The Instigator
TheDebterDude
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Cbrown0502
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

India treats its minorities better than Pakistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 71481
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheDebterDude

Pro

India which is a secular and democratic republic is often questioned about its treatment of Muslims by its Islamic neighbour Pakistan, However Pakistan often forgets about its own treatment of minority groups, whose rights are far more disrespected in Pakistan rather than in India.Pakistanis are never falling behind to tell the World that a Hindu Nationalist Party is now in power in India however even this Hindu Nationalist Party was the one that nominated APJ Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, for the prestigious post of the President in its last term. Furthermore, there have been 2 previous Muslim Presidents in India. In comparison to that the highest ranking Hindu Politician in Pakistan was Jogendra Nath Mandal who was the Minister of Law and Labour that too way back in 1950. Let us get fake Pakistani liberal concern out of our way. Pakistan was born out of the notion that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. India lives on as proof that the two-nation notion was just exploitation of religious emotions. India has not withered away; on the contrary, it has prospered.We have hit rough patches off and on but compared to Pakistan, we enjoy more freedom and greater security. Minorities, especially Muslims, do find the going tough sometimes, but they have equal rights.The current mood of despondency will also give way to hope and how soon that happens depends upon the new dispensation.But Indians do not have to denounce a minority to qualify for an Indian passport.Every Pakistani has to sign on a form that outcasts Ahmadis to apply for a passport.India has had its majority-minority divide, sometimes with bloody consequences, but we have not reached that level of disgrace. Nosy neighbours forget to look at their own backyards. Muslims die in dozens every day in Pakistan because government policy has nurtured and used terror as a tool against its neighbours.Now let's deal with our own. Is it as bad as critics claim? Let's first recognise that 22 Muslims in a 543-member house is a figure that sounds under-representative. It's important to recognise that.But looks are deceptive. That the 22 Muslims represent Muslims is a flawed idea. They represent their constituencies, people who voted for them and people who didn't. They do not represent Muslims. Like a Hindu MP does not represent Hindus. Mulayam Singh Yadav of the SP lost many seats in Uttar Pradesh probably because he was perceived as representing only Muslims. Is he counted among the 22?Shahnawaz Hussain of the BJP lost the election, but had he won, would he represent Hindus or Muslims? His party is perceived to be representing Hindus.If that is the case, Bulo Mandal, who defeated Hussain, is a RJD candidate, who won because of Muslim support, will end up representing Hindus and not his core voters.So is the meagre figure of 22 not a cause of concern? It is.But contrary to what many believe, it is not a crisis of Muslim representation in parliament. It is symptomatic of a crisis of leadership in the community. The quality of leadership, the Sangh-inspired discourse of otherness, the skewed and much-abused politics of secularism - all keep the community in perpetual panic.The rise of a party that has many right-wing, venom-spewing Giriraj Singhs does scare the hell out of not just Muslims or minorities but also the majority of right-thinking people.Even the Right-thinking among them feel disgusted. But it's not the Togadias, Girirajs, Owaisis or other loonies of the kind who decide state policy. It's the state governments and the government in Delhi. Modi has a record to set straight. The ghosts of 2002 will not go away with a victory. He will triumph only when he finds that much-needed balance. He is here with a popular mandate. He has been saying the right things. Now, he has to be seen doing the right things.The fear, though exaggerated, is not baseless. It's time to face that fear. It's time for Modi to address the concern. That there are only 22 Muslim MPs in the Lok Sabha is not one of them. The Electoral Process for Non Muslims is within itself controversial In 1980s Zia ul-Haq introduced a system under which non-Muslims could vote for only candidates of their own religion. Seats were reserved for minorities in the national and provincial assemblies. Government officials stated that the separate electorates system is a form of affirmative action designed to ensure minority representation, and that efforts are underway to achieve a consensus among religious minorities on this issue. But critics argue that under this system Muslim candidates no longer had any incentive to pay attention to the minorities. Pakistan's separate electoral system for different religions has been described as 'political Apartheid'. Hindu community leader Sudham Chand protested against the system but was murdered. In 1999, Pakistan abolished this system.
On 28 June 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that non-Muslims may vote for any candidate at the Union Council level for seats reserved for mayor, deputy mayor, laborers, farmers, and women. However, non-Muslims still are barred from voting for Muslim candidates who run for general seats. Three of the five rounds of elections already had occurred prior to this ruling. Few non-Muslims are active in the country's mainstream political parties. Christian and Hindu leaders conducted a boycott to protest against the system of separate electorates during the local elections. In October 2000, a coalition of Christian non-governmental organizations sent a petition to Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, requesting a dialogue between the government and minority religious leaders on the controversy. The government did not acknowledge receipt of this petition. The Pakistani position on Ahemadis is even more controversial.The Pakistan government does not ban formally the public practice of the Ahmadiyya, but its practice is restricted severely by law. A 1974 constitutional amendment declared Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority because, according to the Government, they do not accept Muhammad as the last prophet of Islam. However, Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims and observe Islamic practices. In 1984, under Ordinance XX the government added Section 298(c) into the Penal Code, prohibiting Ahmadis from calling themselves Muslim or posing as Muslims; from referring to their faith as Islam; from preaching or propagating their faith; from inviting others to accept the Ahmadi faith; and from insulting the religious feelings of Muslims. This section of the Penal Code has caused problems for Ahmadis, particularly the provision that forbids them from "directly or indirectly" posing as Muslims. The Ahmadis must not use the standard Muslim greeting form and must not name their children Muhammad. The constitutionality of Section 286(c) was upheld in a split-decision Supreme Court case in 1996. The punishment for violation of this section is imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine. It has been alleged that this provision has been used extensively by the Government and anti-Ahmadi religious groups to target and harass Ahmadis. Ahmadis also are prohibited from holding any conferences or gatherings. Doesn't all this effectively equal to the suppression of the Ahemadis? India on the other hand doesn't ban or censor any religious group from any such activities. Pakistani Penal Code articles 298 and 295 and its sections are the very proof of religious intolerance in the Pakistani Constitution. No such articles are present in the Indian Constitution. With this I would like to end by Argument on the Treatment of religious minorities in India and Pakistan.
Cbrown0502

