What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

Dillinger

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 12, 2012
6,103
13
14,261
Country
India
Location
India
That one person was Sardar and he was a Hindu leader make no doubt about it. It was the trust between him and the kingdoms that lead to the union.

Ho ho ho! It was the fact that the Union of India even comprised of the British dominions alone could gobble up said princely states in a fortnight and the fact that said "monarchs" had no alternative to offer to their masses.
 

Hermione

BANNED
Jul 20, 2013
1,008
-9
1,554
Country
India
Location
India
And yet no one bothered to delineate said identity as a binding criterion for being Indian in enforceable terms.

What is to delineate when it has already been said to be the essence of what this country is all about. Okay we have been slack about implementing certain laws, but then we are working towards doing away with the lacuna that exists within the system as a whole.
 

Dillinger

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 12, 2012
6,103
13
14,261
Country
India
Location
India

The USA has senators acting legislation on the basis of spotting Gog and Magog..you want secularism..best forget the home of the brave...try something more Nordic or even China.

What is to delineate when it has already been said to be the essence of what this country is all about. Okay we have been slack about implementing certain laws, but then we are working towards doing away with the lacuna that exists within the system as a whole.

That isn't a lacuna..it is present simply because any such imposition wouldn't just knock off the word secular but also the term tolerant and social republic from the constitution. Come let us hold a master class in constitutional law and common law.

@ALL take numbers and line up..I am missing half of your replies given that I am fielding posts by at least 4 people at the same time...:lol:
 

Hermione

BANNED
Jul 20, 2013
1,008
-9
1,554
Country
India
Location
India
Ho ho ho! It was the fact that the Union of India even comprised of the British dominions alone could gobble up said princely states in a fortnight and the fact that said "monarchs" had no alternative to offer to their masses.

That is a laughable idea and you are anyways clutching at straws. The trust was formed on the basis of an Hindu identity. Make no mistake about that.
 

VeeraBahadur

FULL MEMBER
Oct 6, 2013
1,238
-7
1,505
Country
India
Location
India
Obviously..if the day comes that a certain region feels that they can do without the union of India certain factions in said state might attempt secession..which would be illegal as per the constitution and would necessitate action up to armed suppression of said movement. An union is freely joined but much like any legal contract it cannot be freely breached without repercussions.


Now , you have lost it. @Puchtoon stop arguing with him . He is lost case. Just let him earn and feed his family . He doesn't have any loyalty towards India. Bloody ungrateful Indian.
 

Bhai Zakir

BANNED
Jun 26, 2012
2,371
-1
4,209
Country
India
Location
India
sikhpogram.jpg


Ever point in above table is debatable but lets concentrate on CM/PM thing.

1.) There was no cm of Delhi and in realty there was not a post called Chief Minister of Delhi in 1984. :disagree: So there is no logic of its involvement or getting cleared by the court etc.

2.) The riots happened before there was anyone called PM of India as the one who was PM, was killed. :angry:

3.) The local police in Delhi even in 1984 was not under the direct command of India's Prime Minister.

4.) In Delhi both the Governor of Delhi and the police commissioner was on the street to control the riots but in Gujarat Modi have not saved even a single Hindu or Muslim in the riot and he was sitting at home and never came to the street to save people.

If one can quote the Supreme Court of India "Modi was like Nero playing flute while Rome was burning." or

If we can quote BJP's tallest leader till date Atal Bihari Vajpayee he have repeatedly said that Modi is not following "Raj Dharma"
:wave:
 

Dillinger

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 12, 2012
6,103
13
14,261
Country
India
Location
India
That is a laughable idea and you are anyways clutching at straws. The trust was formed on the basis of an Hindu identity. Make no mistake about that.

Got something empirical to back that up? Because were you to take a look at the separate accession documents and the process of entry into the union you would recognize the fallacy in what you just stated..
 

Hermione

BANNED
Jul 20, 2013
1,008
-9
1,554
Country
India
Location
India
That isn't a lacuna..it is present simply because any such imposition wouldn't just knock off the word secular but also the term tolerant and social republic from the constitution. Come let us hold a master class in constitutional law and common law.

