#india religion population

[census2023]

Hindu Religion in India | Statewise Census 2023 | Census 2023

Hindu religion data of all states as per Census 2011 figures—complete Data of all religions and comparison in each state. According to the most recent census data from the Indian government, the Hindu population in India as of 2011 is approximately 79.8%. This makes Hinduism the dominant religion in India, followed by Islam (14.2%) and Sikhism (1.7%). Other religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Jainism, comprise less than 1% of the population. It is important to note that census data is subject to change and should be considered an estimate. The Hindu population in India has been growing at a slower rate than other religious groups, particularly Muslims.

The Growth rate of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is expected to fall more in the upcoming 2023 census while other religions like Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddism are expected to remain stable for the next 2 decades considering the already slowed-down growth rate of these religions.

[peachiyyy]

ind*a’s h*nduv*ta issue needs to be addressed globally bc they essentially want to do the same thing isr*el is doing to non-hindu indians. They’re also one of isr*el’s biggest supporters + isr*el funds the indian occupation in kashmir. B*p and m*di are garbage and I pray for their downfall everyday. Considering the history of 🇮🇳 , being in favor for genocide should be anti-indian but they hate muslims so much that they don’t care. But when I talk about it some yt saviour on here wants to tell me, a DESI- not just south asian, a DESI person, that im ‘racist’ for calling majority of them garbage lmfao.

[klimanaturali]

Maiores Religiões na ÍNDIA Por População

[tribalkhabar]

Adivasi of India

Here find info on: Adivasi of India. Know, History of Adivasi in India. Adivasi Population in India. About, Adivasi Religion. Adivasi History. Tribes of India.

[mprgz]

Male Pregnancy Myths and Facts

(note, this is to be taken as the loose general lore of the content that I post. I may also edit/expand it at some point. Do not take this a criticism of your own head canon on the topic)

Despite being a basic part of human biology, pregnancy in men is often misunderstood and, in some cultures, even taboo subject. This article attempts to dispel myths regarding pregnancy in men.

To begin with, nearly all a higher vertebrates retain a male-pregnancy of sorts, or the ability of males of the species to produce both sperm and eggs, as well as carry the eggs to viability. This has been lost in a few lineages of reptiles and rodents, but is present in the vast majority of higher animals.

Simply put, it makes little evolutionary sense for one gender to be unable to preform the egg-producing and carrying role. With the evolution of of internal fertilization, the gap between the number of eggs versus sperm produced means that a population with a high proportion of males who could preform the the female role would result in a population crash.

You can see that in different mammal species. Those animals with long gestation periods and singleton births tend to have high rates of male pregnancy, while it is generally less common in animals with large litters. For example, if multiple intact male horses or cattle are left together, the dominant male will impregnate the others, even if their are mares or cows present.

In humans, males typically have a 3 month menstrual period. Due to how the blood is expelled from the body, many men aren't aware of their cycles.

Up until relatively recently, in the late 1980s, male pregnancy required that one man (or XY person) impregnate another man. However, surrogacy technology has allow men to carry babies concieved with their wife's egg. (Or that of another for that matter.)

Myth 1: Male Pregnancy is Unnatural

Male pregnancy is biologically possible, and has organs devoted to that specific purpose. There were historical arguments why men shouldn't get pregnant, but those don't apply today. The female body is more specialized for carrying babies, but the male body is perfectly capable, especially with modern technology.

A lot of the argument against male pregnancy centered on anti-polygamy arguments. Either a man would have to take a man as a wife, or a man would get pregnant outside of marriage. The former would produce a surplus of women who could not be married, while the later would result in awkward family arrangements. With father-surrogacy, such concerns are largely irrelevent.

Myth #2: Male Pregnancy is Dangerous

Under ideal conditions, female pregnancy has somewhat fewer risks of complications, but that is only under a pure apples-to-apples comparison. A pregnancy in a healthy man is much safer than a high-risk pregnancy in a woman. Likewise, the historical gap in pregnancy safety was due to the medical science of previous generations not studying pregnancy in men, viewing it as an oddity.

