Dipawali, Deepavali or #Diwali! Valmiki #Ramayana (Ayodhya Kanda 2.6.17โ18) mentions lamps, flowers and incense, NOT crackers. #Fireworks originated in #China and entered #India centuries later. Yet questioning imported gunpowder is an attack on culture! #BombayHighCourt reminds #BMC about restrictions, while #DiaMirza faces backlash for promoting #CleanAir. Apparently, #pollution is sacred, public health optional! ๐ช #SayNoToCrackers #CleanAir
Agnimitra Paul says SIR isn't the issue, then spends half her speech attacking the opposition over SIR. She invokes development but offers political accusations instead of measurable outcomes. Poverty statistics need context, industrial announcements aren't industrialisation, and electoral transparency isn't an anti-national conspiracy. If BJP believes its governance is superior, publish the data, defend the process and let the results speak. Democracy doesn't require opposition silence; it requires government accountability.
Writing Rahul Gandhi's political obituary while conveniently ignoring BJP's own contradictions isn't political analysis; it's fan fiction. If Congress is incompetent, expose it with facts. But electoral bonds, dynastic politics, corporate patronage and selective outrage don't magically become virtues when BJP does them. Democracy needs an accountable government AND a competent opposition, not a ruling party addicted to weak opposition.
Neutrals : 21 yr old girl proposed to a 38 yr old man, parents are possesive or strict
Gobar eaters : Hindu - muslim ๐ฉ
This is how BJP destroyed our country. Andhbhakts check religion first ๐ฆ๐ฆ
I don't know why but I do believe that Amit Shah needs to be the #PMO#India then Narendra Modi, to be honest I am not any party supporter but I personally feel like #AmitShah deserves that more than #NarendraModi.
First you brought Pakistan and Bangladesh into a discussion about an Indian reality show's incident. Then, when I refused to accept your irrelevant responsibility-shifting, you resorted to personal abuse. Notice the pattern? Not one answer to my original question, not one logical counterargument. Just religious insults, political deflection and name-calling. If you have an argument, present it. If not, stop confusing aggression with intelligence. ๐
Reversing the case is a perfectly valid consistency test, but it isn't proof of religious discrimination. First establish why the parents intervened, then judge their actions. You cannot manufacture religious hatred from missing context and call it hypocrisy. And if your argument needs religious slurs to survive, perhaps your argument isn't as strong as you think. Criticise the behaviour, not an entire community. ๐
You seem to have confused asking for context with defending someone. Yes, my wording was blunt, but where exactly did I express hatred towards an entire religious community? I asked for facts and context, not manufactured outrage. Your response? Personal insults, accusations and karma lectures. If asking for evidence makes me hateful, perhaps the problem isn't my question but your inability to answer it. Address the argument instead of attacking the person. ๐
Why the hell am I supposed to do it? I live in India, I am Indian, and I was born Indian. If you care so much about them, go educate them yourself instead of outsourcing your responsibilities to me. Who exactly are they to me? Just because you consider them your brothers doesn't mean I have to. They might be your brothers, but they certainly aren't mine. ๐
You wrote an entire paragraph of religious insults and political accusations, yet couldn't address one simple question: where exactly did her parents explicitly object to the relationship because the contestant was Hindu? I provided the translation and context because I wanted an evidence-based discussion. If you disagree with the translation, point out the incorrect lines. If you want to debate Congress, start another discussion. Personal abuse, taqiyya accusations and political conspiracy theories don't answer the question. Learn to separate an argument from someone's religious identity.
Nobody is stopping me from speaking. And nobody is stopping you from presenting an actual argument either. Calling someone hateful isn't a counterargument. I asked for the exact translation and context because I prefer discussing what actually happened rather than blindly accepting a communal narrative. Try addressing the facts for once.
That's a serious allegation. Which government, which law, and which specific case are you referring to? If you believe the parents would face criminal charges in the reverse scenario, provide an actual comparable example. You can't establish discrimination through imaginary legal outcomes. And I asked for evidence of religious objection, not another Hindu-Muslim argument.