Something else some of you might want to know. Musharraf is coming back. That's the talk of the town. Every news channel is talking about his imminent return to power. He's creating a new party. We might have elections before the end of the year. I hope we do. Then the current government stands no chance. Hopefully they'll be reduced to a minor party, split and Zardari gets thrown into jail.
Yeah, I have read that yesterday. Is Musharraf more popular among people than the current PM/Govt?
Since alcohol is illegal we don't have any public bars or clubs. We have a different kind of nightlife. Computer gaming, street cricket under lights, people visit parks and beaches. But nothing like what would qualify as "night life." The elite class do have private parties with alcohol but they are rare.
We do have music concerts and ghazal gatherings which last all night long. We are still a very conservative society even in cities and I like that.
One good thing for the average ATer here is blazing fast internet speeds. I have a 5Mbit connection and I'm paying $40 for it. One ISP is even offering 6Mbit for $30. I also recently saw ads for them lauching 9.3Mbits Wimax soon. These broadband services are available in almost all towns which I think is great. No data caps.
I've been playing SC2 on EU battlenet for now. ... We also have a good online gaming scenes with many CS, CSS, COD4, TF2 and even privately hosted WOW servers. There's also much LAN gaming everywhere at gaming places. DoTA is particularly popular. For anyone more interested, this is a cool Pakistani gaming site: http://www.pakgamers.com/forums/forum.php
When I'm in India, I feel in a village in this regard. My cousins where I stay have a 512K line with a data cap of 2GB and are paying as much as I am. And they're supposedly in India's business capital.
Routan, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
I'm very familiar with the Sachar Committe Report - I think you should read it yourself before blindly copy/pasting from another article.
The primary reason why Dalits' unemployment figures are lower is because they have employment quotas assigned to them. If a Muslim and a Dalit apply for the same job - the Dalit will probably get it simply based off the quota that is reserved for Dalits / schedule caste / schedule tribe system.
The %age figures for govt job and sec. agencies are also misleading. Sikhs make up nearly 20% of the sec. agencies while they are only 2% of the population. South Indian upper caste is overwhelming represented in govt jobs. The saying "running from pillar to post" has popularly become "running from Pillai to Pillai" with Pillai being a very common name in South Indian upper caste communities. Hell, if you look at Bollywood, most of the names in the credits are Muslim - does this mean that the Indian film industry is anti-Hindu and Pro-Islam?
Education is always been the bane of Indian Muslims - no denying that - and I have even mentioned that previously. Illiteracy, poverty, crime is a vicious cycle for Indian Muslims that is only now being slowly broken.
How about this? Take 100 of India's strongest, and 100 of Pakastan's strongest. Throw them in a ring. Whoever survives gets to keep Kashmir?
I oppose Kashmir being handed to Pakistan. And I oppose Kashmir being forcibly occupied by India. I propose the people of Kashmir have the right to determine their future.
Routan, Do you know that 50% India's population lives in poverty? That includes 50% of India's Muslim's too. Stop acting like a victim.. and accept the reality.My parents (& grand parents) are from Jammu (winter state capital). My grand-parents have spent their entire life in that area. My dad lived and worked in Kashmir area for over 35 years. My uncle still lives in the area.
After India's and Pakistani independence from Britain in 1947, Kashmir was an independent state under monarchy rule (Maharaja or King rule). Pakistan attempted to takeover control of Kashmir. The Maharaja (King) requested Indian help and ceded control of Kashmir to India to save the state of Kashmir and the people. Ever since, Kashmir is a part of India.
The current conflict is just a political drama between the two countries. The politicians make an issue out of it to gain votes and maintain their power. Ask the average person, and he/she just wants to go around minding his own business. Neither country will back down and politicians want to take full advantage of the issue in order to secure their political future. It has just become a prestige issue for each country now.
Indians consider Kashmir as a part of India (and it actually is). Pakistan wants Kashmir as they want to take revenge from India for the 1971 war where they lost Bangladesh (was known as East Pakistan at the time).
Again, Kashmir is not forcibly occupied by India. It is a part of India. I am quoting gsethi's post(#76) here.
