India

While Trump Was Praising Modi for Religious Freedom, Modi-Supporting Hindus Slaughtered Muslims in the Streets

Trump's failure to speak out against Modi's reign of lawlessness and terror is an epic abdication of responsibility.

|

President Donald Trump landed in India this week just as a new round of deadly violence erupted in Delhi, the nation's capital. Hindu militants clashed with protesters agitating against Modi's "your papers please" Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) whose aim is to strip an untold number of India's 140 million Muslims of their citizenship rights and perhaps throw them in detention camps that he is constructing around the country. The militants lobbed petrol bombs at Muslim homes in northeast Delhi, set a mosque on fire before hoisting a Hindu flag on it, and looted Muslim-owned shops. A sickening video shows four men dragging a bloodied and pleading Muslim man on the concrete road. Even as these horrors were unfolding, Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were holding talks merely miles away. So far, 27 people have been killed and hundreds injured.

The Delhi police—under Modi's control—initially did little to stop the mayhem or help the injured, forcing a local hospital to make an emergency petition to the court at 1:42 a.m. to order authorities to stop vandals from attacking ambulances as they transferred the more seriously injured victims to a better-equipped hospital.

Anti-Muslim violence has become a depressingly regular fact of life in India since Modi was first elected in 2014 and his supporters started thrashing and lynching Muslims suspected of consuming beef. But Modi's landslide re-election last summer has made things much worse. Hardly a day goes by when either the police or Hindu vigilantes don't go on a violent spree against Muslims or their supporters. In recent months, they have been targeting college campuses and brutally beating up students agitating against the Modi regime.

The current round of violence occurred after a prominent leader of Modi's party issued a thinly veiled call advocating violence to evict protesters from a site where they have been holding a monthslong 24/7 vigil to stop the CAA from going into effect. The same man had earlier in the month called for bullets to rain on the "traitors" protesting Modi's actions. Instead of disciplining him, the Modi government suspended the civil servant who complained against him.

President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to serving as Modi's useful idiot. Far from speaking out against him, he feted and fawned over him.

Still, the situation in India has become so dire that most U.S. presidents would not have picked this moment to make a state visit to India or, if they went, they would have at least made India's deteriorating law and order situation and the growing abuse of human rights a major focus of their talks. Trump did none of those things.

He landed in Gujarat, Modi's home state, where 1,000 men, women, and children (mostly Muslim) were slaughtered over the course of a few days on Modi's watch in 2002. Then Trump whisked Melania to the Taj Mahal that some Hindu militants want to tear down along with other monuments and mosques built by Muslim rulers on sites where Hindu temples allegedly once stood. His final stop was in New Delhi where the duo, accompanied by Modi, made an obligatory pilgrimage to Mahatma Gandhi's shrine. Gandhi, who was assassinated by a Hindu militant for advocating a tolerant India where Muslims and other religious minorities were safe to practice their faith, would have died a hundred times over by now at what Modi was doing to his country. But Trump gave a speech where, after mangling the name of the most revered Hindu theologian, he made comments praising Modi as a champion of religious liberty. "He wants people to have religious freedom, and very strongly," said Trump.

"They have really worked hard on religious freedom," Trump added. "We talked about it for a long time and I really believe that's what he wants."

Why would Trump make such a farcical statement?

Here are some possible explanations:

  • He's Trump.
  • He didn't want to be rude to Modi after Modi had arranged 700,000 Indians to greet him (the biggest crowd Trump has ever witnessed in his honor, anywhere).
  • He was in India to prod Modi to relax its tariffs—especially on agricultural goods—and to sign a trade deal, and he didn't want pesky human rights concerns to get in the way. (He did not succeed in convincing Modi to open up on trade, although Modi did buy $3 billion worth of U.S. weaponry as a consolation prize.)
  • If he had brought up Modi's human rights record and his Muslim bashing, Modi would have queried Trump about his Muslim travel ban, his detention camps, and his deportation squads and the bromance between the two would have been over.
  • We live in an age of "you ignore my atrocities and I'll ignore yours" diplomacy that the darling of national conservatism, Yoram Hazony, has advocated. Hazony believes that stable nation-states require "a majority nation whose cultural dominance is plain and unquestioned, and against which resistance appears to be futile." If this means that majority groups have to occasionally engage in massive repression against troublesome minorities, so be it. Raising concerns about their tactics is liberal imperialism and an affront to the principle of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination.

