RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

[Samir_Mirchandani]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

BTW guys, I am really not interested in proving or disproving how and who spread Islam. That is a vast subject and many many studies have occurred (check this out, if you like from Yale).

Remember this topic got to some of you discussing why RSS gang is trying to reconvert Muslims and Christians and not other religions in India and somebody (Med?) had said it was because these two ruled while other’s did not.

I am pointing out that violence, taxation played such a critical role that they believe the conversions were involuntary. That argument is strengthened by what they find in Quran about killing for conversion (9.5 as quoted in the yake document), the hundreds of destroyed temples, the accounts Muslim and non-Muslim scholars (which I have pointed out in Southie’s wiki link) about differential taxation and so on.

I do understand it will be VERY difficult for anyone to accept something ‘their’s’ which they consider noble beyond all else had to to be spread my methods that are today considered uncivilized. But those were the methods then and let’s just hope those are a thing of the past.

So if you try to make it an argument about superiority of religions and Gods, I am not at all interested. Don’t disappointment me.

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

well well well! look at the Med11Southie club at hard work here! Can't go shopping for a few hours without this I like you like society rearing up.

So Southie looked up a link in wiki - suggest you read it. "An estimate of the number of people killed remains unknown. Based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, an estimate was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. Although this estimate was disputed by Simon Digby in (School of Oriental and African Studies), Digby suggested that estimate lacks accurate data in pre-census times. In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns.[4] Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the caste system among Muslims in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari,[5] where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes.[6]"

Now if you want bodycam evidence suggest you wait till time machine is invented.

BTW even a dissenting historian Digby objects to the number because it was pre-modern census, and not to the fact of how Islam was spread. If you take out the conversions by pressure tactics, economic discrimination taxes and outright violence, what's left would be miniscule. Why do I say that? Look at the two religions that came without violence - zoroastrians or jewish populations - those found a home by non-violent reasons and that'd have been the scale

lol Samir.

First of all, its med "911" NOT "11," because why would it be?

Secondly, we dont need a time Machine. What we need are actual sources from the time. Multiple lines of sources that help to corroborate a particular conclusion.

Now pay attention to this point. Pay close attention. Actual historians, people who do actual research, dispute your beliefs. The actual history does not support your blanket assumptions. I cant change history to suit you now can I ?!?! Just because you want Muslims to be the evildoers in your little fictional world, doesn't mean that history should have to contort itself into your mold just to make that fiction a reality.

Now there is no evidence that you have presented, that should lead anyone to conclude that there was a systematic process of or a conspiracy to convert Hindus through pressure, discrimination or taxes or outright violence. If there were incidences, then they were just that, incidences. The Muslims who ruled were not all motivated by the same zeal, they had different motives, they didnt often cooperate with each other.

The fact is, that there are many reasons why people would convert. Perhaps everything you say is true. Muslims were the ascendant power at the time and such is the nature of humanity that ascendant powers attract adherents. But if the Muslims were truly such a scourge, there wouldnt have been any Hindus left in those areas where they ruled.

Jews and Zoroastrians didnt come in with an Army. Muslims came as an Army, and came in the Thousands. Gradually over a thousand years the areas under their rule become predominantly Muslims. Similar to how the after the Aryan invasion of India, the Dravidian ended up in the south and Aryan culture and religion predominated in the North. Relatively speaking, when your ancestors, the Aryans, arrived in India and imposed the caste system on the dark skinned dravidians in order ensure their ascendancy and relegate the native Indians to a position of institutionalized and religiously ordained destitution, wasn't that far worse?

But I doubt the Aryan invasion of India bothers you very much. Muslims on the other hand...

In the end, we are talking about 1000 plus years of a complicated historical narrative. And so how the area become predominantly Muslim is also a complicated affair, with many factors coming into play, positive and negative.

[Samir_Mirchandani]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med*9*11 - happy?

now stop cyclical speeches - you cannot pick and choose which parts of history you like and which you don't. Just read your own gem "Muslims came as an Army, and came in the Thousands. Gradually over a thousand years the areas under their rule become predominantly Muslims". You admit it, so stop arguing with yourself lest you end up schizophrenic like your ILikeULike buddy!

PS: Armies = sword, violence, force

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Samir_Mirchandani

BTW guys, I am really not interested in proving or disproving how and who spread Islam. That is a vast subject and many many studies have occurred (check this out, if you like from Yale).