Con

I'm sorry, I've been a bit over due with this debate, but, I don't believe India treats it's minorities better than Pakistan does. I'll use the Caste system as a resource... I'm not sure if you're very familiar with it, but basically, it divides Indian citizens based on what their biological ancestors accomplished in the past. Now, it's obviously not as simple as that.. but it's mostly based on religion and reincarnation, because someone that is classified as an untouchable, will work their legs off in hopes of increasing their chance to be higher up on the caste system. Anyway, you have people who are scholars and doctors on top, and that seems fair and legitimate, but then you start to work down the pyramid and you notice that these "untouchables" are not even connected to the pyramid, but excluded. This isn't just on a Pyramidal graph, but it is also happening as we speak in some Indian communities and cultural hearths. Untouchables, have no choice but to clean human waste, trash, and other disgusting things, all for what the community has subjected towards them: A Better Life. You might not think this is relative, but India has "minoritized" their own citizens as well as other minorities such as Muslims or Asian citizens and immigrants. Pakistan is no doubt, a very diverse area, and it contains many ethnic groups and cultures. It's also unarguable that yes, there is severe discrimination with a lack of support from any organizations as well as the government. The citizens in Pakistan also go through something similar, but extremely less humiliating, to the caste system. They follow social stratification, and this is practiced by most Muslims, and the severity in this practice, is basically not being able to be buried in public burial grounds, and although both of these systems are inhumane, it's quite possible that India treats their minorities badly in contrast to Pakistan's minorities.

Note: I'm very sorry about my lacking vocabulary, I am extremely tired.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebterDude

Pro

Religious, historical and sociocultural factors have helped define the bounds of endogamous groups for Muslims in South Asia, the Middle East and other parts of world. There is a preference for endogamous marriages based on the clan-oriented nature of the society, which values and actively seeks similarities in social group identity based on several factors, including religious, sectarian, ethnic, and tribal/clan affiliation. Religious affiliation is itself multi-layered and includes religious considerations other than being Muslim, such as sectarian identity (e.g. Shia or Sunni, etc.) and religious orientation within the sect (Ithnā"ashariyyah, Ismaili). Both ethnic affiliation (e.g. Sindhi, Baloch, Punjabi, etc.) and membership of specific Biraderis or Jat/Quoms (see Jatis) are additional integral components of social identity. Within the bounds of endogamy defined by the above parameters, close consanguineous unions are preferred due to a congruence of key features of group- and individual-level background factors as well as affinities.The social stratification among Muslims in the "Swat" area of North Pakistan has been meaningfully compared to the Caste system in India. The society is rigidly divided into subgroups where each Quom is assigned a profession. Different Quoms are not permitted to intermarry or live in the same community. These Muslims practice a ritual-based system of social stratification. The Quoms who deal with human emissions are ranked the lowest.Stephen M. Lyon of University of Kent has written about what he calls "Gujarism", the act of Gurjars in Pakistan seeking out other Gurjars to form associations, and consolidate ties with them, based strictly on caste affiliation. This is just to tell my honourable opponent that caste is a social problem in South Asia not restricted to Hindus. Furthermore I'd like to add that the Indian Constitution was majorly written by a Dalit, Dr Ambedkar. While the situation of the caste system in India is still undoubtedly a problem I'd like to add that the Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi is himself from a lower caste. India has taken many measure for the protection of Lower Castes which mainly includes reservation. Reservation in India is the process of setting aside a certain percentage of seats (vacancies) in government institutions for members of backward and under-represented communities (defined primarily by caste and tribe). Reservation is a form of quota-based affirmative action. Reservation is governed by constitutional laws, statutory laws, and local rules and regulations. Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are the primary beneficiaries of the reservation policies under the Constitution " with the object of ensuring a "level" playing field.The reservation system has received a mixed response from Indians since its inception. It has been praised for diminishing the gap between the upper and lower castes by allowing the latter to enjoy the further increased opportunities as the former in jobs, education and governance by allotting seats exclusively for them. It has also been criticised for discouraging a merit-based system and encouraging vote bank politics. Opponents of the reservation system claim that it reaffirms discrimination on the basis of caste. Some opponents also believe that the reservation system is essentially against the fundamental right to Equality. Allegations of Reverse discrimination are also heard of in public debates on the issue. In Case of the Union government this stands at 15% for SCs (which includes Dalits), 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes, 27% for Other Backward Classes with the total Constitutional Reservation standing at 49.5% with the others General (Open to all including SC/ST and OBC) 50.5%. In India most of the scholarships or student aid is available only for OBC's,SC,ST,BC, Women, Minorities & Muslims. As per Rediff Labs, only 0.7% of scholarships or student aid in India is based on merit. Furthermore even Pakistan divides its Hindus on the basis of Jati and scheduled caste. A common form of past discrimination in India was the practice of untouchability. Scheduled Castes (SCs) are the primary targets of the practice, which is outlawed by the Constitution of India. An untouchable person is considered "impure or a lowly human."During the Vedic period, the varna system was used. However, it was possibly based on the profession one chose rather than based on the birth[citation needed]. Also, it was possibly not elitist during the vedic times. Implying, all castes were considered equals. The system consisted of four ranked varnas. A person's varna was defined by his or her socio-economic duties (broadly classified into four classes or Varnas). These duties were either voluntarily performed or were assigned by the local administrator"one's varna was initially not defined by one's birth into any particular family. However, over the centuries, the system has changed to caste based on the person born in the linage than by his karma or profession.
The primary stated objective of the Indian reservation system is to increase the opportunities for enhanced social and educational status of the underprivileged communities and thus uplift their lifestyle to have their place in the mainstream of Indian society. The reservation system exists to provide opportunities for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribess to increase their political representation in the State Legislatures, the Executive Organ of the Union (Centre) and States, the labour force, schools, colleges, and other public institutions.The Constitution of India states in article 16(4): "Nothing in [article 16] or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." Article 46 of the Constitution states that "The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation."Today, out of 543 seats in India's parliament, 84 (18.42%) are reserved for SC/Dalits and 47 (8.66%)for ST/Tribes. Allocation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the Lok Sabha are made on the basis of proportion of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the State concerned to that of the total population, vide provision contained in Article 330 of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 of the R. P. Act, 1950.In 1982, the Constitution specified 15% and 7.5% of vacancies in public sector and government-aided educational institutes as a quota reserved for the SC and ST candidates respectively for a period of five years, after which the quota system would be reviewed.[10] This period was routinely extended by the succeeding governments. The Supreme Court of India ruled that reservations could not exceed 50% (which it judged would violate equal access guaranteed by the Constitution) and put a cap on reservations.However, there are state laws that exceed this 50% limit and these are under litigation in the Supreme Court. For example, the caste-based reservation stands at 69% and the same is applicable to about 87% of the population in the State of Tamil Nadu. In 1990, Prime Minister V. P. Singh announced that 27% of government positions would be set aside for OBCs in addition to the 22.5% already set aside for the SCs and STs. In some states Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra reservation even exceeds 50%. This shows the commitment of the Indian Government that isn't present in the case of Pakistan. Dalit Politicians like Mayawati, Fmr. CM of UP also enjoy popular support. The Current Vice President of India is a Muslim. Moreover it is worth adding that the famous Bollywood of India considers the Three KHANS as its stars.
Cbrown0502

Con

After researching, I now realize that you are taking from other articles. this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.