Whatever the reason, it is safe to say Trump's abdication did not make India a better place. As the president of a country founded by those escaping religious persecution, he should have shown solidarity with India's persecuted religious minorities and those dying in the streets for their rights. Instead, he may have given Modi the green light for worse atrocities.

Bonus Material: The sometimes-funny Trevor Noah's hilarious riff on Trump's visit to India.

 

NEXT: Supreme Court Weighs Free Speech and the Right to Encourage Illegal Immigration

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Okay, now do Muslim violence in Europe. Reason’s concerns over Hindu violence in India would be a lot more credible if it showed even an iota of concern about Muslim violence (rap gangs, terrorism, gang warfare and the rest) in Europe. Reason cares about ethnic violence when doing so can be used to promote some other position they like (in this case the ever present Orange Man Bad). If it doesn’t or worse reflects poorly on something they like (like open borders), reason either won’t talk about it or will actively try and diminish its significance.

    1. How dare you suggest Reason.com’s concern is anything less than 100% sincere! And in a Shikha Dalmia article no less — she’s actually the most honest and principled writer working here.

      1. On the one hand, we have Trump and Modi giving speeches to thousands of admiring Hindus. On the other hand, we have this scene from the movie Ghandi.

        Which do YOU find more inspiring?

        1. Is there any point to that? Maybe that means something to someone as soft headed as you.

    2. Your concern over Muslim violence in Europe would be a lot more credible if you showed even an iota of concern over Hindu violence in India. Also, something about Mexicans.

      1. Where have I not shown concern? Moreover, even if I had tried to downplay and diminish Hindu violence, that would only make me as guilty as reason. It wouldn’t make them any less guilty or my point any less valid.

        You need to work on your understanding of logic and argument. You don’t seem to understand how it works.

        1. Still waiting for you to denounce Hindu violence against Muslims. Go ahead, John, any day now.

          1. Hindu violence is bad. Ethnic violence of all sorts is bad.

            I am not sure what is more sad, that you say things like this or that you seem to actually believe they are clever.

            1. Thank you, John.

        2. “Where have I not shown concern?”

          In your comment. The extent of your concern is summed up in one word, “Okay.” From there you go on to discuss the things you are concerned about, Trump, Mexicans etc. Anything but Indians and the troubles outlined in the article.

          1. I can’t argue with the voices in your head. And the comment is right there and says nothing like that. Why you think you can lie and pretend it does is beyond me.

            More importantly, even if you were right, it doesn’t refute the point or make reason look any better. You really must be dumb as post not to understand that.

            1. Shikha: Hindus slaughter Muslims in the streets.

              John: “Okay.”

              1. I never said that. And lying and claiming I did doesn’t help your case.

                1. You wrote it. First and only response to the outrage in
                  India.

              2. You’re a lying piece of shit Trueman. Typical progtard. Not a shred of integrity.

                1. “Not a shred of integrity.”

                  Would it help if I hated Muslims?

                  1. It would help if you weren’t a fucking moron.

                    1. In that case I’ll wring my hands over Mexicans and write nice things about Trump. Feeling better?

                    2. I feel just fine. That’s got nothing to do with you being a moron.

                    3. We would all feel better if you simply drink all the drain cleaner and other toxic chemicals in your household and then not for an ambulance.

    3. Muslim violence in India is pretty bad. You don’t have to go to Europe to see it.

      1. Muslims are unable to get along with anyone. Even other Muslims. Go figure the leftists here what to coddle them, as usual and fixate on the retaliation of their victims.

        Progtards always crucify the victims.

    4. When an American president praises Muslim violence in Europe, your line of reasoning will begin to make sense.

      Until then, you’re just another bigoted, disaffected clinger jockeying to put your tongue on Trump’s nuts.

      1. Trump never praised Hindu violence. So your argument is based on a lie. You are a delusional moron Rev. Take your 8th grade education, anger, and envy of the more knowledgeable and educated somewhere else.

        1. #LeftistAlwaysLie

      2. Fuck off Kirkland you lying sack of crap.

      3. Pathetic Arty is pathetic.

    5. How does that negate what she said?

      1. It doesn’t and was not intended to. There are lots of other reasons to disregard the substance of what she is saying listed below. It is just pointing out what an opportunist hypocrite she is.

