One policy I found useful is that you must make a law to restrict them with one child. Second child can only be done with government approval. We must ban all madrasas and make them study in government school compulsorily. We must take away their voting right so no party can play vote bank politics. We should take away all the land property of Waquf board and auction them to generate money and educate them.
I especially agree with this.
Although I don't agree with this :
However, i would say that Indian Muslims are least radicalized.
The peaceful Indian muslim myth is a fairytale that has been perpetuated by elitist Hindu liberals. This is not based in fact. Look at the nature of political Islam from 1920 to 2016 and you will find that nowhere has it been more treacherous and lethal than the Indian sub-continent. There are Islamic political movements in the middle east too, there was the Baath party in Iraq, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and various other groups but none of them led to the treacherous partition of a nation the way it did in India. The amount of brutality that we faced was also manifold. In fact, claiming that muslims of the subcontinent are peaceful is a Hindu's way to hide the shameful past of being pounded by muslims. The worst assumption one could make is that Indian muslims are different from Pakistani muslims. Why so? do they follow different book? obviously not. Go to any foreign nation and observe that the moment a muslim from the subcontinent puts his foot on a foreign land, he immediately severs his cultural roots and gets connected to the global Islamic political movements there. Just to give you a small example, there are many Change.org petitions about protecting Indian interests, how many Indian muslims do you see participating in those? how many NRI muslims do you see walking in rallies on the streets of US, UK to speak in favor of India? NONE! the moment they go there, they immediately connect their roots with the Ummah and subsequently you will find many Indian muslims walking in rallies for Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir, these are all anti-west, anti-Israel, anti-India (basically anti-kaffir) coalitions.
Here they deserve the credit and we should not Hesitate to give them the credit they deserve.
The Ummah mentality of the muslims of the subcontinent has not gone away, in fact, it has only strengthened with the onset of the internet and other communication channels. Wherever there are muslims, there is always a problem. Don't give more credit to someone just because they happened to be born in a certain geographical part of the world. They themselves don't give a shit about this geography, because they believe that international borders are artificial barriers which stop muslims from linking to form a united Ummah. I am against racism because one doesn't choose the race one is born in, so it is incorrect to cast aspersions however the same is not true of ideologies because ideologies are political opinions which one can choose to renounce or adopt. Islam is not a race, it is an ideology and unless you are making a claim that Indian muslims have a different Quran than other muslims, which they obviously don't, your argument holds no water.
An ideology at whose core lies antagonism against non-believers, cannot be an inclusive one, no matter how much PR spin you try to give it. A lot of those who claim Indian muslims to be more peaceful than the rest of the world are sub-consciously linking it with Sufism. Even Akbar who was under the influence of Sufi saints, killed 6 lakh Hindus. In fact, all the muslim rulers who committed atrocities on Hindus had Sufis in their cabinet. And still some people think that Sufism is the cause of peace. Please read this :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...error-against-india.24798/page-9#post-1147742
Tagging
@abingdonboy for relevance because I disagree with his contention that economic progress will lead to less radicalization, or by corollary implying that poverty leads to terrorism. This has been categorically proved to be false. A lot of people involved in Jihadi activities are upper middle class, educated people. Take a look at the Indian boys who went to fight for ISIS. They were working in MNCs with a salary of 12 lakh/per annum, which is more than what an average Indian earns. An average ISIS fighter earns a salary of 800$ a month. If money was the motivating factor to become a terrorist, I am sure many poor people would have agreed to join these groups for even 80$ a month given that 60% of the world lives in poverty. Why didn't all those poor people join them? Surely they would have earned a lot of money had they been opportunists. That's because people with a sane moral compass stay away from such ideologies even in the face of abject poverty. Please call the terrorists out for what they are, they are not economic opportunists, they are political dissidents.
Another example is Osama, who was a billionaire! that didn't stop all these people from taking to extremism. Extremism is a political ideology, an idea which transcends social and economic class barriers. For that matter, Shah Rukh and Amir Khan have no shortage of money, but they still indulge in jihadi propaganda, do they not? how much money do you think the government needs to give them to stop propagating those ideas? how much money would Hafiz Saeed take so that he magically stops being a terrorist?
Money is orthogonal to the issue of terrorism, it's a facilitator but not the driving force. The problem of ideological extremism isn't going to go away by just throwing money at it. It's like throwing food at a wolf and expecting him to magically start behaving like a domesticated dog. He will eat the food but still continue to remain a wolf and your life is still under threat because you haven't solved the core problem. The core problem is that unlike other fascist ideologies like Nazism and other forms of imperialism, Islam never underwent any reform because no one ever dared tell them that. Germans today acknowledge Nazism was evil because they have been told by their history books about the horrors that it perpetuated. Japanese frown on Japanese imperial atrocities because they have been told about their follies by their history books. Islam, has never been told that the atrocities they perpetuated were wrong, so instead of undergoing reform, they continue to live in their own merry world assuming it to be 'glory'. Whenever there is an attempt by anyone to say it as it is, there are liberals who come up with fancy theories like Islamophobia to prevent the enlightenment of muslim masses. What can be more sad that even a well read, intelligent person like you feels that telling this truth amounts to 'making muslims feel persecuted/singled out'. Well, if a person holds wrong ideas he needs to be confronted one day or the other. Would you also say that arresting rapists is incorrect because it amounts to singling them out? As a civilized society there is a red line that no one is allowed to cross. Gloating over the massacre of kaffirs is not a civilized idea to espouse, and people need to confront those who do it, instead of finding excuses.
Unless Indian history text books tell their students about the atrocities perpetuated by the muslims on Hindus, they will continue to look at that atrocious period as their 'glorious past' and the more they romanticize it, the more difficult they will find to come to terms with the contemporary realities. It is THIS dissonance which leads to terrorism.