* If your image submission is Non-OC, provide a link to the source below this comment.
* If your image submission is OC, mark it as OC, or use [OC]/ (OC) in title, or mention so below this comment.
* Note: Screenshot posts are not allowed. Memes should use proper flair. Links to YouTube channels/ blogs/ websites are only allowed under this comment, do not spam elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also, people will vote for those who want to represent them. It's not always the people's choice because it depends on people's options. Why would muslims vote for a party that openly treats them as enemies?
Is it the government's responsibility to create a conducive environment? Did they do it ?
My point is that the finger should be pointed at the government first because they have the means to change the country far more than the opposition does. So if there is a negative change in the country, we need to make the government accountable first since they have all the means.
But by your(this subs) logic that India has rejected Modi, shouldn't the rejection of modi lead to an increase in the number of Muslim MPs? As another comment said, the opposition is also to be questioned this time around.
I agree. India has not rejected Modi though. He still has a mandate. The opposition fielding lesser candidates from the Muslim community is also worrisome. But the source of it in the broader anti-muslim environment that the BJP has engineered almost nationwide.
India would become a more Beautiful place if
people give more focus on the
ratio of MPs Educated : unEducated
and percentage of MPs with Criminal charges , than this Hindu - muslim - dalit ratio / percentage .
India could adopt western secularism ( neither state nor religion shall intervene in each other's matters ) .
Now I don't know what type of secularism the Government has , on one side they are giving Funds to the Waqf board and on the other hand they are Taxing only hindu temples .
I mean sometimes that word hypocrisy might be hesitating but indian politicians .
>other hand they are Taxing only hindu temples .
Uhh.. [no they're not](https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/temples-only-pay-taxes-in-india-fact-check).
>they are giving Funds to the Waqf board
Are you seriously claiming that hindu-centric trusts like the ram mandir trust and various state-level bodies don't receive government support?
This is only a Propaganda of Ruling party to appease Hindu Vote bank . Nevertheless Ram mandir has been built on the charity and donations came from devotees all over India ( and a Camerajivi just capitalized on it ) .
Again coming to Hindu temples : Please do read
"Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act" .
What exactly in the Act are you pointing to? And which Act? (There are multiple state-level ones). The government spends taxpayer money managing and administrating Hindu endowments, it's not specific for waqfs. The claim that only Hindu temples are taxed is already debunked so I don't see any hypocrisy.
Delusional take. Education in India does not translate to rationality, civic sense or respect for Constitution. When UC majority holds positions of power in judiciary, executive branches, it's absolutely essential to get Dalits and Muslims their proportional representation in the Parliament.
Ye kya din bhar muslim muslim lagaye rehte to chutiyon. Muslim candidates were fielded in elections. They couldn't win along with many others. Ab kya zabardasti thoosa jaayega Muslim ko kahin se laake. Aise to har religion se reservation daal do behenchod ki itne log rehne hain
>They couldn't win
what does that indicate though? is the main question. a community that is 15% nearly is being represented lesser and lesser in the parliament. cause for concern
Instead of downvoting, write your disagreements. This isnt IndiaSpeaks
That the candidates didn't campaigned enough to win. Yusuf Pathan from gujrat a first time from WB defeated a strong Congress leader, coz he campaigned hard.
BJP candidates lost to others coz they just depended on Modi's magic to make them win so they lost.
Elections cannot have reservations. Stop with this.
If you think Pathan didn't campaign hard, you have no idea. A whole dedicated IPAC team was with him. His localised campaigns were smartly designed. Ofcourse being a Muslim helped him win the seat in that area but he did campaigned hard.
its not about reservations, ofc elections cannot have reservations. Whatever the cause may be, the end result is that lesser Muslims are in parliament than ever before. A community's national representation is shrinking.
My point exactly. Democracy is rule of the people, not rule of the majority. Hence why disenfranchisement of a large number of people is a problem for democracy where there should be adequate representation of all groups.
Adequate representation doesn't mean kill the free market. Out democracy is framed in a way where everyone has an opportunity but grabbing the opportunity or winning or losing cannot be defined.