Routan, Do you know that 50% India's population lives in poverty? That includes 50% of India's Muslim's too. Stop acting like a victim.. and accept the reality.
yasasvy, fair enough your opinion that Kashmir is not forcibly occupied by India. Let us call the entire region, Indian controlled and Pakistani controlled as a territorial dispute. The United Nations resolutions require a plebiscite, and even disregarding UN resolutions, a fair and secular India should allow the citizens of Kashmir the chance to voice and chance to act on their wishes.
I doubt the figure of 50% of India being in poverty is valid. Any references? Additionally, if the government of India itself confirms that Muslims are disadvantaged, why are you STILL acting as if everything is fine and dandy? I dont need to act as a victim. I am not in India
The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (41.6% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India. However, this also represents a significant decline in poverty from the 60 percent level in 1981 to 42 percent in 2005. The rupee has decreased in value since then, while the official standard of 538 (urban)/356 (rural) rupees per month has remained the same.[6][7] Income inequality in India is increasing, with a Gini coefficient of 32.5 in 1999-2000.[8] However, according to the latest NCAER estimates, in 2009, only 15.6% of the households or 200 million people, had income levels less than Rs 45,000 annually($ 1.4 PPP per person)[9].On the other hand, the Planning Commission of India uses its own criteria and has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994[2]. The source for this was the 61st round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) and the criterion used was monthly per capita consumption expenditure below Rs. 356.35 for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 for urban areas. 75% of the poor are in rural areas, most of them are daily wagers, self-employed householders and landless labourers.
Although the Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas.[5] Between 1999 and 2008, the annualized growth rates for Gujarat (8.8%), Haryana (8.7%), or Delhi (7.4%) were much higher than for Bihar (5.1%), Uttar Pradesh (4.4%), or Madhya Pradesh (3.5%).[10] Poverty rates in rural Orissa (43%) and rural Bihar (41%) are among the world's most extreme.[11] A study by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative using a Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) found that there were 421 million poor living under the MPI in Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. This number is higher than the 410 million poor living in the 26 poorest African nations.[3]
Despite significant economic progress, one quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately USD $0.25). Official figures estimate that 27.5%[12] of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005.[13] A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees (approximately USD $0.50 nominal; $2 PPP) per day. [14]It is relevant to view poverty in India on a PPP basis as food etc. are purchased in Rupees. So the annual income of a family of four at $2 PPP/day (current exchange rate of Rs 47 = $1) would be Rs 137,240 (i.e. 1.37 lakh Rupees). [15] According to a recently released World Bank report, India is on track to meet its poverty reduction goals. However by 2015, an estimated 53 million people will still live in extreme poverty and 23.6% of the population will still live under $1.25 per day. This number is expected to reduce to 20.3% or 268 million people by 2020.[16] However, at the same time, the effects of the worldwide recession in 2009 have plunged 100 million more Indians into poverty than there were in 2004, increasing the effective poverty rate from 27.5% to 37.2%.[17]
As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets. [18] According to Department of Telecommunications of India the phone density has reached 33.23% by Dec 2008 and has an annual growth of 40%. [19]. This tallies with the fact that a family of four with an annual income of 1.37 lakh Rupees could afford some of these luxury items.
India is not willing to take that risk. There will be army presence in Kashmir until Pakistan's ISI stops funding extremists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
edit: NDTV? You dont say, New Delhi Television has to have the most balanced perspective on this subject, wouldnt it?
Vonkhan, your posts are confusing. In the above post. you are agreeing that Muslims in India have a bad state of affairs, and attributing reasons to that, but you are still saying Muslims in India, but in prior posts, you also disagreeing that they are in a bad state of affairs? Where exactly do you stand?
I am quite certain that non-Muslims are very successful in Bollywood. Most of my exposure to Bollywood is Amitabh Bachan and Aishwariya Rai, and everyone knows who they are. So your claim of most names in the credit in Bollywood are Muslims is incorrect.
Irrespective, I can agree that Muslims do well in Bollywood. Does that negate the 52% of Muslims males unemployed? 91% of females unemployed? 46% of Muslims not being able to read or write? Those are startling figures.
Please do not give me an India to Pakistan comparison. I am not a supporter of Pakistan, and I have stated that clearly.