TO BUY 10000 CRORES BONDS.SHELL COMPANY GIVES BONDS TO ADA WHO GIVES IT TO BJP

NOW THE BONDS ARE ENCASHED BY BJP

ADA BUYS SHELL IN MERGER,AFTER 2 YEARS,AND SO,CLAIMS THE TAX REBATE,ON RS 10000 CRORES

NOW BJP NEEDS ONLY 7000 CRORES IN WHITE,AND THE REST IN CASH IN BLACK, OF RS 3500 CRORES FOR 2024 POLLS

BUT BJP HAS GOT RS 10000 CRORES IN WHITE.SO BJP USES THE EXCESS OF RS 3000 CRORES IN EB (IN WHITE), TO CONVERT THE RS 3500 CRORES,IN BLACK,INTO WHITE ! BJP HAS MAY BE 30000 CRORES IN CASH - SO THERE IS NO CASH SHORTAGE !

SO BJP GIVES THE RS 3500 CRORES IN CASH TO ADA,FOR THE EXCESS RS 3000 CRORES OF EB (AND BJP KEEPS THE EXCESS RS 3000 CRORES, IN WHITE)

BIP HAS WASHED ITS CASH AT THE RATE OF 12% - AND ADA WILL COMVERT THE RS 3500 CRORES INTO WHTE AT NIL COST USING HIS "AGRI TAX FREE BUSINESS",AND THEN,REPEAT THE EB AGAIN AND AGAIN!

SO ADA PAYS 10000 CRORES - GETS TAX GAIN OF 3000 CRORES + 3500 CRORES IN CASH !
WIN WIN ! FOR BJP AND ADA ! THE BALANCE 3500 CRORES , ADA WILL DO 1O MORE CHURNS OF EB TO RECOVER RS 3500 CRORES ! EACH TIME ADA GIVES BJP 3500 CRORES -ADA WILL GET CASH BACK OF SAY 12% PREMIUM,AT RS 3900 CRORES.IN 7 CHURNS,ADA MAKES 3500 CRORES ! SO ADA MAKES 3000 CRORES TAX GAIN, ON NIL NET INVESTMENT !

HOW DID THE SHELL GET 10000 CRORES TO BUY THE BONDS ? FROM A MAURITIUS FUND AS A SHARE CAPITAL "ENTRY" ! WHO OWNS THE FUND ? WHO IS THE "REAL OWNER" ?

VEDIC MATHS ! dindooohindoo

SAMIR SARDANA said...

FOR MUSLIMS WHO RELY ON INDIAN LAWS MADE BY BANIA SCUM LIKE CHAWALA !

THE ELECTORAL BONDS = MOST OUTRAGEOUS LEGALISED CORRUPTION AND MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE WORLD ! IN OTHER WORDS,THE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY A FEW, and every one in the Indian State has a price !

IF BANIA SCUM LIKE CHAIWALA CAN PASS THIS LAW - THEN UCC AND ARTICLE 370 ARE EASY MEAT

CASE 1

A NON-TAX EXEMPTED TRUST BUYS BONDS WORTH 100 CRORES,AND TRANSFERS IT TO POLITICAL PARTY X
THE TRUST HAS A BALANCE SHEET OF 120 CRORES AND BANK FUNDS OF 100 CRORES,DULY AUDITED.

PERSON "ZEE" PAYS 120 CRORES IN CASH TO TRUSTEES OF EXEMPTED TRUST.TRUSTEES HAVE FOR A FEE OF RS 20 CRORES,BOOKED A DONATION OF RS 100 CRORES WHICH IS NOW A TAX ASSESSED LOSS

PERSON ZEE IS A BROKER,DRUG DEALER,PIMP, ARMS DEALER ETC.

THE TRUST WILL BRING IN THE CASH OF 100 CRORES INTO THE TRUST AT 15% PER ANNUM AS FEES,DONATIONS ETC. AND OFFSET THE INCOME WITH THE TAX LOSS OF DONATION PAID

CASE 2

A TAX EXEMPTED TRUST BUYS BONDS WORTH 100 CRORES AND TRANSFERS IT TO POLITICAL PARTY X
THE TRUST HAS A BALANCE SHEET OF 1200 CRORES AND BANK FUNDS OF 1000 CRORES,DULY AUDITED.