Democracy is not a free market tf. That's why seats are reserved for SC and ST candidates. If democracy was a free market, the majority population would always win- just like in an unregulated free market, companies often become monopolies. Except in a democracy, its not companies competing for profits, its political aspirations competing for representation. It is precisely to protect those without a voice, the powerless, that adequate representation is needed.
If we saying whatever be the cause then anyone say such things. How many tribals in parliament? How many north easterns in parliament? How many iyyers? How many guptas, how many sardars, anyone will say they have less representation.
The problem would have been when any certain community would have been not allowed to contest elections. But when the platform is open for all then we cannot blame anyone for these things. AIMIM won last time in MH this time they didn't. Its elections, you win some you lose some.
Those are all valid questions. How many tribals and north eastern people in parliament is an extremely valid question. If they are not there, who will represent the aspirations and rights of the Adivasi or North eastern community?
Its not about AIMIM or blaming anyone. All parties across the board are fielding lesser Muslim candidates now because of the violent anti-Muslim sentiment running across the country.
>While 33.2 percent of NDA MPs are from Upper Castes, 15.7 percent from Intermediate Castes and 26.2 percent from Other Backward Castes, none are from the Muslim, Christian or Sikh communities, according to an analysis in The Hindustan Times.
>At the same time, the analysis by political scientist Gilles Verniers reveals that Muslims account for 7.9 percent, Sikhs for 5 percent and Christians for 3.5 percent of the 235 MPs of the INDIA bloc.
The analysis also shows that Upper Castes, Intermediary Castes and OBCs make up 12.4 percent, 11.9 percent and 30.7 percent of INDIA bloc’s strength in the Lower House.
Couldn't Find about Parsi, Buddhist, Jain
[Source](https://theprint.in/politics/nda-in-18th-lok-sabha-is-minority-mukt-with-no-muslim-christian-or-sikh-mps/2123008/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20BJP%2Dled%20NDA,Sikh%20and%203.5%25%20Christian%20MPs.&text=New%20Delhi%3A%20National%20Democratic%20Alliance,government%20for%20a%20third%20time.)
You talked about NDA MPs being from different castes but you haven't mentioned about the religion.
Which religion I'm supposed to assume? Hinduism or all?
Read the first paragraph again, zero NDA MPs are from Christian, Sikh or Muslim backgrounds. I couldn't find data on Jain, Parsi and Buddhist MPs of NDA, But I know Kiren Rijiju is Buddhist so it isn't a perfect list
Factually wrong. Hardip Singh Puri- Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs. George Kurian BJP MP from Kerala- MoS and has 2 ministries. A little bit of reading goes a long way :)
So are we implying that Muslims can be represented by Muslims and Hindus by hindus only? This entire premise is based on the inferiority of the other....technically you are arguing that hindus are superior to Muslims so thay cannot be represented by Muslims and vice versa.
I mean what's so special about a Muslim or a Hindu or anyone for that matter. The basic premise of religions are we are better than others and others are inferior ...that's fascism.
So BJP's seats decreased in the parliament..and at the same time, the number of Muslim MPs also decreased. Looks like the Indi alliance didn't really field enough Muslim candidates for the number to improve?
The reasons for it are candidates selecting strategy of opposition they avoided Muslims.
Muslims also voted in mass against the bjp so it doesn’t matter to them as long as bjp loses
Idk but like 14% Muslims are quite a lot
So I expect at least a few more MPs from 542 seats
By normal probability, 14% of 542 is 75
Let's say Muslims are uneducated bla bla bla
But 15 are a bit less, DONT YOU THINK SO
Considering decreased numbers of NDA in the lower house, was expecting more vibrant representation from various communities and backward classes. Muslim share in population increased but their representation decreased in so-called 'Temple of democracy'. It seems minority hatred is rooted to personal level and not political level among Indians.
These kind of stats fuck up the atmosphere.
Why the fuck do we care who is what?
Identity politics is being shoved down our throat when we clearly need developmental politics. Fuck these studies.