        1. I really don’t understand all the hate directed at her. The only thing that makes sense to me is that people take her criticism of Trump personally. And that is something I really, really, really don’t understand. I’ve never been personally invested in a politician. Ever.

          1. I hated her long before Trump came along. you know that. So, you can’t blame my dislike of her on Trump. I dislike her because she is so habitually dishonest and hypocritical.

            1. I dislike her because she is so habitually dishonest and hypocritical.

              Looks to me more like she is coming from a point of view that you don’t like. Because I don’t see her as dishonest, nor as hypocritical. She just says things you don’t like while not talking about the things you consider to be important.

              1. coming from a point of view that you don’t like

                Oh come off it with your personal relevance “What is truth?” horseshit. She flat out lies to advance an agenda in virtually every article she’s written here and you know it.
                She’s the most dishonest writer here, even beating out Welch and Suderman, and that is no easy feat.

                1. Evil is a point of view, Anakin…

                2. She flat out lies

                  I’ve got nothing invested here. I’m not defending her. But I don’t see what you see.

                  What lies? Be specific.

                  1. I dont know that she lies but she plays “willfully ignorant” very well.

                    My main issue with her is that she never, ever, once ever, mentions the cost illegals pose to taxpayers and the burden they impose on our government institutions. She takes the position that illegals are a net gain to the economy and refuses to even acknowledge the mountains of data that say otherwise. And when you break it out on a state level its even more burdensome, but again no mention of their downside.

                    Also no mention that legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration nearly 3 to 1.

                    1. I’d be surprised if those presenting those costs acknowledged the benefits. Just sayin

            2. All this hate is bad for the heart, John. I know we are all feeling, like there is no time for healing, but if no one starts, no one will follow. So choose to be the one that takes the first step, John, and walk into love.

              1. It is a curse of being smart. Loathing stupid people ends up being your vice. You wouldn’t understand. Just be thankful for the blessings you have.

                1. Smart people loathe stupid people. Really smart people try to convince smart people that loathing is wasted energy.

                2. I’m no dummy. I didn’t go to law school, but I’m an underachiever. You calling me stupid?

            3. I would like to know how she is being habitually dishonest or hypocritical.

              1. Some things are presented as self-evident, and believers do not question. I’m not a believer. I’d like an explanation as well.

          2. I don’t know if its all hate. The question is what is Trump, or any American president, to do in this situation. You have ethnic/religious conflicts in the region going back centuries, and Trump or any other president is supposed to waylay into the the conflict and “fix” the problem? Trump is there to hopefully cut a trade deal, the American people have no dog in the fight between Hindus and Muslims.

            1. The ironic thing? Reason is SUPPOSED to be a Libertarian-leaning rag. And Libertarians are USUALLY non-interventionist. And here we have Dalmia basically criticizing Trump for not intervening.

              John’s (and others’) criticisms have merit when it comes to Dalmia.

              1. You must have missed Reason blowing the NeoCons lately.

                Per Nick, Open Border Uber Alles is Reason’s “core value”.

          3. I really don’t understand all the hate directed at her.

            Well, do you think that maybe, just maybe, libertarians might think that someone who declared a Marxist apologist for Maoist terrorists a hero is, in fact, a foe of liberty?

          4. I got equal parts angry and disappointed by her tweets saying the Antifa protesters at Berkeley had a point in using violence to suppress speech they didn’t like. Wasn’t a one time thing either, like Welch’s Red Wedding quip.

    6. It would also be a lot more sincere if they covered the history of Muslim violence in India. Pakistan has funded terrorist attacks in India for decades, and indigenous Muslims haven’t exactly been innocent either. There’s a reason the Hindus hate Muslims so much, and I can’t fully fault them for that.

      Also, Muslim rap gangs?

    7. “So far, 27 people have been killed and hundreds injured.”

      “He landed in Gujarat, Modi’s home state, where 1,000 men, women, and children (mostly Muslim) were slaughtered over the course of a few days on Modi’s watch in 2002.”

      Sounds like violence is *way* down during Trump’s visit. Merely the presence of the God Emperor makes a country better. If only every country could have their own Trump.

    8. Lefties hate the countries they live in.

      In Shikha’s case, she still hates India as well, showing the Leftist version of an immigrant’s divided loyalty to the former homeland.