Myth #3: Only Gay Men get Pregnant

This is false. Natural impregnation does require natural intercourse, but the majority of men who get pregnant are heterosexual. Additionally, even before the invention of surrogacy, the process of male on male insemination was treated differently than casual homosexual sex in many cultures. For example, in pre-British India and pre-Christian Europe, if a woman was infertile, her brother would often impregnate her husband, so that she would not be childless. This practice lasted among the Irish until the 15th century, and survived in some parts of Lapland, Siberia, & India until the early 20th century.

However, the taboo on any type of male impregnation in the West has resulted in male pregnancies being concentrated in homosexual communities.

Myth #4: Male Pregnancy is Forbidden by My Religion (maybe)

This may be true, depending on your particular denomination. Although male pregnancy is forbidden by many denominations, most of the mainline churches permit it, as well as non-Orthodox Judaism and most Eastern and Traditional faiths.

Myth #5: Seeders and Carriers are Separate sub-Genders

This is false. Although some men suffer infertility with one or both systems, the vast majority of men are capable of getting pregnant or impregnating others. Some men naturally tend toward one or the other roles, but naturally effeminate aren't more fertile. This myth may be due to only bottoming men naturally getting pregnant.

Myth #6: Carrying a Baby Reduces a Man's Male Fertility

Again, this is false, likely based on observation bias or stereotypes. Men who get pregnant tend to not get other men pregnant. Pregnancy, either during the pregnancy itself or after birth, has no impact on a man's male fertility.

Myth #7: Some Homosexual "Omega" Men Go Through Heat

This is mostly false. All people experience greater or lesser degrees of increase libido during ovulation. As the male menstrual cycle is less frequent, these changes may be more noticeable. It was common practice for parents to compel their obviously homosexual male children to remain home during their ovulation periods to prevent pregnancy, resulting in misconception that homosexual males experience greater symptoms of ovulation. Bisexual men often experience a greater homosexual attraction during ovulation. Scientific studies have confirmed heterosexual men also experience increased libido, at similar rates to other demographics, but do not notice it. Myth # 8: Pregnancy causes Breast Growth and Other Feminine Changes in Men

This is mostly false. Pregnancy will cause weight gain, which in some cases, can make a man's look more 'feminine' in the sense of more body fat. But, that is only true if higher body fat is defined as feminine. Likewise, male breasts may swell slightly after birth, but after weaning the child, they return to normal size. The body of a man will change in some regards after pregnancy, similar to what happens in women. However, his body will remain clearly male.

Concluding Remarks

Male pregnancy is a natural biological process that shouldn't be feared. Men are not weird or abnormal if they decide to bare a child. If men weren't 'supposed' to get pregnant, why do they have the biological equipment for it? There is also an argument that the prevalence of male pregnancy in the previous few decades has increased the legal protection of pregnant women.

A person's decision to have children or not should be a personal matter.

[mapsontheweb]

Buddhism in Southeast Asia

Buddhism reached Southeast Asia both directly over sea from India and indirectly from Central Asia and China in a process that spanned most of the first millennium CE. Currently, there are approximately 190–205 million Buddhists in Southeast Asia, making it the second largest religion in the region, after Islam. Approximately 35 to 38% of the global Buddhist population resides in Southeast Asia.

by african.mapper

[sammaggs]

3x10 Perfect Strangers | Multiculturalism

This episode is (like the rest of the show, but still) particularly and obviously preoccupied with the differences between Canada and America—especially since this is the episode where they fly to Toronto.

As Fraser says upon landing at Pearson about the dual French/English announcements over the PA:

And this is true!

The American “melting pot” philosophy of immigration is an assimilationist one: as different cultural groups join the society, they “melt together” into one common culture. Typically, this means erasing the unique parts of your own culture to become more acceptably American (and you know exactly what that means as well as I do.)

Canada’s multiculturalist approach is instead an example of a “cultural mosaic” model, in which we believe that disparate cultures can co-exist side-by-side and, in maintaining their own individual identity, enrich each other in the process.

The Multiculturalism Act, meant to make preserving and enhancing cultural diversity part of official government policy, was signed in 1971 (the OG Trudeau government was big on this). As of 2016, there were over 250 different ethnic groups in Canada.

Which brings us back to our top GIF!

Punjabi Sikhs in Whitehorse and Vancouver, 1906 and 1908

Sikhs are the fourth-largest religion in Canada, and have a large population out West. Canada actually has the largest national Sikh proportion in the world (at 2.1%), and the second-largest Sikh population in the world (after India).