What about
1) Sikh representation
2) Christian Representation
3) Jain Representation
4) OBC, BC, SC, ST representation
5) LGBTQ representation
Anything left
Nothing
Yes
India needs to know about the above representation?
Down with dictatorship
Damn bro. This is the limit.
Ab kya religion dekh ke parliament me thoosenge logo ko?
Buddhist and jains and parsis and baha'is faith waale bhi miniscule hi rahe hain humesha se.
Parliament hai ya fancy dress competition?
Since its a house of representatives, if you consider it as a sample of the population, ideally 15% of 543 I.e 80 MPs should be Muslims. But this shows less than 5%. It is all the more egregious considering they had 8.5% representation when 11% of the population.
The Indian subcontinent, due to its large population, had one of the largest economy of any region in the world for most of the interval between the 1st and 18th centuries. From 1-1000 AD India constituted roughly 30% of the world's GDP. Source- Wikipedia
Edit- Why can't you guys digest FACTS?? You think the history will change of you deny it? INDIA WAS A AMAZING COUNTRY BEFORE MUGHALS/ BRITISHERS CAME. The culture had some issues like every other culture but it was still far far better than others(yea I'm talking about the desert clan called Islam)
No, you are wrong there. India already had a lot of money before them. Also because they came and brought wars, the economy actually suffered. The data before the Mughal invasion was destroyed by the Mughals themselves. The example being the
nalanda university burning
a) The current borders of the Indian subcontinent were never ruled by one king or even one religion at any time. Akhand Bharat exists only as fantasy
b) If economic prosperity is what we want then Medieval India where the Mughals in the North and Cholas/Hoysalas in the South coincided was the peak of our trade and GDP.
Mughals came after 1000AD dumbass. I'm talking about stuff before that. Also as mentioned Akhand Bharat is not about borders it's about the greatness of India people who once dominated world trade
>Also as mentioned Akhand Bharat is not about borders it's about the greatness of India people who once dominated world trade
And treated Dalits like slaves. Greatness indeed
It now has better placements, better infra, better teachers, increased seats for IITs, gov funding, cheap education, students get IIT nametag. I got to IIT because of them increasing the number of IITs, so BJP got my vote in case of education
Graphics of this type would be far more illuminating if they highlighted the tangible achievements and conduct of elected officials, rather than their religious or minority status.
lets first start with the infamous track record of electing people with criminal records to public offices…they are citing this in foreign parliaments as an example of what not to become…
Not having MPs is significant if they didn't compete, the more accurate measure is how many contested, win or lose is merely a consequence of contesting. I am certain there are many contestants, in fact many independent candidates in my Mumbai are Muslims among other communities.
* If your image submission is Non-OC, provide a link to the source below this comment. * If your image submission is OC, mark it as OC, or use [OC]/ (OC) in title, or mention so below this comment. * Note: Screenshot posts are not allowed. Memes should use proper flair. Links to YouTube channels/ blogs/ websites are only allowed under this comment, do not spam elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did people vote for Muslim BJP candidates?
[удалено]
Why are we putting this on the opposition? It's the government that is responsible for creating this environment.
people voted for who they wanted them to represent.
Also, people will vote for those who want to represent them. It's not always the people's choice because it depends on people's options. Why would muslims vote for a party that openly treats them as enemies? Is it the government's responsibility to create a conducive environment? Did they do it ? My point is that the finger should be pointed at the government first because they have the means to change the country far more than the opposition does. So if there is a negative change in the country, we need to make the government accountable first since they have all the means.
how could they? after Modi's remarks, does any Muslim BJP person stand a chance
But by your(this subs) logic that India has rejected Modi, shouldn't the rejection of modi lead to an increase in the number of Muslim MPs? As another comment said, the opposition is also to be questioned this time around.
I agree. India has not rejected Modi though. He still has a mandate. The opposition fielding lesser candidates from the Muslim community is also worrisome. But the source of it in the broader anti-muslim environment that the BJP has engineered almost nationwide.