  2. Well said.

    Not only is Orange Hitler responsible for the thoroughly documented surge in hate crimes in the US, like the attempted modern day lynching of Jussie Smollett. He’s also to blame for the rise of violent extremism globally.

    The solution? #VoteBlueNoMatterWho, of course. (As a bonus, voting Democrat will ensure the implementation of Charles Koch’s immigration agenda.)

  3. That’s right Shikha, it’s partially Trump’s fault. Brown people have no personal agency without white influence.
    Also, if Modi is to blame for the current riots, then by the same logic Shikha is to blame for Antifa.

    1. “Shikha is to blame for Antifa”

      Huh?

      1. Modi speeches are far less inflammatory than Shikha articles. If Modi inspires the rioters there, Shikha definitely inspires the rioters here.

      2. “Huh?”

        To difficult for you to follow? Let me make it obvious.

        Shika’s Trump’s failure to speak out against Antifa’s Modi’s reign of lawlessness and terror is an epic abdication of responsibility.

    2. And Hindu’s never had a problem with Muslims until Modi and Trump came along and stirred them up.

      Gee maybe showing up in India and lecturing them about the need to do something about a internal ethnic conflict that dates back to the 16th Century and has produced acts of genocide over the centuries isn’t such good diplomacy? That mad man Trump shut his mouth and staid positive rather than smugly lecturing the Indian government and people about their need to solve their ethnic divisions.

      Sadly, Shika is so stupid that is what she actually believes.

      1. He didn’t shut his mouth. He praised the violent bigots.

        Your replacement will be a great day for America.

        1. No he didn’t. Stop lying Rev. No one here is as stupid as you are. So lying doesn’t work here. It just makes you look even dumber than you actually are. It is a tiresome waste of time.

        2. The day you try to replace anyone is the day you end up in a body bag, asshole.

        3. No Arty. You and your friends are the violent bigots.

          No one is praising you.

      2. Ha! If Trump had said something, the headline would read “Orange man bad stokes religious division during trip to India”

      3. One of the smartest things John McAfee said was when he was questioned about that region of the world he basically said he had no fucking clue how to “fix” it and that it’s ridiculous for anyone to even expect an American leader to try.

        1. Let them kill each other. The fuck do we really care? I know I don’t. If people want to murder each other over imaginary deities, let them. The good thing about idiots killing other idiots is that you end up with less idiots at the end of the day.

  4. Guilt by association.

    In
    The
    Fucking
    Headline

    Reason is fully and truly for shit.

    1. His conclusion only serves to promote the false idea that the media can ever have any sort of “objectivity and neutrality.” It cannot, it will inevitably reflect the bias and interests of those engaging in the activity.

      That’s not fatal to the idea, or practice of reporting, but it is fatal to the notion that they can ever (or should ever) regain “our trust.”

      There can be no trust, only verify. With repeated verification credibility grows. So my only request of the media would be, when you are caught in an error – for whatever reason, simply own it and correct it.

      1. Pretty much this. But he’s still better than most even here on the issue.

    2. The only person whose even remotely close to the mark on this entire website about the Trump era is Nick Gillespie. This fact frightens me to my core and almost makes me think I have everything wrong.

  5. So your against taking down the Taj Mahal by people who think its oppressive for some reason but your all for taking down Confederate statues for their oppressive history. make up your mind your either for removing useless symbols of the past by people who don’t have a use for them anymore or you are not or are you just a hippocrypt.

    1. Then Trump whisked Melania to the Taj Mahal that some Hindu militants want to tear down along with other monuments and mosques built by Muslim rulers on sites where Hindu temples stood.

      Unfortunately, this is in fact the logical conclusion. If a confederate war memorial must be torn down because the confederacy was associated with past social ills, then there’s no argument that says we shouldn’t raze the Taj Mahal.

      1. The Mughals committed by numbers the worst act of mass murder in history against the Hindus.

        http://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

        Few in the West know that. But the Hindus in India certainly do. So, yeah, if the Confederate statues have to be torn down because of slavery, the Taj Mahal needs to go as well.

        Requiring Shika to apply a uniform standard to anything instead of just emoting and rationalizing her personal bigotries and pet peeves is I think a bit much to ask of her.

        1. While Mughal rule was certainly brutal at times, I would take a Sikh propaganda site with a grain of salt. No one, and I mean no one nowhere, hates Muslims with the passion of Sikhs. It almost defines them.

