BJP embarrassed again as RSS claims Hindus should 'weigh and assess their power'

[SarthakGanguly]

election rallies and manifesto

Actually they had ample amounts of Hindutva in them.

 

[ashok mourya]

Therein 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.

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."

 

[SarthakGanguly]

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.

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?

We should not underestimate the dedication some have to see this country destroyed. By now, I expected at least a few 'Gandhis' to be sent to the gallows for high treason. Manmohan Singh should have been behind bars and so should have been the entire Congress leadership - down to the Panchayat level. But the Congressis were even invited to the Republic Day parades...

The Empire has enough ammo to strike back. BJP and nationalists in India will be making a HUGE mistake to have faith on the idea of a decent and patriotic opposition.

 

[Span]

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."

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.

 

[wolfschanzze]

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?

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.
So why are you arguing about Constitution?when people like Indira gandhi have amended to suit their goals?She wanted to be a dictator and amended it as she saw fit.
The mere posting of original preamble recently, which didnt contain tinkerings of Indira Gandhi, caused rivers of Butthurt flowing through Seculars.

When hindus want to get rid of caste system and be united as one entity,why are others worried?
"Hindus should always be disunited in separate castes,sects etc.,while other religions should always be united?"
Wow,what an idea!

 

[ashok mourya]

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.

 

[Span]

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.

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.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

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.

Please explain this to @Prometheus.

 

[ashok mourya]

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 hindus

 

[gau8av]

what's up with this

do it proper yo, extend those arms

 

[Ussaid]

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.

Woah Woah slow down there, old man! You sound no more intelligent using fancy words than you do without them...

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

The VHP called the fort "a symbol of slavery" that should be torn down

Taj Mahal had also been built by Mughals.So why doesnt Taj Mahal bother RSS as it is a more grand ``symbol of slavery``

 

[doppelganger]

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.

I see Hindutva as the BJP sees Hindutva. As shared inclusive cultural nationalism. They have clearly spelled the same out N number of times in their manifestos and official website and papers by various senior leaders.

If still one wants to take a jaundiced view and have this unexplained phobia of Hindutva as some sort of fascist ideology akin to Hindu Naziism, then its probably in the eyes and mind of the jaundiced more than it is in that of India's leadership.

 

[ashok mourya]

Taj Mahal had also been built by Mughals.So why doesnt Taj Mahal bother RSS as it is a more grand ``symbol of slavery``

Tajmahal is the symbol of love not slavery.

 

[doppelganger]

@Span

As a law student have you read what the SC of India has to say about who is a Hindu, what is Hinduism, and what is Hindutva, and the related text?