PERSON "ZEE" PAYS 120 CRORES IN CASH TO TRUSTEES OF EXEMPTED TRUST.TRUSTEES HAVE FOR A FEE OF RS 20 CRORES,BOOKED A DONATION OF RS 100 CRORES

PERSON ZEE IS AS IN CASE 1

THE TRUST WILL BRING IN THE CASH OF 100 CRORES INTO THE TRUST AT 35% PER ANNUM AS DONATIONS FOR GYANVAPI TEMPLE AS THE TRUST IS A TEMPLE OR WILL BOOK CASH DONATIONS RECEIVED,TO PROPAGATE HINDOO EVIL FILTH

CASE 3

A TRUST BUYS ELECTORAL BEARER BONDS WORTH 100 CRORES FROM A PERSON, S, AT A 102 CRORES. SO THE TRUST IS OUT OF THE KYC TRAP OF SBI AND SBI HAS NO RECORD OF THE BOND

THE TRUST HAS A BALANCE SHEET OF 1200 CRORES AND BANK FUNDS OF 1000 CRORES,DULY AUDITED.

THE TRUST TRANSFERS IT TO POLITICAL PARTY X

PERSON "ZEE" PAYS 120 CRORES IN CASH TO TRUSTEES OF EXEMPTED TRUST.TRUSTEES HAVE FOR A FEE OF RS 18 CRORES,BOOKED A DONATION OF RS 100 CRORES

PERSON ZEE IS AS IN CASE 1

THE TRUST WILL BRING IN THE CASH OF 100 CRORES INTO THE TRUST VIA AS MANY WAYS AS IT FEELS

OR

THE TRUST WILL DO "ENTRIES OF INCOME" WHERE IT BOOK INCOME AS RENTS ETC, FROM PARTY D OF SAY 100 CRORES,AND THE TRUST WILL BE PAID A 10% PREMIUM,AS THE TRUST IS TAKING IN INCOME WHICH IT WILL OFFSET WITH THE DONATION TAX LOSS,AND "D" WIL CLAIM A 30% TAX SET OFF ON THE RENT SO BOOKED

OR

THE TRUST WILL DO "ENTRIES OF INCOME" WHERE IT BOOK INCOME AS DONATIONS RECEIVED ETC, FROM PARTY D OF SAY 10 CRORES,AND THE TRUST WILL PAY "D" A 3-5 % PREMIUM,IN CASH,WHICH IS PAID FROM THE CASH PAID BY "ZEE"ABOVE.THE PERSON "D" WILL GET A TAX OFFSET ON THE DONATION PAID

CASE 4

THE TRUST IN CASE 1 TO 3,CANNOT JUSTIFY A DONATION OF 100 CRORES TO PARTY X

SO COMPANY Y BUYS THE BEARER BONDS OF 100 CRORES FOR 102 CRORES, by cheque

TRUST HAS A "HAPPY PROFIT" OF RS 2 CRORES,in the books

COMPANY Y HAS EVADED THE SBI KYC AND THE CHAIN FROM COMPANY Y TO THE ULTIMATE POLITICAL PARTY IS UNKNOWN

CASE 5

COMPANY A HAS A BALANCE SHEET OF 20 CRORES

IT TAKES A LOAN OF 100 CRORES FROM COMPANY T AND BUYS THE EB AND THEN GIVES IT TO T

COMPANY A NOW HAS A NEGATIVE EQUITY OF RS 80 CRORES PLUS INTEREST ON LOAN FROM T

TRANSACTION HAPPENED IN 2017,AND IN 3 MONTHS THE COMPANY A, IS LIQUIDATED,AND ALL THE DIRECTORS ARE DEAD,AS THEY WERE TERMINAL ZOMBIES.COMPANY A,WAS FORMED 3 MONTHS BEFORE,THE EB PURCHASE

TERMINAL ZOMBIES ARE DIRECTORS HIRED WITH A EXPIRY LIFE OF 2-3 MONTHS,ON WHOM KEYMAN POLICIES ARE ALSO TAKEN

OR

IN 2018,COMPANY T ACQUIRES A,AND OFFSETS THE DONATION LOSS WITH ITS BOOKS,AND NOW,HAS A TAX ASSESSED LOSS,OF SAY 100 CRORES. FROM 2018 TO 2024 JANUARY,THE COMPANY T,HAS TAKEN "INCOME ENTRIES" OF RS 100 CRORES AND HAS CHARGED A SERVICE FEES OF 10% OR RS 10 CRORES,

BY APRIL 2024 ,COMPANY T WILL BE LIQUIDATED AND ALL PAPER RECORDS,WILL DISAPPEAR OR SET ON FIRE AND BY JUNE 2024, ALL THE DIRECTORS WILL BE DEAD AS THEY WERE ALSO TERMINAL ZOMBIES

CASE 6

CASE 1 AND 2 WILL ALSO,APPLY TO INDIAN COMPANIES.