          Also worth noting that much of the behavior mentioned on the site is much more typical of Mongols (which Mughal is simply a different spelling of) than it is of Muslims. Ghengis Khan did the same shit, and was not a Muslim.

          1. That was just a convenient site. The brutality of the Muslim conquest and rule of India towards Hindus is well established. The point is that this conflict didn’t come from nothing.

            1. The brutality of the Muslim conquest and rule of India towards Hindus is well established.

              Yes, but it’s also often greatly exaggerated for political purposes, and the famously virulent Hindu-nationalist racism tends to go equally unmentioned in the Western press.

              But I don’t disagree that the Hindu argument for taking down monuments to past Islamic rulers is not dissimilar to the arguments about taking down Confederate statues. With the caveat that most would agree that the Taj Mahal is one of the great architectural masterpieces in the world and that destroying it would be as big of a crime against art and culture as destroying the Vatican (or the Buddhas of Bamiyan).

      2. “there’s no argument that says we shouldn’t raze the Taj Mahal”

        How about the Taj had nothing to do with the confederacy?

          1. I guess we don’t have to raze the Taj, after all.

        1. Thank you, Navin Johnson.

        2. He had nothing to do with Nazi Germany either. That doesn’t change the fact that he was a part of what was arguably the worst mass murder in history that occurred as a result of the Mughal conquest of India.

          Again, you really don’t seem to understand how this works.

          1. “He had nothing to do with Nazi Germany either.”

            Taj Mahal had plenty to do Nazi Germany. His son, Taj Jr. was almost as bad.

            1. That makes no sense.

              1. I’m agreeing with you. Taj was a bad guy. Mrs. Mahal was bad, too.

        3. Wow. You really are dumb as a brick.

          Seriously, wow.

        4. Go back to your basement, kiddo, the adults are talking

      3. If a confederate war memorial must be torn down because the confederacy was associated with past social ills, then there’s no argument that says we shouldn’t raze the Taj Mahal.

        Doesn’t help that it’s a state monument with the text of the entire Quran literally written on its walls.

  6. …Modi’s “your papers please” Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) whose aim is to strip an untold number of India’s 140 million Muslims of their citizenship rights…

    The CAA has nothing to do with the citizenship rights of Muslim citizens of India, as you know, you lying bitch. It’s primarily about creating a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens in India who fled religious persecution in neighboring Muslim countries.

    1. Is there any important religious minority excluded from that Act, you bigoted, half-educated rube?

      1. That is even sensible enough of a response to be called wrong. You need to calm down, take whatever meds you hopefully have been proscribed and just shut the fuck up for a while.

      2. Yes. The violently intolerant religion from which the persecuted emigres are fleeing, which is the majority in the countries being fled, is sensibly excluded.

  7. While Trump Was Praising Modi for Religious Freedom, Modi-Supporting Hindus defended themselves from Hindu slaughtering Muslims in the Streets

    FTFY, Shikha.

  8. What would Reagan have done?

    1. Likely shut his mouth. Reagan didn’t stick his nose in internal conflicts abroad that didn’t involve communism. And he never expected moral purity from those who were willing to assist the fight against communism or advance US interests.

      1. Moral purity? Dude. This goes way beyond that.

        1. So what? Again, what do you want Trump to do? Do you really think Trump lecturing the Indian public on their ills and divisions would have helped matters? I don’t. If you do, I would be curious to hear how.

          You claim to be against wars and US interventions. As part of that, US Presidents lecturing other nations about internal problems is probably a bad idea.

          1. I think Reagan would have said something, rather than glossing over it. I don’t know what exactly. I’m neither a president nor a speech writer. But I don’t think he would let that slide.

  9. Otoh, you gotta hand it to these Indian Hindu’s: When they riot, they riot. Not like some pissy little Occupy sit around and mope but a real, I am going to cut your stupid head off and skull fuck your daughter and then get to work on the rest of you. Kudos.

    1. It puts the claims about how horrible race relations are in this country into a bit of context doesn’t it? I always laugh when some idiot waxes philosophical about how “racist” the US is. Go somewhere like India or about a hundred other places in the world and you can find out what real racism looks like.