So naturally, some of them would want to join the RCMP.

I’m going to let this article from the CBC tell this story far better than I could:

And so that’s why, for a brief moment, due South shows us a Sikh officer in a turban outside RCMP HQ.

(Which is actually the Canadian Blood Services HQ, in the building of what was once the Victoria Hospital for Sick Children, built in 1892!)

Quiet Canadiana in due South [more]

[metamatar]

im asking this out of pure ignorance but I've always wondered how does hinduism handle people who are not hindu? i know Christianity is essentially 'be the right kind of christian or go to hell' (so much as to beleive that Jewish people are literally devils, for example) but i was wondering how hinduism deals w people who are in proximity but not of the same religion. also if a dalit or lower caste person converts from hinduism to another religion, how does that affect thier life and how they're treated? appreciate your answer if u feel like explaining ^__^

it depends, in some parts of the country the non hindu has the same status as the lower caste dalit by default – so exclusion but in most places its a detente where religious and caste endogamy is strictly maintained. housing and employment discrimination is v common. its actually much harder to marry under the special mariage act and violence against interfaith and intercaste couples by their own families is common. in 2023, the muslim is the designated enemy of the state. the christian was fooled by the british and/or money to give up their culture or is literally a foreign agent. if you're looking for a textual answer, the equivalent of the "infidel," there isn’t really one because the streamlining of the canonical religious texts and construction of the hindu is recent. hinduism has aimed to appropriate instead of convert.

in modern india, legally anyone who is not a christian or a muslim is treated as a hindu. you are hindu by default in india to the state, governed by hindu codes for marriage and inheritance. for indigenous tribals it is a matter of coercing their children to feel shame at the (state sponsored but outsourced to private religious groups, love privatisation!!!) residential schools about their animist practices and making them worship the proper gods. for sikhs, jains and buddhists their is marginally more toleration. but they are basically seen as wayward hindu sects. this does change when they're in conflict with the majority in a way that resists "national cohesion" – see sikh pogroms in 1984 and the recent moves against sikhism due to the invocation of khalistan in the farmers protests. when dalits convert to buddhism many right wingers will invoke the spectre of predatory conversions.

since you are supposed to be hindu by default, christians and muslims are then seen as invasive outsiders and conversions are regulated very strictly by many states. it is historically true that christian missionaries brought christianity as part of a broader civilising mission, but imo it says something really depressing about hinduism that its epithets for christians is 'ricebag converts' bc people apparently converted for a bag of rice. islam's foothold in the continent is older, accompanying immigration from the west as well as the sultanate and the mughals. returning these christians and muslims to the fold, or "ghar wapsi" is a major project of the hindutva right. note that india is home to one of the world's largest populations of muslims (~200mil).

lower caste dalits have long converted to christianity and islam but caste violence follows them there anyway. caste may have textual origins in religion and focus on ritual purity but it is a socioeconomic form of subjugation. this means that while still subject to caste violence, dalit christians and muslims will be denied redressal through state protections like legislations against anti caste violence or reservations because those are restricted to hindu dalits.

[callimara]

Important PSA

Criticizing Israel is NOT antisemetism or an attack on Jewish people because

ISRAEL =/= ALL JEWS

And while I am not saying that there is no antisemitism because there is plenty of that too, this is not a case of that. But grouping all Jews together as Israeli and presenting them as a monolith erases their individuality and identity. It's like calling all Asian people Chinese, and that if you criticize China, then you hate all Asian people. It doesn't make sense.

I am so frustrated seeing people who are trying to raise awareness about Palestine be called antisemetic and disgusting by people who cannot perceive Jews and Muslims as anything but a monolith. That's the reason why so many people are having trouble distinguishing between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, because to them, they're all the same.

And that's why they don't see an issue with collective punishment.

And you know what? Palestine is NOT just the Jewish holy land. It is also the Christian holy land, and the Muslim holy land. Palestine wasn't even the first choice for a Jewish homeland because it was heavily contested by Jewish rabbis at the time.