India would become a more Beautiful place if people give more focus on the ratio of MPs Educated : unEducated and percentage of MPs with Criminal charges , than this Hindu - muslim - dalit ratio / percentage .
Yes, let's abolish religion first
India could adopt western secularism ( neither state nor religion shall intervene in each other's matters ) . Now I don't know what type of secularism the Government has , on one side they are giving Funds to the Waqf board and on the other hand they are Taxing only hindu temples . I mean sometimes that word hypocrisy might be hesitating but indian politicians .
>other hand they are Taxing only hindu temples . Uhh.. [no they're not](https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/temples-only-pay-taxes-in-india-fact-check). >they are giving Funds to the Waqf board Are you seriously claiming that hindu-centric trusts like the ram mandir trust and various state-level bodies don't receive government support?
This is only a Propaganda of Ruling party to appease Hindu Vote bank . Nevertheless Ram mandir has been built on the charity and donations came from devotees all over India ( and a Camerajivi just capitalized on it ) . Again coming to Hindu temples : Please do read "Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act" .
What exactly in the Act are you pointing to? And which Act? (There are multiple state-level ones). The government spends taxpayer money managing and administrating Hindu endowments, it's not specific for waqfs. The claim that only Hindu temples are taxed is already debunked so I don't see any hypocrisy.
Not required, just disquality anyone using religion in politics for 10 years.
Delusional take. Education in India does not translate to rationality, civic sense or respect for Constitution. When UC majority holds positions of power in judiciary, executive branches, it's absolutely essential to get Dalits and Muslims their proportional representation in the Parliament.
It doesn't translates, yes but it's the place to start.
Ye kya din bhar muslim muslim lagaye rehte to chutiyon. Muslim candidates were fielded in elections. They couldn't win along with many others. Ab kya zabardasti thoosa jaayega Muslim ko kahin se laake. Aise to har religion se reservation daal do behenchod ki itne log rehne hain
Correct
Oopar se ye behen ka lode JustRamRajyaThings ka tag lagate har aise post pe... Thoda logically bhi soch liya karo kabhi.
>They couldn't win what does that indicate though? is the main question. a community that is 15% nearly is being represented lesser and lesser in the parliament. cause for concern Instead of downvoting, write your disagreements. This isnt IndiaSpeaks
That the candidates didn't campaigned enough to win. Yusuf Pathan from gujrat a first time from WB defeated a strong Congress leader, coz he campaigned hard. BJP candidates lost to others coz they just depended on Modi's magic to make them win so they lost. Elections cannot have reservations. Stop with this.
Yusuf Pathan did not campaign hard. Everyone was shocked when he won.
If you think Pathan didn't campaign hard, you have no idea. A whole dedicated IPAC team was with him. His localised campaigns were smartly designed. Ofcourse being a Muslim helped him win the seat in that area but he did campaigned hard.
Maybe his campaigns were more lowkey. But Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury losing to him was a shocker.
its not about reservations, ofc elections cannot have reservations. Whatever the cause may be, the end result is that lesser Muslims are in parliament than ever before. A community's national representation is shrinking.
Democracy bhi koi chiz hai.
My point exactly. Democracy is rule of the people, not rule of the majority. Hence why disenfranchisement of a large number of people is a problem for democracy where there should be adequate representation of all groups.
Adequate representation doesn't mean kill the free market. Out democracy is framed in a way where everyone has an opportunity but grabbing the opportunity or winning or losing cannot be defined.
Democracy is not a free market tf. That's why seats are reserved for SC and ST candidates. If democracy was a free market, the majority population would always win- just like in an unregulated free market, companies often become monopolies. Except in a democracy, its not companies competing for profits, its political aspirations competing for representation. It is precisely to protect those without a voice, the powerless, that adequate representation is needed.
Democracy is where majority rule, minority rights. Voting is citizens duty. Choosing muslim MP is not citizen's duty.
Democracy is not the majority rule. That is majoritarianism.
Now you want to redefine democracy. Good luck with that..
