[_blz2]

I didn't know opinion articles from The Gaurdian count as facts. The other wiki pages about Christian Church burning has no link to the government in power. Not sure what the implication was there. The Sikh riots did not have a religious motivation, rather a fallout of operation Bluestar and the resulting assassination of Indiri Gandhi (A congress leader, the party which is supposedly far left on cultural issues. Their party members killed 2500+ Sikhs in 1984.) Not sure what the connection to BJP there was either.

According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_T._J._Joseph

it was a Muslim who cut off a Christian professor's hand in South India. His wife committed suicide because he was fired. Of course BBC, Gaurdian, Firstpost and all other far left websites will not report this. On censorship happy sites like HN and reddit they have successfully created massive propaganda against the Indian government. I can spout nonsense as facts too. Here are example of some 'facts' for you then:

Maybe Obama is a Muslim according to this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama's_Religion

Maybe Merkel is a traitor according to this: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/29/hundreds-germans-...

Maybe Bernie Sanders is a communist according to this: http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sander...

OP is parroting the conspiracy theory that millions (still a small % compared to India's billion+ population) do because they cannot digest seeing Modi in power. I can go full conspiracy mode and point out who owns left wing media outlets but I don't think HN is a place for such discussions. There are hundreds of report of Hindus being killed in minority rich areas in India, but unfortunately these incidents aren't covered in BBC and Gaurdian because Hindus are a dying majority in India.

[j0e1]

>because Hindus are a dying majority in India.

Curious what you meant by that. Care to explain?

[_jgdh]

Hindus have always been the majority on the Indian subcontinent (around 90%), similar to how the majority of Americans (after the 1700s) have been white. The prime worry of the Hindu population seems to be that gradually they would represent smaller proportions of the overall population. The reasoning behind this is that although you can convert to other religions, it isn't possible to convert to Hinduism. In 1951 Hindus were 84% of the population. In 2011, that had dropped to 79%. [1]

With the loss of majority status, it becomes difficult to dominate the political discourse like Hindus do today. Just like how it was impossible to think of a non-white person becoming President of the US, it is also impossible to think of a non-Hindu holding any serious power in India for the foreseeable future.

Note for those unfamiliar with India - the language Hindi is unrelated to the religion Hinduism. Its possible to be a Hindi speaker and not a Hindu and also possible to be a Hindu and not a Hindi speaker.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Census_of_India

[rrrazdan]

It is always possible to convert to Hinduism. There is no authority that decides if you are Hindu or not. You just are if you believe that you are.

Lets I digress. You can be a Hindu today if you want. Just start incorporating Hindu philosophies in your life. Choose an atheist one if you like.

PS: Not advocating anyone to convert to Hinduism. In fact I think that the lower castes should abandon Hinduism if the upper castes don't reform fast enough.

[sumedh]

> it is also impossible to think of a non-Hindu holding any serious power in India for the foreseeable future.

the last prime minister was a Sikh, the leader of the party which was in power for the last 10 years was an Italian Catholic.