Turning Palestine (I say Palestine because the entirety of what is now Israel used to be Palestine) as an exclusively Jewish ethno-state means that people of Christian and Muslim faith all over the world are stripped of their holy land. The oldest church in the world, dating back to the times of Christ is located in Gaza, and who are the ones protecting it? Palestinians.

And you know who bombed it? Even though it had 500 refugees of both Muslim and Christian faith inside? Israel.

Even the slogan used for the founding of Israel itself, "A land without people for a people without a land." Is blatantly revisionist and erases the existence of Palestinians already living there. It erases all the historic religious sites that stand there and are frequented regularly by their respective devotees. Or worse, does not consider the Palestinians as 'people.'

Some people tend to forget that religious belief is NOT the same as race, and so you CANNOT claim indigeneity just because you are a certain religion. I am an Indonesian Muslim. Born Muslim, raised Muslim, and every generation of my family have been Muslim. That doesn't mean I can say I'm indigenous to Saudi Arabia. Let alone that Saudi Arabian land is my birthright.

If a white American woman born and raised in Seattle decides to convert to Hinduism, can she then say she is now indigenous to India? Or if she has a child, and that child had a child, and they were all raised as a Hindu, but have always lived in the US all their lives, can they claim that they are indigenous to India?

No.

And the fact is, the first Jewish settlers during The First Aliyah (great Jewish migration to Palestine) came from Eastern Europe and are genetically closer to Russians and other Slavs than they are to the Jews who remained in the Middle Eastern region after their exile (and I guess some people forget that you can convert into Judaism even if you didn't come from "The Promised Land." Like for marriages and stuff.) That's why they feel the need to distinguish themselves from the word "Arab."

Granted, there were also Yemeni Jews that migrated with them (whom I would say have stronger claims to indigeneity), but even in the transition camps, there was a clear divide between the European Ashkenazi Jews and the Yemeni Jews, who literally had their kids taken from them to give to the Ashkenazi Jews.

And let's not forget that when Jewish migrants from Ethiopia came, they were given contraceptives without consent to make sure they didn't impact the "desired" population.

Wake up. This isn't a religious war. This is European colonization.

[gsirvitor]

Is it true that indophobic westerners claim that Sanskrit didn't originate in India?

That's not indo-phobia, that's what the research has revealed, including the Vedic religion and the people of northern India, these things were imports by outside groups.

Or rather, were created via invasions during the stone age, copper age and bronze age, how do we know this?

The peoples of northern India are closer related to the peoples of Europe, while the people of southern India are not.

Sanskrit is also closely related to the Indo European languages, while other languages in India are not, they are closer related to the Dravidian languages.

Another evidence of this is the prominence of the wheel as a symbol in India, along with the chariot being a symbol of divinity, the wheel was an invention that most likely originally came from eastern Europe, with the oldest evidence of a wheel coming from Slovenia;

The spoked wheel and chariot were also Sintashta inventions.

Horses most likely were first domesticated there too, allowing these peoples to invade with their pastoralist lifestyle into northern India.

The people most accredited to the spread of Indo European languages across not only Europe, but Eurasia are the Yamnaya people, who are most likely one of the groups responsible for the Aryan invasions of northern India.

Blue eyes and fair blonde hair also originally evolved in Europe, the presence of these gene expressions in the northern Indian, Iranian and some Pakistani minorities, is evidence of these populations being subjected to European invasions in the Bronze Age.

However, the Yamnaya were brunettes, but the later Andronovo peoples possessed the blonde and blue eyed genes, meaning they also invaded these regions.

The peoples of India, Iran and Pakistan were subjected to waves of migrations and invasions from Europe and the Mid East, at least two distinct waves occurred.

The first related to the Copper Age Namazga farming culture from the southern edge of the steppe, who exhibit both the Iranian and Eastern European HG components found in many contemporary Indian and Pakistani groups across the subcontinent.

The second, as mentioned above, came during the late Bronze Age, from similar steppe sources, with a impact on genetics more localized in the north and west.

HG stands for Hunter Gatherers.

Who inspired the tales that created the Indian religions, Sanskrit and influenced their genetics?