Remember this topic got to some of you discussing why RSS gang is trying to reconvert Muslims and Christians and not other religions in India and somebody (Med?) had said it was because these two ruled while other’s did not.

I am pointing out that violence, taxation played such a critical role that they believe the conversions were involuntary. That argument is strengthened by what they find in Quran about killing for conversion (9.5 as quoted in the yake document), the hundreds of destroyed temples, the accounts Muslim and non-Muslim scholars (which I have pointed out in Southie’s wiki link) about differential taxation and so on.

I do understand it will be VERY difficult for anyone to accept something ‘their’s’ which they consider noble beyond all else had to to be spread my methods that are today considered uncivilized. But those were the methods then and let’s just hope those are a thing of the past.

So if you try to make it an argument about superiority of religions and Gods, I am not at all interested. Don’t disappointment me.

Well if your going to make a comment, then at least have the evidence to back it up. Why are you even here if you arent going to debate with evidence. Why should anyone pay any attention to you when you have no evidence to back up what you say.

You made a comment and I called you out. You said that Muslims knocked down temples, I provided you with links by historians that counter your claim.

Islam being dear to me or not is not relevant to the actual debate. i ACKNOWLEDGE that many Muslims did many bad things. No doubt. What I dont agree with is how you paint the entire group of people with the same brush. Assume that it was ALL forced, that they were ALL horrible, without understanding any context, without any evidence to support it… I mean it really comes across as nothing more then bigoted ramblings. Why should anyone have to stand for such talk?

Its not about superiority either. You seem to believe that no Hindu could ever possibly CHOOSE to convert, and to ISLAM of all things! Well, many Hindus do choose to convert and many have in the past. I just pointed that out to you.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med911

This video from the Crash Course World Hisotry series (I love these.. Do check them out) did a video on the Mughals, with particular attention paid to the contrast between Akbar and Aurangzeb. It highlights this point, that history is never one sided and there are always alternative interpretations. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuM0aJjVgE

“Traditionally, Akbar I is considered the emperor that made the Mughal Empire great, and Aurangzeb gets the blame for running the whole thing into the ground and setting it up for decline. Is that really how it was, though? It turns out, it’s complicated.”

“We often use history to define ourselves today, and one of the most common ways to do that is to make negative claims about the people who we say we are not. And so when we look at historical figures, we need to be conscience of the fact that WE are looking at them.”

Thanks Med. This is a cool website for history without being dull. I like the last para. Our interpretation of history is a function of “who we are”. So we should be conscious of the fact WE are looking at these historical figures.

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med*9*11 - happy?

now stop cyclical speeches - you cannot pick and choose which parts of history you like and which you don't. Just read your own gem "Muslims came as an Army, and came in the Thousands. Gradually over a thousand years the areas under their rule become predominantly Muslims". You admit it, so stop arguing with yourself lest you end up schizophrenic like your ILikeULike buddy!

PS: Armies = sword, violence, force

Provide me a single link to a single shred of evidence from which I can pick... You havent provided anything for me to pick or choose from.

Atleast I gave you links. What did you give me other then your own personal historical narrative?

The Armies conquered India, they didnt rule India. Rule was through rulers. Those rulers and the society they built is what we are discussing. Now you need to acknowledge that there is complexity that you are ignoring. Your historical understanding is simplistic and biased. Im sorry if being called out for such a simple minded world view offends you.

PS "Armies=sword, violence, force" ( You could apply that to Indian Army in Kashmir and voting ;) , and such a simple equation is appropriate for you)

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med*9*11 - happy?

now stop cyclical speeches - you cannot pick and choose which parts of history you like and which you don't. Just read your own gem "Muslims came as an Army, and came in the Thousands. Gradually over a thousand years the areas under their rule become predominantly Muslims". You admit it, so stop arguing with yourself lest you end up schizophrenic like your ILikeULike buddy!

PS: Armies = sword, violence, force

ps You disappoint me. I thought you could debate an issue intelligently with actual facts and consideration for all sides. But all you have done is provide me with your own biased opinion, with the insistence that I accept it as it must be true because thats what you were taught.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

Having said that, I still get the following

Akbar was more tolerant of other faiths. Yes. He was brutal in the battlefield. But his tax system was fair.