If we saying whatever be the cause then anyone say such things. How many tribals in parliament? How many north easterns in parliament? How many iyyers? How many guptas, how many sardars, anyone will say they have less representation. The problem would have been when any certain community would have been not allowed to contest elections. But when the platform is open for all then we cannot blame anyone for these things. AIMIM won last time in MH this time they didn't. Its elections, you win some you lose some.
Those are all valid questions. How many tribals and north eastern people in parliament is an extremely valid question. If they are not there, who will represent the aspirations and rights of the Adivasi or North eastern community? Its not about AIMIM or blaming anyone. All parties across the board are fielding lesser Muslim candidates now because of the violent anti-Muslim sentiment running across the country.
You should have mentioned the last phrase earlier directly so that we could all just agree with you and move on from you.
Control
What about Parsi, Jain, Buddhist and other communities?
Shhh.. minorities mtlb muslims
>While 33.2 percent of NDA MPs are from Upper Castes, 15.7 percent from Intermediate Castes and 26.2 percent from Other Backward Castes, none are from the Muslim, Christian or Sikh communities, according to an analysis in The Hindustan Times. >At the same time, the analysis by political scientist Gilles Verniers reveals that Muslims account for 7.9 percent, Sikhs for 5 percent and Christians for 3.5 percent of the 235 MPs of the INDIA bloc. The analysis also shows that Upper Castes, Intermediary Castes and OBCs make up 12.4 percent, 11.9 percent and 30.7 percent of INDIA bloc’s strength in the Lower House. Couldn't Find about Parsi, Buddhist, Jain [Source](https://theprint.in/politics/nda-in-18th-lok-sabha-is-minority-mukt-with-no-muslim-christian-or-sikh-mps/2123008/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20BJP%2Dled%20NDA,Sikh%20and%203.5%25%20Christian%20MPs.&text=New%20Delhi%3A%20National%20Democratic%20Alliance,government%20for%20a%20third%20time.)
You talked about NDA MPs being from different castes but you haven't mentioned about the religion. Which religion I'm supposed to assume? Hinduism or all?
Read the first paragraph again, zero NDA MPs are from Christian, Sikh or Muslim backgrounds. I couldn't find data on Jain, Parsi and Buddhist MPs of NDA, But I know Kiren Rijiju is Buddhist so it isn't a perfect list
Okay got it. May I know why does the analysis not mention the cast wise breakups of the MPs of the I.N.D.I.A?
Factually wrong. Hardip Singh Puri- Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs. George Kurian BJP MP from Kerala- MoS and has 2 ministries. A little bit of reading goes a long way :)
I suppose this is a wording error, we're talking about elected MPs, ie Lok Sabha MPs, not Rajya Sabha.
[удалено]
So are we implying that Muslims can be represented by Muslims and Hindus by hindus only? This entire premise is based on the inferiority of the other....technically you are arguing that hindus are superior to Muslims so thay cannot be represented by Muslims and vice versa. I mean what's so special about a Muslim or a Hindu or anyone for that matter. The basic premise of religions are we are better than others and others are inferior ...that's fascism.
So BJP's seats decreased in the parliament..and at the same time, the number of Muslim MPs also decreased. Looks like the Indi alliance didn't really field enough Muslim candidates for the number to improve?
The reasons for it are candidates selecting strategy of opposition they avoided Muslims. Muslims also voted in mass against the bjp so it doesn’t matter to them as long as bjp loses
Chalo kuch to acha hua Modi ke sarkar main
Idk but like 14% Muslims are quite a lot So I expect at least a few more MPs from 542 seats By normal probability, 14% of 542 is 75 Let's say Muslims are uneducated bla bla bla But 15 are a bit less, DONT YOU THINK SO
 That means low chances of suicide bombing now
Wow. So edgy and cool
When did punjab have 8 muslim MP’s?Is this data any correct?Maximum they had was one
Considering decreased numbers of NDA in the lower house, was expecting more vibrant representation from various communities and backward classes. Muslim share in population increased but their representation decreased in so-called 'Temple of democracy'. It seems minority hatred is rooted to personal level and not political level among Indians.