      1. Indian Muslims and Hindus are both Caucasians. Religious bigotry is not racism.

        1. Yes it is. It is just a different version of the same thing.

          1. So, Irish racism is behind their sectarian squabbles? We learn something stupid every time you post.

            1. Why is “race” vs. “religion” based bigotry so different for you? Is racism worse? Or more acceptable?

              1. Because races and religions are different things.

                ” Is racism worse? Or more acceptable?”

                I suppose it’s worse. One can always convert to another religion to escape persecution. Indian Hindu ‘untouchables’ who convert to Buddhism give us one example. Race, as I understand it, can’t be converted out of. Even after death, scientists will know your race by tell-tale markers on your skeletal remains. Religions can also leave physical traces like tattoos and circumcision scars etc, but it’s not the same thing.

        2. Indian castes and scheduled tribes have practiced unprecedented levels of endogamy in the last 3500 years, to the extent that some are more genetically distant than American blacks and whites are.
          Nor do they “all rook arike” like you’re trying to imply. A brown-haired, hazel-eyed, light-skinned, steppe-influenced Gujarati, looks very different from a black-haired, black-eyed, dark-skinned ASA-influenced Khond.

          1. The article is about Hindu-Muslim communal violence.

        3. Indian Muslims and Hindus are both Caucasians.

          This might be one of the most inaccurate claims you’ve ever made here.

          North Indian Hindus are often of Aryan descent, and that’s about the most truth your statement has. South Indians are no ways near Caucasian, and are closely related to natives of Madagascar and Australia.

          The Muslim populations that came into India over the centuries were largely Turko-Mongol (also not remotely Caucasian), with some Arab groups here and there (particularly Bangladesh). The Afghans are Aryan, but they’re currently concentrated in Pakistan.

          And any study of the history of religious conflict will quickly lead you to the conclusion that at least 95% of ‘religious’ conflict is racial at root. Even between the Irish and the English.

          1. ” South Indians are no ways near Caucasian,”

            But the Indians of the south are not involved with the anti-Muslim pogroms and violence. It’s taking place in Gujarati and other northern locales. These places are overwhelmingly Caucasian in origins.

            “Even between the Irish and the English.”

            The Irish and English are different nationalities. They both are Caucasian.

            1. Ever read a book? Racism was INVENTED to justify English oppression of the Irish.

              1. Medieval and Renaissance English writings don’t even consider the Irish fully human.

            2. But the Indians of the south are not involved with the anti-Muslim pogroms and violence.

              There’s plenty of anti-Muslim violence in the South. That the South never submitted to Muslim rule is a huge part of its identity, although it also means there is a considerably smaller Muslim population in the South.

              It’s taking place in Gujarati and other northern locales. These places are overwhelmingly Caucasian in origins.

              As I said, many of the Hindus of that region are “Caucasian” (Aryan, actually – which isn’t ‘Caucasian’ by any technical definition). The Muslims aren’t (technically Ural-Altai peoples, mostly). And not even all the Hindus are (considerable non-Aryan stock even in the most ancient ‘Hindu’ populations).

              The Irish and English are different nationalities. They both are Caucasian.

              Still doesn’t make religious difference the root of, rather than the result of, their conflicts.

              1. “There’s plenty of anti-Muslim violence in the South.”

                Read the article again. It’s about riots taking place in the north of India.

                And plenty of India’s Muslims descended from Tajiks, who are Caucasian in origin. If those Muslims were exempted from the violence on account of their common racial origins with the Hindus, you might have a point. But that’s not the case. The notion that racial, not religious, animosity is behind the troubles or India and Ireland is idiotic.

                1. I responded to this, but it posted below.

  10. Uhhhhh, the Muslims and Hindus have been at odds for practically forever. It has something to do with the fact that Hinduism was around for merely a couple of thousand years when suddenly, line many other parts of the old world, the Indian subcontinent was invaded and conquered by the Muslims. I know the left wing scumbags say we’re not supposed to talk about this history at all, about how Islam was rapidly spread almost entirely through war and violence. But I’ll talk about it whether they like it or not. It’s the entire reason why India was split into two separate countries, because the two faiths can’t “coexist” peacefully together in large numbers. But of course the Muslims have great difficulties coexisting with anyone, even each other.

    But Dipshit Scumbagetta is such a radical lowlife who loves the jihadis so much her favorite dildo is nicknamed “Osama”.