The video states that Aurangzeb only "damaged" temples to send a political message. The damage was not for religious reasons. I don't buy that. The video doesn't offer any documentation to back that up. Just a statement.

To be fair, the video does state we take what we are biased to take from history.

The interesting portion for me was that Aurangzeb had to do cost cutting since the empire was declining. He himself was buried in a simple plot.

The video does.indicate his rule imposed Shariah on everyone. So it looks like it is justified for Hindus to look less favorably on his tenure.

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

Thanks Med. This is a cool website for history without being dull. I like the last para. Our interpretation of history is a function of "who we are". So we should be conscious of the fact WE are looking at these historical figures.

Yeah, I look foward to their videos. They present historical interpretation from varying positions. like recently they did a video on WW2 and how it can be viewed in terms of Resources, with food scarcity in particular.

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

Having said that, I still get the following

Akbar was more tolerant of other faiths. Yes. He was brutal in the battlefield. But his tax system was fair.

The video states that Aurangzeb only "damaged" temples to send a political message. The damage was not for religious reasons. I don't buy that. The video doesn't offer any documentation to back that up. Just a statement.

To be fair, the video does state we take what we are biased to take from history.

The interesting portion for me was that Aurangzeb had to do cost cutting since the empire was declining. He himself was buried in a simple plot.

The video does.indicate his rule imposed Shariah on everyone. So it looks like it is justified for Hindus to look less favorably on his tenure.

Well, I also posted an article on the previous page which corroborates this conclusion that the destruction of temples by Aurangzeb can be understood to be Political as those temples that were knocked down were because they were centers of political intrigue.
I wasnt able to find any evidence that Aurangzeb had any systematic plan to destroy temples. I will do some more reading though.

The videos intention is to show that history can be viewed from different perspectives. That being said, the imposition of Sharia law and how its perceived would depend on what aspects of Sharia law are being imposed.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med911

One last article on the issue of temple destruction. This article deals with Aurangzeb and makes the point that while destruction of temples did take place, its wasnt religious zealotry but rather politics that were to blame, as often when local Hindus rebelled, a local temple was the root of it.
Aurangzeb and Islamic Rule in India | Lost Islamic History

While the accomplishments and religious-mindedness of Aurangzeb’s reign is indisputable there are those historians and academics who insist that the lasting legacy of Aurangzeb is intolerance and oppression. He is commonly cited as a temple-destroyer and someone who attempted to eliminate non-Muslims in his empire. For the truth, some more context is necessary.
With regards to his attitudes towards Hindus and Sikhs in general, he was clearly not prejudiced nor discriminatory. Dozens of Hindus worked in his royal court as officials and advisers. More non-Muslims in fact were part of his court than the court of Akbar, who is commonly cited as a the most religiously tolerant Mughal emperor. With Hindus and Sikhs occupying positions in his government and military, clearly Aurangzeb was not simply a religious bigot that refused to acknowledge the contributions of his non-Muslim subjects.
The second issue that comes up in analysis’ of Aurangzeb’s rule is instances of him destroying Hindu and Sikh temples and refusing to allow new ones to be built. That he ordered such actions is a historical fact that cannot be disputed.
http://lostislamichistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/764px-Asif_tomb-300x235.jpgAurangzeb’s court included dozens of non-Muslim officials

Preservation of temples with Islamic religious justification is a long-running tradition in India. The first Muslim army to come to India in 711 under Muhammad bin Qasim promised religious freedom and security of temples to Hindus and Buddhists. The same policy had been followed for hundreds of years before the Mughals. However, Aurangzeb did not disregard the Islamic laws regarding protection of religious minorities. Aurangzeb himself even noted that Islamically, temple desecration was not permitted when in 1659 he wrote, “According to the Shariah [Islamic law], and the exalted creed, it has been established that ancient temples should not be torn down.”[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
So if Aurangzeb did not demolish temples for religious reasons, why did he do it? The answer lies in the political nature of temples in the 1600s.
Hindu and Sikh temples (unlike Muslim mosques) were not just places of worship. They also had political significance. Temples acted as political offices and state property, and the priests that were in charge of them were in the employ of the government. When seeking to get the support of Hindus in a particular area, Mughal emperors (and even Hindu kings in non-Mughal areas) would rely on the priests to rally the local population through the temple. As such, a temple was more than just a religious building, it was also a potentially powerful political tool.
With this understanding of temples and their significance, we can move on to understand Aurangzeb’s destruction of certain temples. No historical records show that he had an indiscriminate policy of temple destruction across India. The temples he chose to destroy were carefully selected and a small fraction of the total Hindu houses of worship in India. This is because when Aurangzeb chose a temple for destruction, it was a politically motivated act, not a religious one.
Seeing the opulence and subsequent financial strain of the Mughals during the reign of Shah Jahan, numerous local governors and priests decided to rebel against Mughal authority during the reign of Aurangzeb. When a rebellion broke out in one part of the empire, the local temple was the natural political entity that rebels could rally against. So long as the rebel leaders and their client temples existed, the threat to the Mughal government existed.
http://lostislamichistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Featured-Page-Image1-300x211.pngAurangzeb Reading Quran