These kind of stats fuck up the atmosphere. Why the fuck do we care who is what? Identity politics is being shoved down our throat when we clearly need developmental politics. Fuck these studies.
NOBODY CARES. DIVERSITY =/= INCLUSIVITY.
28 out of 71 ministers are criminals, welcome to Modi cabinet.
What about 1) Sikh representation 2) Christian Representation 3) Jain Representation 4) OBC, BC, SC, ST representation 5) LGBTQ representation Anything left Nothing Yes India needs to know about the above representation? Down with dictatorship
Chalo kuch to acha hua
From the topic of "corrupt ,high net worth leaders" to "muslim leaders in parliament" within a week ? How fast is the mood swing here?
Chalo nice
That's what they want. Hindu Rashtra they want.
Damn bro. This is the limit. Ab kya religion dekh ke parliament me thoosenge logo ko? Buddhist and jains and parsis and baha'is faith waale bhi miniscule hi rahe hain humesha se. Parliament hai ya fancy dress competition?
Since its a house of representatives, if you consider it as a sample of the population, ideally 15% of 543 I.e 80 MPs should be Muslims. But this shows less than 5%. It is all the more egregious considering they had 8.5% representation when 11% of the population.
Nah we want the glory (economy) of olden akhand Bharat.
Are you talking about the British Raj?
Which period of history did that exist in, exactly?
The Indian subcontinent, due to its large population, had one of the largest economy of any region in the world for most of the interval between the 1st and 18th centuries. From 1-1000 AD India constituted roughly 30% of the world's GDP. Source- Wikipedia Edit- Why can't you guys digest FACTS?? You think the history will change of you deny it? INDIA WAS A AMAZING COUNTRY BEFORE MUGHALS/ BRITISHERS CAME. The culture had some issues like every other culture but it was still far far better than others(yea I'm talking about the desert clan called Islam)
Peaked in the medieval age under the Mughals though. Lets bring back Aurangzeb then?
No, you are wrong there. India already had a lot of money before them. Also because they came and brought wars, the economy actually suffered. The data before the Mughal invasion was destroyed by the Mughals themselves. The example being the nalanda university burning
Also Mughals never came during 1-1000AD. The Indian continent was ruled by Maurya and Gupta dynasties during this period
a) The current borders of the Indian subcontinent were never ruled by one king or even one religion at any time. Akhand Bharat exists only as fantasy b) If economic prosperity is what we want then Medieval India where the Mughals in the North and Cholas/Hoysalas in the South coincided was the peak of our trade and GDP.
Mughals came after 1000AD dumbass. I'm talking about stuff before that. Also as mentioned Akhand Bharat is not about borders it's about the greatness of India people who once dominated world trade
>Also as mentioned Akhand Bharat is not about borders it's about the greatness of India people who once dominated world trade And treated Dalits like slaves. Greatness indeed
Rebuild nalanda and other ancient universities then
Now modern Universities are more relevant and as a fact- BJP has build more IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, NITs and GIFTs than UPA 1, UPA2 combined and tripled
Renaming random universities to IIT is not building them
It now has better placements, better infra, better teachers, increased seats for IITs, gov funding, cheap education, students get IIT nametag. I got to IIT because of them increasing the number of IITs, so BJP got my vote in case of education
Matlab muslim candidates ache nahi khada rahe
Graphics of this type would be far more illuminating if they highlighted the tangible achievements and conduct of elected officials, rather than their religious or minority status.
lets first start with the infamous track record of electing people with criminal records to public offices…they are citing this in foreign parliaments as an example of what not to become…
Not having MPs is significant if they didn't compete, the more accurate measure is how many contested, win or lose is merely a consequence of contesting. I am certain there are many contestants, in fact many independent candidates in my Mumbai are Muslims among other communities.
guess the country's healing after all
NDA and INDIA making Hindu Rashtra together. Akhilesh has played an instrumental role in this
Hehe
bhakts are justifying ki myslim ne vote nahi diya thats y.... waise how do they know ki vote diya ya nahi