PM Debate: Religion

"Mr PM, in the constituent assembly, you and the home minister were very vocal against conversation, and in a 80% Hindu majority assembly, managed to pass laws against conversions. Various religious heads, especially the maulanas, priests, and missionaries were arrested.

And, the new religion called Mosair is recognised as a Muslim sect, which it isn't because it denies the Quran itself.

Not only that, under you, the Pakistan which was created to protect muslims from oppression was invaded and captured.

Is your goal to make India a Hindu Rastra? How can you guarantee that minorities won't be oppressed in an India led by you?"

"Well, first of all, I am not sure if you know this or are purposely stating misinformation, Pakistan wasn't created to protect Muslims. It was created by upper caste Muslims who wanted control over a large territory because they were so incompetent and unpopular on their own. It was created by the people who offset the deadly massacres of all people who weren't Muslim under Direct Action Day.

I am not against creating a Pakistan. But, it won't happen on our land. Not even one millimeter square will be given to any power hungry genociders. If anyone wants to create a Pakistan, they are free to do so outside of Indian subcontinent. I am sure Britain will happily give its land, because it wanted Pakistan the most.

Since you are a Genocidal regime's sympathesizer, I hope you would leave our country. No one is stopping you, and people like you.

Then as for other questions, first was about conversions.

Converting to other religions is not unconstitutional. The constitution gives as much freedom to a Hindu to convert to a Muslim as a Muslim to Hindu.

But, the so-called religious people who try to convert other people are banned to do so. Why? I will give you several reasons. First, let's see what these people do to convert other people.

First of all, these people disrespect other's religion, use misinformation, non-canon books like Manusmriti and Uttar Kand, and tell people to convert to their religion, without informing them the worse things in their cannon books. They tell people about caste system in other's religion, but don't mention that there is a caste system in their religion as well, whetger it be Muslims or Christians. Caste system has developed as a country thing, much like Racist System is a European and American thing, no matter the religion.

That's deception, fraud. We are obligated to protect our people from frauds.

You don't worship Allah? You are going to hell. You don't worship Jesus? You are going to hell. You worship idols? You are going to hell.

That's outright threatening. A person can take legal action against it. It's their right.

And, our constitution protects our people from frauds, scams, threatening, and ensures their safety.

Second, they use money to convert poor people and brainwash them. Take control over education, like Madarsas and Convent schools. Our constitution protects our people from brainwashing and propaganda, especially children.

Third, those who don't convert are tortured, raped and killed. This has been happening since centuries, even till now. Would the churches in Goa even apologise for the atrocities they committed? Would the Madarsas run by corrupt Maulanas even apologise for the rapes and genocides the actively promoted? I don't think so.

Fourth, destroying the culture and language. I have met with many leaders of Goa to discuss its future after it was liberated. But, I couldn't even meet one person who was proficient in its native language and culture. The same thing was happening in the North Eastern states of India, and we are obligated and motivated to protect the culture and languages of different tribes.

If anyone wants to convert to any religion, it is a personal choice, not something that should be influenced by other people. In our textbooks, we will cover the good and bads of every religions. The preachers don't tell the bad things about their religion.

Personally, I am a Hindu Athiest. Clinging to religious debates with misinformation over misinformation will only slow down our progress. Politicians will use religion to get votes, as all leaders in the past have done. Even the kings in the pasts.

Then there is the debate over Mosair Muslims. They don't recognise Quran, that's okay. They are muslims. Protestant revolution happened and made Christianity better, freeing the people from Churches which used the name of religion for their own goals.

As I mentioned earlier, religion is a personal thing. As long as it isn't harmful to others, you are free to practice it. Since Mosair Muslims aren't harming the other muslims, they are free to practice their form of Islam. Of course, destroying Masjids which were built upon temples is not the right way. They could have done it according to law, which they have started to do since we have gotten the situation mostly under control.

Then regarding the safety of the minorities. India is the only country where the minorities are safe. Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians, hundreds of tribal religions, all are safe, and the constitution doesn't have any anti-minority elements. If the constitutional laws opposes anyone's religious traditions, we are ready to talk. In fact, we asked about it during the Constituent Assembly too.

Traditions like Child Marriage, Circumcision, Sati, Triple Talaq, unequal inheritance, Dehumanising of Intersex people which contribute to a huge number of citizens of India, Domestic Abuse, and all other things that are outright evil traditions are banned. It doesn't matter if it hurts the sentiments of the people who have upper hand in the traditions.

Polymarriage, same sex marriage, are not banned. Same sex marriage won't be banned no matter how much time passes, since it isn't evil and the people have the right to marry who they love. But we couldn't come to conclusion about Polymarriage. But even in that, we have restrictions.