It thus became a policy when fighting rebellions against central authority, that the temple that spawned that rebellion also be destroyed. An example of this was a 1669 rebellion in Banaras led by a political rival, Shivaji, who used the local temple to rally support to his cause. After capturing Shivaji, Aurangzeb destroyed a temple in Banaras that was used as a political recruiting ground against his reign. Another example occurred in 1670 in Mathura when Jats rebelled and killed a local Muslim leader. Again, to end the rebellion Aurangzeb had to destroy the temple that had supported it.
Overall, the policy of desecrating temples was used as a political punishment for disloyal Hindu officials, not as a sign of religious intolerance as some may argue. A further argument that the lack of mosque desecration means he was religiously bigoted also holds no ground, as mosques did not double as political institutions as temples did. While the policy of obliterating a political opponent’s base of operations is one that may have its detractors, the arguments that Aurangzeb’s actions were religiously motivated are clearly baseless. Instead, Aurangzeb was a religiously-minded leader who strove hard to ensure an Islamic character permeated through all his actions as leader. This did not however mean religious intolerance as he followed guidelines for protection of non-Muslims that is mandated by Islamic law.

Now this article provides more details on temples and what was motivation behind some of the temples being destroyed. Aligned with what you stated - politically motivated to quell rebellion and / or to send a message.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

Well, I also posted an article on the previous page which corroborates this conclusion that the destruction of temples by Aurangzeb can be understood to be Political as those temples that were knocked down were because they were centers of political intrigue. I wasnt able to find any evidence that Aurangzeb had any systematic plan to destroy temples. I will do some more reading though.

The videos intention is to show that history can be viewed from different perspectives. That being said, the imposition of Sharia law and how its perceived would depend on what aspects of Sharia law are being imposed.

You did. I hadn't read that article at the time. It does corroborate what you stated.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med*9*11 - happy?

now stop cyclical speeches - you cannot pick and choose which parts of history you like and which you don't. Just read your own gem "Muslims came as an Army, and came in the Thousands. Gradually over a thousand years the areas under their rule become predominantly Muslims". You admit it, so stop arguing with yourself lest you end up schizophrenic like your ILikeULike buddy!

PS: Armies = sword, violence, force

.

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Southie

Having said that, I still get the following

Akbar was more tolerant of other faiths. Yes. He was brutal in the battlefield. But his tax system was fair.

The video states that Aurangzeb only “damaged” temples to send a political message. The damage was not for religious reasons. I don’t buy that. The video doesn’t offer any documentation to back that up. Just a statement.

To be fair, the video does state we take what we are biased to take from history.

The interesting portion for me was that Aurangzeb had to do cost cutting since the empire was declining. He himself was buried in a simple plot.

The video does.indicate his rule imposed Shariah on everyone. So it looks like it is justified for Hindus to look less favorably on his tenure.

Here are some other oppinions on Aurangzeb and his relations with Hindus.
Aurangzeb’s Policies Towards Hindus
Did you know that Aurangzeb was the first to outlaw the practice of Sati in 1666, long before the British?

His benevolence in donating land for Hindu temples is glossed over. The Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, Umanand temple in Gauhati, and many more temples were the beneficiaries of land allotment by Aurangzeb.
He is also credited with having even more Hindus in high position in court then Akbar.
Aurangzeb, Bigoted Ruler or Something Else ?
contrary to those who portray him as one who would destroy them. Temples in the deccan for example, where he made multiple military forays, remained untouched.

So Aurangzeb remains a controversial figure, but I dont think he was the tyrant many make him out to be..
Here is a good balanced article on Aurangzeb:

MANAS | UCLA Social Sciences Computing

[Med911]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Southie

You did. I hadn’t read that article at the time. It does corroborate what you stated.

To be fair, he also imposed jizya tax, and showered converts with gifts… But at the same time, he had his plus points… So indeed a controversial figure, but perhaps unfairly maligned. Atleast more then whats reasonable. Much criticism is due, but one cant put him in the same league as Mahmoud of Ghazni etc.
This link is perhaps the best source I could find. Very balanced.
https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasi…s/Aurang2.html

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

@Med911

To be fair, he also imposed jizya tax, and showered converts with gifts… But at the same time, he had his plus points… So indeed a controversial figure, but perhaps unfairly maligned. Atleast more then whats reasonable. Much criticism is due, but one cant put him in the same league as Mahmoud of Ghazni etc.
This link is perhaps the best source I could find. Very balanced.
https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasi…s/Aurang2.html

very nice link. Consistent with the other links that state temple destruction was politically motivated. Another takeaway per this link - he was as tough on Shias.

as for tax, in post 188 I imposed as such. Buy stating Akbar tax system was fair.

[Southie]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

Gentleman A states Islam spread through violence.
Gentleman B states it is not as simple. There was some violence. There were also some willing converts. He also stated.how over a period of 1000 years, there was kind of a diffusion type process - terms and names being gradually adopted. He also stated that it is entirely reasonable for some who were treated like CRAP by high caste Hindus to seek other religions. In that context, he stated Islam doesn't have a caste system.

At this stage, Gentleman A states he isn't interested in comparing religions.

Well, Mr. B was totally justified in comparing the religions to further his hypothesis.

IMHO, Gentleman A, though dost protest too much.

[muqawwee123]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

and dhitai continues…

Modi and ghar wapsi: Is the PM truly angry at the RSS or turning a blind eye? - Firstpost

That was Saturday, and then come Sunday, here is whatRSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had to sayat a VHP rally in West Bengal: “We are trying to create a strong Hindu society. Those who strayed, were lured away. They were looted from us. The world knows. Ab agar mera maal wapas aata hain, toh kaunsi badi baat hai? (If now we are taking back our property, then what’s the big deal?).”

The VHP has further claimed to have brought back into the Hindu fold 6 lakh people in Madhya Pradesh on Sunday. In Kerala, a fresh reconversion row broke out with the news that at least 30 Dalit Christians from eight families were “reconverted” at a function at Alappuzha.

If Kerala is an unlikely environment for reconversion, there comes news of the Sangh’s ambitions in Punjab, where, according to this Indian Express report, over 8,000 people were reconverted to Hinduism with about 3,500 in the last year alone. Numbers that are unlikely to make NDA ally the Shiromani Akali Dal happy.

[shaasavera]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

BBC News - Indian Hindu groups banned from holding Christmas conversions

Indian Hindu groups banned from holding Christmas conversions

Critics say Hindu hardline groups are flexing their muscles under the new BJP government, led by PM Narendra Modi

Police in India’s Uttar Pradesh state have said they will not allow Hindu nationalist groups to hold a religious conversion ceremony on Christmas Day.
Mohit Agarwal, senior police official in Aligarh town where the ceremony is planned, said “strict action” would be taken against the organisers.
Conversions are legal if they do not involve force, fraud or inducement.
Last week, more than 50 Muslim families were reportedly converted to Hinduism against their will in the town of Agra.
Those who were converted were poor rag-pickers from a slum and many of them told the BBC they had been promised food ration cards if they attended the ceremony. They also said they had no idea they were going to be converted to Hinduism.
The Hindu groups denied the charges, saying the conversions had been voluntary.
The issue caused outrage in parliament, with opposition MPs accusing hardline Hindus of undermining India’s unity and secular nature.
Critics say Hindu hardline groups are flexing their muscles under the new Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Recently, a row broke out after government minister Niranjan Jyoti used an abusive term to refer to non-Hindus, by asking people at a public rally to choose between Ramzada (children of the Hindu God Ram) and Haramzada (*******s).
Mr Modi said he disapproved of her language but refused to sack her.
On Friday a BJP MP apologised in parliament after praising the killer of independence leader Mahatma Gandhi as a “patriot”.
Strict warningAligarh has a substantial Muslim population and police said they would not give permission for any religious conversion ceremony to be held there as it could create a law and order problem.
“No event will be allowed on 25 December, whether it is conversion or anything similar to it,” deputy inspector general of police in Aligarh Mohit Agarwal told reporters on Sunday.
Police have issued an order banning “assembly of four or more people” on the day and “strict action will be taken against any cadres of any party found involved in conversions”, he added.
The Hindu hardline group Bajrang Dal has threatened to hold street protests if they are not allowed to go ahead with the ceremony and BJP MP Yogi Adityanath has said he plans to attend it.
Correspondents say religious conversions have been a topic of passionate debate in India for many years.
Hindu groups have often accused Christian missionaries and Muslims of converting poor, low-caste Dalits - formerly untouchables - and tribespeople with promises of a better life.
In the past few years, Hindu hardline groups have started organising reconversion rituals they call “ghar vapasi” - which means “returning home”.
Critics say the conversions - and re-conversions - in most cases allegedly involve force, fraud or inducement.

[shaasavera]

Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!

This was BBC’s original article. My view is that i am against all forced conversions anywhere it occurs and whatever religion.

Indian Agra Muslim fear conversions to Hinduism

Nearly a dozen Indian Muslim families have fled their homes in Agra after 57 families were reportedly converted to Hinduism against their will.
Muslim organisations have accused Hindu nationalist groups, close to the governing BJP, of “forced conversions” and demanded action against them.
The Hindu groups have denied the charge and say the conversions were voluntary.
Meanwhile, opposition MPs have accused hardline Hindus of undermining India’s unity and secular nature.
The issue has been hotly debated in parliament, with opposition parties demanding an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Critics say Hindu hardline groups are flexing their muscles under the new Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Mr Modi.
Recently, a row broke out after government minister Niranjan Jyoti used an abusive term to refer to non-Hindus, by asking people at a public rally to choose between Ramzada (children of the Hindu God Ram) and Haramzada (*******s).
Mr Modi said he disapproved of her language but refused to sack her.

Those who participated in the Agra conversion ceremony were poor rag-pickers

Analysis: Geeta Pandey, BBC News, DelhiReligious conversions have been a topic of passionate debate in India for many years.
Hindu groups have often accused Christian missionaries and Muslims of converting poor, low-caste Dalits - formerly untouchables - and tribespeople with promises of a better life. In the past few years, Hindu hardline groups have started organising reconversion rituals they call “ghar vapasi” - which means “returning home”.
The conversions - and re-conversions - in most cases allegedly involve force, fraud or inducement.
In Agra, it is alleged that local Hindus employed fraud (by not telling people they were going to be converted) and also offered inducement (by promising ration cards). The Hindu groups have denied the charges, saying the conversions were voluntary and that they intend to do many more.
It’s barely six months since Narendra Modi led his BJP party to power and critics are already expressing fears over the future of religious minorities in the country. Mr Modi, who was accused of failing to stop deadly anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 when he was chief minister, insists there is nothing to fear.
But his minister’s remarks and the row over Agra’s conversions mean many suspect his hardline supporters must be receiving quiet encouragement.

On Thursday, the residents of Vednagar slum in Agra told BBC Hindi’s Salman Ravi that some 250 people had attended a havan (Hindu religious ceremony) on Monday.
Most residents of the slum are poor rag-pickers and many said they had been promised ration cards and other basic amenities by a local Hindu activist if they attended the event.
One slum resident, Salina, said she had no idea that it was a conversion ceremony. "During the ritual, suddenly we were made to do what the [Hindu] priest was doing. One Muslim man was even made to hold an idol in his hand.
“After the ritual was over, the local activist told us that we had all become Hindus. We wanted to protest, but we were advised to keep quiet as we were told we would get a ration card and other amenities.”
Another resident Mumtaz, however, said that no-one had forced her to attend the ritual and that all those who attended had done so voluntarily.
Ramzan Sheikh, a witness to the ritual, said there was a lot of fear in the area. “We are scared. Whatever happened, we never expected,” he said.
After receiving complaints from Muslims, police have registered a case against a Hindu activist who is accused of trying to convert Muslims by promising them food ration cards.
Police have also taken in for questioning a Muslim man supervises the rag-pickers in the slum and authorities have deployed armed policemen in the area as a precautionary measure.