SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Actually they had ample amounts of Hindutva in them.election rallies and manifesto
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually they had ample amounts of Hindutva in them.election rallies and manifesto
For a law studentTherein lies our issue mate. When people of other religions do not want to be associated with Hindus, which according to RSS includes all religions, why are you compelling them when our Constitution states everyone is free to practice and propagate his own religion?
If RSS really is a nationalist organization, why not emphasize on use of word 'Indian' instead of 'Hindu'?
Other than that, ofc everyone is free to work towards the upliftment of the people of one's religion, without imposing it on any other group. THAT is Indian culture, not Hindutva.
I seriously don't understand why BJP plays so soft after being voted to power. Do they still believe that consolidation can be acheived without exterminating the anti national elements in this country?IB has stated multiple reports on how some of these media receive foreign money in order to spread venom against the PM and the nationalist groups. Don't know what Doval is doing about this.
For a law student
"The Supreme Court [of India] bench dealt with the meaning of the word 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' when used in election propaganda. The court came to the conclusion that the words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the People of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practicing the Hindu religion as a faith. This clearly means that, by itself, the word 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' indicates the culture of the people of India as a whole, irrespective of whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc."
"The word 'Hinduism' was coined by European travelers and traders in the 16th century."
"It is interesting to note that the word Hindu is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and did not originate in India. It was not used by Indians in their descriptions or writings until the 17th century. If we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any one who lives in the subcontinent is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism. The word Hindu is a secular word and literally translated it means Indian and the word Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the multitude of people living in the land beyond the river Indus."
The founding fathers,didnt include that word as they think it was not necessary, as Constitution ensures rights of everyone.The words were specifically left out by Ambedkar who framed the Constitution.Firstly, it was through 42nd Amendment Act in 1976 that the word Secular was added to the preamble. Now, if India doesn't really want to be obligated to act as a secular nation, you can amend the preamble under article 368, take out the word secular and no will raise another voice. Why have the successive governments not done that?
R u really a law student,you don't know basics of Indian constitution.Lol, if you paid equally good attention to the comments from RSS members, or even BJP (like hum do humare chaar for Hindu women), majority of them referred to Hindus, not Hinduism or Hindutva, thereby talking about a particular religion and not a way of life, as you mean to suggest. Let's not kid ourselves, shall we?
Constitution does not define who's a Hindu.
R u really a law student,you don't know basics of Indian constitution.
Indians Constitution does not give a definition of the term Hindu, but it does define to whom the Hindu Law applies. It has to do this because in spite of its pretence to secularism, the Indian Constitution allows Muslims, Christians and Parsis a separate Personal Law. In a way, this separate treatment of different communities merely continues the communal autonomy of castes and sects accepted in pre-modern Hindu states, but it exposes the credibility deficit of Indian secularism. At any rate, the situation is that Personal Law is divided on the basis of religion, and that one of the legal subsystems is called Hindu Law.
1 The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 goes in greater detail to define this legal Hindu, by stipulating in Section 2 that the Act applies:
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
2
This definition of the legal Hindu, though explicitly not equating him with the Hindu by religion, is exactly coterminous with the original Islamic use of the term Hindu: all Indian Pagans are legally Hindus. The Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are explicitly included in the Hindus by law but separated from the Hindus by religion.
Please explain this to @Prometheus.Do you have comprehension issues? It's clearly stated there's no definition of the term Hindu, but specifies a set of religions which are covered under the Hindu Laws for legal purposes.
Have you read the part 2.Even indian constittution didnt find hinu or hinduism as a religion.then whats your problem of RSS talking about strenghthening hindusDo you have comprehension issues? It's clearly stated there's no definition of the term Hindu, but specifies a set of religions which are covered under the Hindu Laws for legal purposes.
What are you doing in Canada? Please go back. You are needed in BJP's India.
@WebMaster @Horus @Jango This idiocy must be controlled for it is going out of control now. When did ISIS say all that and what the hell is this 'kuranistan'? Please stop these Hindutva hysterical statements that are plaguing this forum like nothing. Disgusting indeed.
Taj Mahal had also been built by Mughals.So why doesnt Taj Mahal bother RSS as it is a more grand ``symbol of slavery``The VHP called the fort "a symbol of slavery" that should be torn down
Development AND hindutva? how is turning a modern state into a theocratic shit state development? How is alienating 300 million people development? How is concentrating on fairy tales instead of development a good thing?
hindutva will be political suicide and would destroy the nation.
Tajmahal is the symbol of love not slavery.Taj Mahal had also been built by Mughals.So why doesnt Taj Mahal bother RSS as it is a more grand ``symbol of slavery``