    1. She suffers from an “epic abdication” of intelligence.

    2. “the fact that Hinduism was around for merely a couple of thousand years ”

      Hinduism was an invention of the British, who colonized India only a couple hundred years ago. They wanted a term to group Indians who weren’t Buddhists, Muslims, Jains, etc.

      1. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, and one of the oldest, dipshit.

        You seriously say the dumbest shit on this site.

        1. “and one of the oldest, dipshit”

          About the same age as Mormonism.

          1. So there were no religions in India prior to British colonization other than Buddhists, Muslims and Jains? Who’s covered by the “etc.?”

            1. Hinduism was Britain’s attempt to unify a number of different practices, beliefs and texts under one rubric.

              “Who’s covered by the “etc.?”

              Sikhs. And Christians. Neither are Hindus.

              1. Hinduism was Britain’s attempt to unify a number of different practices, beliefs and texts under one rubric.

                That’s true. It covered all those people who weren’t Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, or Christian. All those people also happen to share a lot of gods, a lot of sacred texts, and a lot of basic beliefs, although you are correct that it never has been a unified “religion” in the same way that Christianity is. Of course, neither is Islam.

                The Mughals, however, did periodically persecute religious groups who weren’t Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian or Muslim. Oddly enough, they too referred to these people as “Hindus” and called their land “Hindustan” for many centuries before the British arrived and started categorizing religions.

                “Who’s covered by the “etc.?”

                Sikhs. And Christians. Neither are Hindus.

                So, is your contention that there were no other religions practiced in India prior to the 19th century besides Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and Sikhism? Those five categories include all the pre-British peoples of India?

                1. “Oddly enough, they too referred to these people as “Hindus” and called their land “Hindustan” for many centuries before the British arrived and started categorizing religions. ”

                  The British probably got the idea from the Mughals.

                  “So, is your contention that there were no other religions practiced in India prior to the 19th century besides Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and Sikhism? ”

                  Not my contention. Before the British arrived, there were many disparate, localized beliefs and practices. They worked to unify them under the name of Hinduism.

                  1. Read the article again. It’s about riots taking place in the north of India.

                    And therefore anti-Muslim violence doesn’t happen elsewhere in India? I’m not sure I follow.

                    And plenty of India’s Muslims descended from Tajiks, who are Caucasian in origin.

                    Plenty is a strong word. The Tajik population of India is tiny (and Aryan, not Caucasian).

                    The smarter counter point would have been ethnic Persians, of whom there are far more in India than ethnic Tajiks.

                    But more importantly, all three races of people (Tajik, Persian, Hindustani) would be deeply insulted by your assertion that there is no difference between them because they had common ancestors 5,000 years ago (ancestors also shared by most Europeans).

                    And let me ask you this – how is that there is no such thing as Hinduism, and that Hinduism is in some sort of existential conflict with Islam? What’s the specific point of theological disagreement that fuels so much anti-Muslim violence among Indians who share no particular common religion?

                    Given that it doesn’t have anything to do with the political history of different ethnic groups, that is.

                    The notion that racial, not religious, animosity is behind the troubles or India and Ireland is idiotic.

                    When you start insulting me is when I know you realize your point is crumbling.

                    1. ” I’m not sure I follow. ”

                      I’m sure you don’t. The violence is taking place in Northern India. The article doesn’t mention the south.

                      The Tajiks are Indo European, and they arrived in India with the Mughal.

                      “(Tajik, Persian, Hindustani)”

                      These are not races in any sense of the word I’m familiar with. English and Irish are not separate races either, but different nationalities.

                      “But more importantly, all three races of people (Tajik, Persian, Hindustani) would be deeply insulted by your assertion”

                      If I’ve hurt the feelings of any of my Tajik, Persian, or Hindu readers, I apologize.

                      ” how is that there is no such thing as Hinduism”

                      We’ve already established that there is such a thing as Hinduism. It was invented by the British couple hundred (not thousand) years ago.

                      “When you start insulting me”

                      If you believe the troubles in India and Ireland stem from racial, not religious differences, you deserve all the insults that come your way.

                    2. I’m sure you don’t. The violence is taking place in Northern India. The article doesn’t mention the south.

                      From whence you seem to conclude that therefore there is no anti-Muslim violence in the South of India. I am attempting to gently correct this misperception of yours.

                      These are not races in any sense of the word I’m familiar with.