Who gives a hoot about such terms? Implementing our constitution in its essence is what is more important. The countries which claim to not be secular seem to be doing alright.
 

Dillinger

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 12, 2012
6,103
13
14,261
Country
India
Location
India
Now , you have lost it. @Puchtoon stop arguing with him . He is lost case. Just let him earn and feed his family . He doesn't have any loyalty towards India. Bloody ungrateful Indian.

And ungrateful how...did I not make it clear that once in the union one is honor bound to serve it and that to deviate would mean to call for punishment?:taz:

"which would be illegal as per the constitution and would necessitate action up to armed suppression of said movement."

You did read the highlighted part too yes?

Who gives a hoot about such terms? Implementing our constitution in its essence is what is more important. The countries which claim to not be secular seem to be doing alright.

Ah and who implements said constitutional tenets..and are they madam open to interpretation. Sure they are doing alright..after all being secular is not a necessity for being prosperous just as being democratic isn't either.

Ever point in above table is debatable but lets concentrate on CM/PM thing.

1.) There was no cm of Delhi and in realty there was not a post called Chief Minister of Delhi in 1984. :disagree: So there is no logic of its involvement or getting cleared by the court etc.

2.) The riots happened before there was anyone called PM of India as the one who was PM, was killed. :angry:

3.) The local police in Delhi even in 1984 was not under the direct command of India's Prime Minister.

4.) In Delhi both the Governor of Delhi and the police commissioner was on the street to control the riots but in Gujarat Modi have not saved even a single Hindu or Muslim in the riot and he was sitting at home and never came to the street to save people.

If one can quote the Supreme Court of India "Modi was like Nero playing flute while Rome was burning." or

If we can quote BJP's tallest leader till date Atal Bihari Vajpayee he have repeatedly said that Modi is not following "Raj Dharma"
:wave:

Yes he should have picked up a gun and run off to stop the mobs. Who was it that declined to send in extra and required CAPFs in a timely manner AFTER MODI SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FOR THEM!?
 

Hermione

BANNED
Jul 20, 2013
1,008
-9
1,554
Country
India
Location
India
Ah and who implements said constitutional tenets..and are they madam open to interpretation. Sure they are doing alright..after all being secular is not a necessity for being prosperous just as being democratic isn't either.

That interpretation has already been done. The recent allowing of adoption to Muslim couples in contravention to their personal law board, was a step in that direction already. Time and again the courts have ruled in favor of Hindu law, you can choose to bury your head in the sand.

Which country has a rule of law which says god can be litigant as well? India. On what basis was such a law promulgated? Its Hindu identity and essence.
 

Dillinger

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 12, 2012
6,103
13
14,261
Country
India
Location
India
That interpretation has already been done. The recent allowing of adoption to Muslim couples in contravention to their personal law board, was a step in that direction already. Time and again the courts have ruled in favor of Hindu law, you can choose to bury your head in the sand.

Which country has a rule of law which says god can be litigant as well? India. On what basis was such a law promulgated? Its Hindu identity and essence.

Ahemm..contravention of personal law by common law tenets and specif judgments has nothing to do with any law based on any religious tenet...instead it is actually a rudimentary and baby step towards a uniform civil code. The legal specifics of the above were elucidated upon by me in a particular thread dealing with a similar judgement for the benefit of certain Pakistani members.

China actively promotes Buddhism. When Akshardham was built, they asked the BAPS community to build one in China too. This was the CCP.

They also actively promote not bringing religion into the public sphere and boast the largest absolute number of atheists..see any contradiction whatsoever?
 

Hermione

BANNED
Jul 20, 2013
1,008
-9
1,554
Country
India
Location
India
Ahemm..contravention of personal law by common law tenets and specif judgement has nothing to do with any law based on any religious tenet...instead it is actually a rudimentary and baby step towards a uniform civil code.

Yup something you were feeling joyous about not being enforced just some time ago.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom