David Craig, on August 20th, 2019(Tuesday blog)
Anyone who suggests that certain groups of people in the Third World are less civilised than we are in the West is clearly an idiot and a waacciiisssttt. Of course, many countries have different customs than us. But this is just ‘diversity’ and is something that should be celebrated.
So, today let’s visit India.
At the beginning of August this year, India banned “triple talaq,” a way men from our favourite religion divorce their wives by saying the Arabic word for divorce three times. This is apparently also banned in about 20 Religion of Peace and Progress countries including neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh.
That brings us to the story of 22-year-old Sayeeda. She and her husband lived in a village in Uttar Pradesh. They had been married since 2013. Her husband, 26-year-old Nafees, was working in Mumbai when he called her on the phone and divorced her using “triple talaq“. Knowing this was now illegal, Sayeeda went to report this to the police who told her to go away and stop wasting their valuable time.
When Sayeeda’s husband Nafees returned to their village from Mumbai, he told Sayeeda to go away as he now considered he had divorced her. Sayeeda refused and Nafees’s family did what any normal family in that part of the world would do – in front of their 5-year-old daughter, Nafees grabbed his wife by her hair and started beating her. Then several members of Nafees’s family joined in the fun by getting some cooking kerosene, pouring it over Sayeeda, lighting a match and shouting and laughing as Sayeeda burned to death.
Bride-burning usually occurs because the husband’s family try to extract further dowry payments – like a new fridge or TV or more money – from the wife’s family and they refuse. Then the husband’s family pour cooking kerosene over the wife and set her alight so the husband can marry again and maybe get that fridge or TV or more money or whatever the husband’s family had set their hearts on.
Bride-burning used to be one of the Indian subcontinent’s most popular sports till it was made a criminal offence in 1986. However, there are estimated to still be somewhere 2,500 and 5,000 bride-burnings a year and precious few criminal convictions. Usually the burnings are recorded as ‘kitchen accidents’. A 1997 report claimed that at least 5,000 women die each year because of dowry deaths and at least a dozen die each day in ‘kitchen fires’ thought to be intentional.
Strangely, Western feminists and libtards and progressives and Guardianistas and others of their ilk don’t seem to find this daily slaughter of Indian women something worth protesting about. And I don’t recall the BBC or C4 News ever mentioning these daily murders. I wonder why the ever-snarling Kathy Newman and the holier-than-thou Jon ‘F**k the Tories’ Snow and the small fat guy with the long name don’t consider this a story worth even a few seconds of their time.
I guess that’s because diversity is much more important than a few thousand women’s lives each year?
Category: 
The video says we can help to stop it by making a donation. I don’t think so. This is about a government that does not care about its people. Look at the number of deaths at the hands of socialist governments. Look at Mugabe and Assad. What has the west done to stop any of it. It ignored Mugabe since there was no military threat to us, and by military activity in the Middle East created an humanitarian crisis. I doubt any of this will be discussed at the G7 meeting.
It’s a 21st century version of Suttee, isn’t it – only worse, because the husband isn’t dead and the wife doesn’t climb onto the pyre voluntarily. Indian men evidently adhere to their tradition of using fire as a means of disposing of inconvenient females. It is atrocious. However, much as any decent individual, man or woman, who cherishes Western notions of civilization and humane behaviour would wish to help, in fact there’s nothing any one individual can do. It’s long been evident that in India the “police” perversely choose not to investigate any crime against women. Western governments doubtless could, if they so wished, apply economic pressure, but prefer not to do so. Mugabe was unspeakable turning, as he did, the breadbasket of Africa into a famine-ridden hell-hole and his successor appears to be just as bad. And we’d have done much better to leave Assad where he was – governing effectively what has now been demonstrated to be ungovernable. I have British friends who lived in Assad’s Syria for some years and have told me that for the majority of citizens life was far from disagreeable. It is religious bigotry which causes problems. It’s taken the UK the best part of a millennium, via the Peasants’ Revolt, the break from Rome and the establishment of Protestantism, the Kett Rebellion, a Civil War, the beheading of a king, a fairly unpleasant Commonwealth, Restoration of the Monarchy and subsequently 350 years plus of constant negotiation between “church”, “people” and “power” to come anywhere near achieving a reasonably acceptable version of democracy. And just now that doesn’t seem to be functioning too well. So we should certainly put out own house in order before we contemplate meddling again elsewhere. That in no way vindicates, though, violence of any sort against women, be it burning them alive, the horrors of FGM or the “ordinary” sort of domestic violence suffered daily by women in the UK.
I was on an American forum once when the subject of India cropped up and one of the American half-wits was on about when they liberated themselves (India) from brutal English colonial military occupation.
I replied:
I suppose we must apologise for the Britain Raj laying the foundations for modern-day India and the prosperity that it enjoys today.
For the abolition of suttee (where the widow was obliged to leap onto her dead husbands funeral pyre) and female infanticide.
For making travel safe by eradicating the of Dacoits, Thugs, Pindarees, and other such pests of Indian society.
For allowing remarriage of Hindu widows and introducing education to both males and females, leading gradually to the destruction of superstition, and many moral and social evils.
For the resuscitation of India’s own literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.
For bringing peace and order, freedom of speech and liberty of the press.
For building the railways, roads, canals, mines, sewers, in fact, the girders for every bridge, the track for every mile of railway and the vast array of machinery required for India’s infrastructure were all carried there by ships from Britain and the engineers who laid the cornerstones for India’s development from Third World nation to burgeoning industrial superpower – were British.
For building the modern cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the period where some of the finest universities and museums in India were founded.
In fact our rule was so beneficial and acceptable that we governed a nation of 500 million with army that only had to include around 70,000 British personnel at any given time.
And when we left in 1947, giving them their independence, in the absence of our tiny presence, preserving peace and impartiality, the Indians turned on each other and millions were slaughtered in horrible circumstances.
@Stillreading – Some good views, but when it comes to what the governments of other countries can do, the none violent option seems to be economic sanctions. I cannot see any evidence that they have ever worked. They mainly make life for the poorest much worse. This is why Thatcher did not agree with South African sanctions; she realised they would make life worse for the black population, the people the sanctions were supposed to help. There are also concerns about human rights in China but the west has little influence. What can change views is more trade and better jobs for the poorest and along with that comes education, but it is a slow process.
@William – I wonder if India would agree? No mention of the Amritsar massacre in your list. The partition of India displaced many millions resulting in many deaths and Britain must take some responsibility for that.