                      Then what meaning does the word “race” have? What is your point in asserting that they are “Caucasian?” Why is “Caucasian” vs “non-Caucasian” a racial line but “Persian” vs. “Tajik” is not?

                      And by your logic, why would the Mughals, who were Muslims from Uzbekistan, invade a country that was already being ruled by Muslims from Afghanistan? If it’s just a religious conflict, that is? What is it specifically about Afghan Islam that the Mughals objected to such that they had to invade?

                      English and Irish are not separate races either, but different nationalities.

                      So if I do Ancestry.com it won’t be able to tell me whether I’m English or Irish?

                      If I’ve hurt the feelings of any of my Tajik, Persian, or Hindu readers, I apologize.

                      That’s not really salient. What is salient is your assertion that these three groups are all the same race of people. Which is wrong.

                      We’ve already established that there is such a thing as Hinduism. It was invented by the British couple hundred (not thousand) years ago.

                      Then who are the 16th-century Mughals speaking of when they speak of “Hindus?”

                      (Full disclosure for further discussion in case you haven’t gleaned it yet: I’m familiar with the “British scholars invented Hinduism argument;” I’m suggesting to you that this is a simplistic take. It’s not as simplistic as “India has been Hindu for thousands of years,” which is also not true, but let’s move beyond the simplistic takes all around, shall we?)

                      If you believe the troubles in India and Ireland stem from racial, not religious differences, you deserve all the insults that come your way.

                      Take a moment to consider the notion that you may not be 100% correct in this evaluation, and that you may be talking to someone who has literally written a book on this topic. Does that change your sense of how deserving I am of insults?

                  2. The British probably got the idea from the Mughals.

                    I thought you said “Hinduism was an invention of the British?”

                    1. I did. Several times now.

                    2. Square, I think I’ve figured out where the confusion is. He doesn’t know what the word “invention” means.

                    3. He doesn’t know what the word “invention” means.

                      You may be right there. I think you could say “Britain invented Hinduism” in the old-school sense of “discovered and codified” rather than in the modern sense of “made-up out of whole cloth,” and it wouldn’t be altogether inaccurate.

                      But it certainly doesn’t make sense to pretend that there were no Vishnu-Shiva-Brahma-Krishna-Kali-Rama worshippers in India prior to the 19th century simply because they didn’t necessarily refer to themselves as “Hindu.” Or that they didn’t see Muslims as a foreign “other” whose expulsion from the Subcontinent was a noble and, dare I say, holy goal.

          2. You should check out this guy’s observations about Hindus in the 1520s.

            Who do you suppose he was talking about?

  11. Religions blow.

    1. Except when they suck.

  12. If Baghdad Bob had transgender surgery, he would call himself Shikha Dalmia. Truly incredible.

  13. Why am I – as a Christian – supposed to react with outrage about ethnic-religious violence in other places considering how few Western publications speak out against Christians being persecuted in Muslim countries? Worse, some even take the position it isn’t even happening.

    I’ll care more when the playing field is even out a bit.

    As if past Presidents (and Prime Ministers) haven’t said kind things about asshole leaders of other countries.

    Tiresome stuff.

    1. “Why am I – as a Christian”

      But you’re obviously not a Christian, are you? Otherwise you wouldn’t have to ask the question.

      1. Who are you, the Pope or something?

  14. It is possible that due to Trump’s monumental ignorance, he truly believed what he was saying.

    Or… he’s just lying his ass off as usual.

  15. Shiksa, you ignorant slut…

  16. “you ignore my atrocities and I’ll ignore yours”

    – You can’t come here.

    -Atrocity! Atrocity!

  17. Getting paid easily every month from home by doing very easy and simple job from home. I have received my 3rd paycheck of $19852 last month from this home based easy job in part time. Every person can get this job and start making real cash online by follow details here……Read MoRe 

  18. Modi’s party was founded by a Hitler admirer. Modi and his party have been causing violence against Muslims for years and now they have hatched a plan to declare Muslims non-citizens and imprison or deport them.

    The Hitler youth commenters really have a hard-on for Modi and can’t wait till Trump does the same for Muslims and Hispanics.

    1. Cite?

  19. The radical left’s muslim-love is simply a case of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Muslims are the antithesis of every single liberal value we hold in the west.
    Just go write for the HuffPost or MotherJones! No libertarians agree with you. You are not fooling anyone into thinking you are libertarian.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.