[census2023]

Muslim Religion in India - Statewise Census 2011 to 2023 - Census 2023

The population Growth rate of various religions has come down in the last decade (2001-2011). Hindu Population Growth rate slowed down to 16.76 % from the previous decade's figure of 19.92% while Muslim witness a sharp fall in growth rate to 24.60% (2001-2011) from the previous figure of 29.52 % (1991-2001). Such a sharp fall in the population growth rate for Muslims didn't happen in the last 6 decades. Christian Population growth was at 15.5% while the Sikh population growth rate stood at 8.4%. The most educated and wealthy community of Jains registered the least growth rate in 2001-2011 with a figure of just 5.4%.

The Growth rate of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is expected to fall more in the upcoming 2021 census while other religions like Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddism are expected to remain stable for the next 2 decades considering the already slowed-down growth rate of these religions.

[hopelittledreamer]

I couldn't sleep. What the hell is going on in this country???? Have y'all been keeping tabs on the violences going on in sambhal? And the surveys going on one after another on mosques? I seriously can't believe how tf are people so stupid. There are countless mosques and shrines which were built on demolished temples. If you go on trying to restore each and every temple back, then this country would go down to hell. Does the government has no other fucking issue than screwing up the already paper thin communal harmony in India? People are freaking dying in Delhi because of the air pollution, rape is as common as robbery, the environment is deteriorating at a fast pace, the economy of the country is in shambles, people are now poorer than ever, more than 90% of the country earns less than 25k rupees per month, the ganga is dying, so many animal species native to our country are on the verge of extinction, we don't have any good relation with any of our neighbouring country, unemployment rates are skyrocketing, the taxes are eating away at the middle class, only 1% of the population holds the majority wealth of the country, Mumbai has become the city with the most billionaires in all of South Asia with 92 billionaires residing there yet the biggest slum of asia exists alongside these elites . All of these issues. And what does the fucking divisive government wants to focus on???? Surveying centuries old mosques and wanting to see whether there's any temple ruins beneath it. And they don't even want to do this for their dharma. Naah, they don't give a fuck about hindus. They only want to keep the attention on these matters while the rich keep on profiting. Wow, like just wow. Use your fucking brains. The rich won't hesitate to kill the poor, doesn't matter if it's a Hindu or a muslim or a person of any religion. God, I can't believe the state of this country.

[daughterofruins]

How dare you say India is not my country, when my ancestors chose this Land, this Nation, this Mother over all other "religious" and political factors?

How dare you think that I am any less of an Indian because I am Muslim, and you are more of an Indian because India is also called Hindustan?

How dare you even think that Hindustan is called Hindustan because of the Hindu population, and not because of the river Indus?

How dare you even think that, I, a Muslim, cannot be a patriot when all my live I have sungs songs of Patriotism and sung praises of Bharat Mata?

How dare you even think of comparing two children of a Mother who has thousands and is loving each of them, living in each of them, thriving in each of them?

How dare you think that my religion makes me any less of an Indian, when all it does is makes me all the more of an Indian?

How dare you?

[memecucker]

The relationship between colonialism and religion is more complicated than the Civilization game where you’re trying to score a religious victory and it’s easier to convert places you conquer.

It’s not a matter of religion being imposed purely for the purpose of religion being imposed even if that may have been the personal motives of individual colonizers because even if there was a truly missionary motive these missions could only exist insofar as it was economically sustainable and oftentimes this takes the form of exploitation of the indigenous population.

Also the flat conception of religious colonialism overlooks how as colonialism progressed as a type of “social technology” there was in many places a shift away from seeking to replace indigenous organized religions (if they were present in the first place) towards recruiting the indigenous religious authorities to the colonial side.

Like for example with the colonies of the Iberian powers there was no separation of church and state and I don’t just mean in the sense of “the state imposed religious dogma and the church officially endorsed the state” I mean basic everyday functions of the state relied upon services of the church. Eg; If a colonial Governor wanted to say, requisition corvee labor from villages for a building project and he wished to know the populations of these villages in order to decide which to pull laborers he wouldn’t be looking at any state mandated census but instead would rely upon the archives and records of the Catholic Church because records would be kept of church attendance. If the governor wanted to hunt some rebel named “Diego of San Juan” he’d look at baptismal records to find examples of people named “Diego” and who they’re related to.

