Sonia Gandhi only became a citizen due to marriage. She had *no* qualifications than who she married when made Congress President, held no public post. Could barely speak the language.
Only Congressi dalals like @saliltripathi could compare her with Rishi, Priti or Kamala.#dumb
Are you saying we're superior to the West? I hope you say this aloud regularly.
Imagine if Priti Patel got her post with her only qualification being marrying into a dynasty. And not even being able to speak the local language. Would the British be equally "magnanimous"?
She'd be a laughing stock. Just like these dynasty slaves are.
"South Asia" is a CIA-manufactured 20th century trope. "Brahminical" is a 19th-century colonial-missionary description as they cast Hinduism as a rival variant of Catholic priesthood.
@LeenaManimekali spouts colonial nonsense using "tribals" as a facade.
What is her claim to this "tribal" embedding? Did she live the life of a tribal and embody practice?
Or she learnt all this from the US colonial academic ghetto of "South Asian studies" populated by Indians from "convent schools" who spout this nonsense?
You have a lot of hope @rajeevguptaca. Minority Ministry didn't even exist, UPA created it to funnel funds based on religious discrimination against Hindus.
Rather then closing it, BJP increased its budget every year and the number of schemes. Why would they shut it now?
Then some people came and put up a fence around a small area. They called the people who were outside the fence "outfencers."
Everyone inside the fence was called fencers and would have to obey to the rules. Those who resisted were killed. 1/
The goal of the fencers was to expand their territory and the people in it.
The fencers (or "infencers") were taught that the people outside the fence (out-fencers) were evil, because they didn't follow infencer rules.
The only way to save them was to make them infencers. 2/
Infencers were able to expand because they all believed one thing.
When they encountered others and called them "outfencers", the people who lived in a world-without-fences, didn't know what that meant. We are just people, they said.
As comments here show, the Indian Left bases its arguments largely on the strawman fallacy. It is immune to discussion; since it has not taken the first step of accurately understanding its opponent's positions.
Its "moral supremacy" is based on tilting against windmills.
I do not consider myself "Left" or "Right." These categories are an imposition of Western political history and theory onto a non-Western society, and a form of colonialism.
I call the Indian Left as Left or Marxist, because it self-identifies as such.
The Indian Left routinely dubs those they disagree with as "Fascists"/"Nazis." These are not self-descriptions (unless the groups self-identity as such) but polemics. As polemics they are good for propaganda or as virtue-signalling to their Western peers.
Getting the global Left to be apologists for Islam is the single biggest coup that Islamists have pulled off in the West. Using their own resources to target them.
Like having lambs carry the swords for their own slaughter. The Left are the #JihadCoolies.
Of course, Hindu "secular Left" in India are equally complicit #JihadCoolies as well.
It is worth recalling what happened to the Iranian Left after they collaborated in the Islamic takeover of Iran. The Leftists leaders were tortured and forced to publicly "confess" on TV.
The Islamic Regime of Iran tortured and forced the Leftists leaders (who'd helped in the "Islamic revolution") to "confess" and recant their ideology publically, because "The regime considered Marxism the main ideological rival of Islam." Marxism was akin to a religious rival.