For example, a man won't marry two women, technically. It will be two women and a man, three people married to each other. A woman won't marry two men. Two men and one women, the three people will be married to each other. In case one person wants a divorce, they will be divorced to all the people in the relationship, otherwise it would count as cheating.

Polymarriage is a complex issue, and it will be discussed more, and progressing reforms will be made later down the line.

Does same sex marriage goes against religion? For many, especially Muslims and Christians. But, we aren't a religious country technically. If a muslim or christian person wants to marry a person of their own sex, then they can.

From my examples, I think you should have understood that we don't allow the oppression of any religion. The oppression of a religion may be defined by some people as not letting people continue their tradition which hurt another person. But for us, the oppression of a religion is defined as oppression under rules set by a small set of people which don't represent their religion, and are forced to live a harsh life because they are in minority from the other people's belief.

Muslims, as you have said, are not oppressed. Child Marriage is prevalent in many Hindu and Muslim communities. The children are oppressed from the traditions. If we were against muslims, we would have just banned Child Marriage for the muslims, wouldn't have banned Sati pratha, and caste system. Caste system is very prevalent in majority of the Hindus. But, I outright call it evil. Does that make me Anti-Hindu?"

"But wouldn't not letting communities have their personal rules count as oppression? And you didn't even consider Muslims as minority."

"Look, what is India? India is a 'Constitutional' Democracy. Not a theocracy. India is neither a Hindu country, nor a Muslim country. No book is more important than the Constitution. Even Ramayan. You cry about oppression, and not letting communities have their personal laws. Do Hindus have personal laws? No. Does this mean they are oppressed? No. And if a community consists of 25% of the country's population, it isn't minority. I suggest you to stop your victim mentality, and do some good work for the country as journalists are supposed to do, instead of trying to divide the country. Go get a life."

Another journalist asked Nehru,"Mr Nehru, what is the stance of Congress? During the Constituent Assembly, some people sided with personal laws while some sided with common laws. The same thing happened in the case of banning religious propagation."

"Well, Congress is a diverse party. Even though I am the party President, I don't get to decide the views of the people in the party."

"What's your personal stance on it then?"

"Personally, I don't see any problem with religious propagation. People should be free to do so. While I do believe that every citizen should have common laws, I believe that Muslims aren't ready yet."

Satyankar snarked at Nehru, "Why aren't Muslims ready yet according to you? Do you consider Muslims to be lesser beings who can't come on terms with progress and equality? That's a huge disrespect for the 25% people of our country, Nehru ji."

"I didn't mean that."

"Then why do you believe that they are not ready?"

"Have you not seen the constant riots? We need things to calm down."

"And why do you think that such people believe that rioting will work? Because of people like you who have no backbone. They believe that if they kill enough people, people like you will surrender to them. You surrendered when some MPs who were elected from the property holders in a small region wanted to cut India and form an extremist country whose only goal is to harm India and its people.

Becoming the leader of a country isn't a fairy tale. You are a grown up man, grow up. If only Patel ji wasn't bedridden, we wouldn't have to have a incredibly naive person contest for the most important position in the country."

"That's not being naive, it is being idealistic. And being idealistic isn't wrong. If you don't have ideals, how will you strive to make India the ideal country?"

"But your ideals are wrong, and dangerous."

"How?"

"Tell me, since you don't have any problem with conversions, what would you do if the entire population is converted into Christian or Muslim?"

"It wouldn't change anything. The people will be still Indians, and I don't see the problem."

"Then, what will happen if the entire Muslim and Christian population converted into Hinduism or others like Sikhism or Buddhism?"

"...We should protect minority."

"See? You are a person who believes in protecting and increasing the power of the minority, since you consider muslims as minority too. But, you don't care if it comes at the cost of majority.

Meanwhile, I don't care about the religious stuff as long as the demographics remain constant, everyone's culture and language is preserved, but not at the cost of majority or the people that don't agree with them.

Since you think that Muslims need to have their personal laws, that is Sharia, you want to install a system which will discriminate and dehumanise the women, will be okay with pedophilia, abuse of wives, grooming of little girls, slavery, destruction of temple and idols, and blasphemy laws. and okay with killing anyone not a muslim.

You would be okay with pedophilia in Christianity, destroying other religions and cultures, taking control over education.

There are a million bad things in each and every religion and community. You are in favor of reforming the evils in Hinduism, but not others.

That's ballant discrimination against minorities, leaving them without support for reforms, refusing to let them have their people live in a safe and more equal environment.

Who is anti-minority, you or me? You are anti-minority, anti-muslim, and anti-hindu at the same time, and that's an achievement only very few people are capable of."