This meant that Spanish and Portuguese colonialism had an actual material interest in enforcing religious homogeneity and Catholic supremacy because that’s how their colonial states functioned. The colonial bureaucracy was in fact synonymous with the Church’s bureaucracy and so if some people weren’t Catholic they existed outside the Church which meant they existed (at least partially) outside the State. One example that’s a bit relevant is the original version the “National Commission on Indigenous Peoples” in the Philippines was set up during the American occupation and was called “Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes” because the groups in question are largely people who existed outside of direct Spanish colonial control (and wouldve been labeled “savages” in the 19th century) and hence “non-Christian”.

Anyway in the case of the Portuguese colonial empire in Asia this wound up being part of the reason for its collapse. By making their state function in the requirement that it’s subjects be observant Catholics the Portuguese had a lot of trouble making allies because if indigenous elites could be persuaded to convert then great but if they didn’t then they were gonna get really pissed off especially when they start hearing the Portuguese are torturing people under their rule that feel the same. And so without a network of allies the Portuguese colonial empire in Asia began to fall apart leaving only Goa, Macau and East Timor. Elsewhere the Portuguese had been replaced by the Dutch, English and French all of whom had systems of governance which was not as so dependent on doctrinal supremacy as the Iberians eg; the Dutch agreed to help the Shogunate put down a Christian revolt in 1638 and the East India Company actually banned Christian missionaries from operating in its territories until 1813 when Parliament forced them to allow Christian missionaries to preach.

Now of course the EIC example is in particular interesting because what you’re basically seeing is the colonial state shedding its reliance on the Christian Church in favor of courting the support of indigenous religious leaders and recruiting them into the colonial apparatus but at the same time you have churches seeking to operate whats can be considered a type of “rival” colonial project that would have an almost parasitic relationship in that the churches profited in their own way while also in a way undermining the local legitimacy of the official colonial state.

[incorrectmahabharatquotes]

Genuinely curious, because you seem to hate the Ram Mandir... or how you think one party/ruling government is using it for political gain/votes or how it's wasting money etc.

What do you have to say about the Waqf board act? Or the infamous Shah Bano case and the way the Rajiv Gandhi government went against the decision of the Supreme Court to favour Muslim patriarchy. Or the fact that the Congress government banned books like the Satanic Verses to please a certain community. Is this not politics of appeasement?

You say that the ruling party is playing politics over religion, but hasn't every party done it? It's not like BJP was even hiding it, they've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir rebuilding for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move.

Besides, Ram Mandir is built through devotee donations, so why so much vitriol against it? If Hindus are giving money to construct a temple, it's solely their own decision. I genuinely don't understand why there's so much hatred for it. If a community is reclaiming their holy land, which had been forcibly ruined and rebuilt into another type of building, it's not a bad thing. Plus, a big chunk of land was given to the Sunny Waqf board to build a beautiful mosque in Ayodhya itself, which has begun construction this year (iirc). Both communities will have their interests restored.

Why can't we move on and celebrate the Ram Mandir rebuilding and inauguration? Is decolonization and reclaiming of a place of cultural significance not important?

(I know that some people are being too aggressive about it, but the majority isn't. They're simply celebrating and praying. And some of them actually got attacked for it.)

Okay. Since you're genuinely curious, I'll answer this.

"Why am I criticising the current ruling party for playing politics of appeasement and not any of the other parties?" I'm criticizing them BECAUSE they're the ruling party. They have been in power for close to 10 years now. That's more than 1/3rd of my whole life. This is a hilarious question because I would've been criticizing the same action if it would've been taken by any other political party. I don't have a problem with the party, I have a problem with what they're doing. All citizens are SUPPOSED to do this, my friend. Criticizing your government on what they're doing wrong is a fundamental part of a democracy.

"Politics of appeasement." I hope you understand the difference between appeasement and religious nationalism. The ruling party isn't appeasing anyone. Their acts are guided by their political ideology of Hindutva. I fundamentally disagree with their ideology. I do not agree with them when they say being Hindu is integral to being an Indian. I do not believe in maintaining a Hindu hegemony in India. I simply refuse to accept an ideology that was LITERALLY INSPIRED BY FASCISM AND THE IDEAS OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

"What do you have to say about so-and-so?" You know, I would've criticised things I believe are harming our country and power when the governments you speak of were in power. Unfortunately, in certain cases I was not alive then to criticize them and in a few cases, I was a child and I did not know how to form complex sentences. I do not believe in essentialism, you understand? I do not believe that any religion or political party is essentially good or bad. I believe in judging them for what they do.

"They've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move." It's imperative for you to understand this, it is politically a good move and in all other ways a HORRIBLE move. They get the support of all the Hindus who make up the majority of the population? Decent political move. Who could begrudge them for using DIVIDE AND CONQUER as a strategy? But in doing so, what kind of monster have they created? Have they created a billion people who think religious-nationalism is an okay direction for the country's future? Is that a good move, I ask you.

"Ram mandir is built through devotee donations so it's okay." That's close to ₹1,800 crores. (Estimated amount because of course, there's no transparency in the donation system so that we know who donated what amount.) Do you seriously believe all that money came out of the pockets of average working class Indians? Or did the ultra wealthy businessmen fund this religious project and get massive tax breaks in the process? But yes, I'm sure there's no fuckery going on with the money because it's out of DEVOTION. That makes it okay, I guess.

Now we come to the part that is the worst part of this anon message, according to me.

"Reclamation and decolonization." You use these words so lightly and I find that offensive. These words are HIGHLY tied to power structures. Who has the power right now? Is it the mythic evil Islamic conquerors of 400 years ago? Or is it a political party that believes in hindu nationalism and is funded by the ultra wealthy billionaires because said party helps them get even richer? Who is reclaiming what here? I want you to ask yourself this. Can a powerful majority claim reclamation when they tear down a building to build another building there?

"They tore down the temple and built a mosque there" And now you've torn down the mosque and built a temple there. Congratulations, you've won the game. Where do we go from here? Will everyone be happy now? Has peace been restored? A great evil destroyed? What story are we telling ourselves here? Will the religious fanaticism go away now? Will the hatred that has been cultivated in the hearts of Hindus against Muslims be sated? Or will it find more avenues to spread itself?

Decolonizing the mind, right? I wonder why we're only focused on decolonizing against the islamic past and not anything else. But it's okay that India is currently colonising Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonisation when it comes to Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonizing from the system of capitalism that is choking the lives out of us. HELL, WE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN RECLAMATION SEEING HOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THE BARE MINIMUM RESERVATION TO CERTAIN COMMUNITIES AS A REPARATION FOR THE HARM THEY'VE HISTORICALLY AND CURRENTLY SUFFERED AND ARE STILL SUFFERING.

I don't want people to talk to me about reclamation, reparation and decolonisation before they accept their own hypocrisy.

Anon, you say have so much vitriol and hate towards a mandir. I should let people celebrate. Did I stop you personally from celebrating? Did I beat up somebody for trying to shove their religious agenda on me? All I did was talk about how sad I am that this is what we've decided to do with our country's resources. Why is one voice of dissent such a big deal to you? Do you want me to shut up and fall in line? Will that be acceptable?

- Mod S

[mapsontheweb]

Second Largest religion in Pakistan

Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis, Scheduled Castes and others (including Sikhs and Parsis) are officially and constitutionally recognized as religious minorities. Pakistan has various religious minorities. According to the 1941 census of India, there were 5.9 million non-Muslims in the territories that came to form Pakistan in 1947 (West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). During and after Pakistan’s independence in 1947, about 5 million Hindus and Sikhs emigrated to India, with Punjab alone accounting for migration of 3.9 million people.According to the 1951 census conducted by the Government of Pakistan, Pakistan had 1.6% Hindu population.In East Pakistan (Bangladesh), the non-Muslims comprised 23.2% of the total population. By 1997, the percentage of Hindus remained stable at 1.85% in Pakistan,while Bangladesh has witnessed a decline with Hindus migrating from it because of insecurity due to fear of persecution, conflict, communal violence (as a result of newly created Bangladesh’s assertion of its Muslim identity) and poverty. The demolition of the Hindu temple site serves as a poignant illustration of the ongoing discrimination endured by the Hindu community in Pakistan. In Pakistan, women, religious minorities, and transgender individuals remained subjected to violence, discrimination, and persecution. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws illustrate one of the most extreme instances of this issue: Since 1990, over 62 individuals have fallen victim to vigilante violence linked to blasphemy accusations

by map_nerd