Did Two Nation Theory Die in 1971 After Creation of Bangladesh?

[doppelganger]

First of all taste of meat of buffalo is not same as meat of cow. I find the meat of pig disgusting but secular state should not make it forbidden for others who like to eat it. Muslim/Christians should have right to slaughter cow just like buffalo or any other animal because they dont consider cow holy. Hindu/christians should have freedom to eat pigs. People should live and eat according to their taste not someone else.

I have no special love for pigs man. Kill and eat all you want in my country. But you will not slaughter cows in my country because for me cows are special. And those who try to slaughter cows will feel my wrath. Now if 900 million of us feel the same way, that's a s.hitload of wrath. The government will fall, security and law and order will be swept away like twigs.

Be sensible, be safe. Eat buffalo.

Or go across the border and eat all the cow you want.

 

[Black Widow]

Muslims are suffering because they don't follow the rules of land..


They give birth many kids and unable to provide good culture to them. These uncultural goons are menace to society.. 

First of all taste of meat of buffalo is not same as meat of cow. I find the meat of pig disgusting but secular state should not make it forbidden for others who like to eat it. Muslim/Christians should have right to slaughter cow just like buffalo or any other animal because they dont consider cow holy. Hindu/christians should have freedom to eat pigs. People should live and eat according to their taste not someone else.

Jo mera hai wo mera hai, jo tera hai wo bhi mera hai...

Means "What ever is mine is already mine, what ever is yours is also mine"..

This is what motto of some ppl...

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

I have no special love for pigs man. Kill and eat all you want in my country. But you will not slaughter cows in my country because for me cows are special. And those who try to slaughter cows will feel my wrath. Now if 900 million of us feel the same way, that's a s.hitload of wrath. The government will fall, security and law and order will be swept away like twigs.

Be sensible, be safe. Eat buffalo.

Or go across the border and eat all ou want.

Your country mean hindu country or secular country. If it is hindu country then it make sense because cow is scared in hindu scripture but if it claim to be secular country based on secular principles or country of non hindu as well then they should have right to kill it and eat it. Why they should be forced to live according to hindu scripture. Cow is special to you then treat her special but dont expect from others to give her special treatment because for them she is not mata pita

 

[INDIC]

Your country mean hindu country or secular country. If it is hindu country then it make sense because cow is scared in hindu scripture but if it claim to be secular country based on secular principles or country of non hindu as well then they should have right to kill it and eat it. Why they should be forced to live according to hindu scripture. Cow is special to you then treat her special but dont expect from others to give her special treatment because for them she is not mata pita

Slaughtering cow is not mandatory in any other religion, so banning it doesn't translate to suppression of religion freedom. BTW Like other Pakistanis you are confusing secularism with Atheism.  

Your country mean hindu country or secular country.

My country also give Haj subsidies to Muslims.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There are some rules of the land. These are not matters of morals or what is sacred or not. It is policy. If you slaughter a cow you commit a crime. Don't like it? Move elsewhere. Think we are no longer secular for that reason? Great, now move on. Yes, that is how our policies are. We are as secular and communal as we want. You have a problem? Well, burn.

The people of India have a choice. It is simple. Those who prefer to live in the Indian Union can. But if you wish to break those rules, you may want to shift to Pakistan(to avoid prosecution). Just like million of non Muslims did (and do) shift to India.

 

[doppelganger]

Your country mean hindu country or secular country. If it is hindu country then it make sense because cow is scared in hindu scripture but if it claim to be secular country based on secular principlea or country of non hindu then they should have right to kill it and eat it.

My country meaning secular country with 900 million Indians who consider the cow to be sacred.

On of the basic tenets of the Indian Constitution is that the citizens of India enjoy rights and have responsibilities. Those rights however are not absolute, and one citizen's right ends where it starts encroaching on another citizen's.

 

[INDIC]

TNT will Never Die because it is reality on Ground also if Remaining India Dies as there are more then 2 Dozen movements of Independence in India then Baluchistan Movement will Die with India Death also, InshAllah and Ameen to this one, BLA is finance by India so India Death will be good OMEN for Pakistan
Long Live Pakistan and Death to all Haters of Pakistan

TNT has died, Hindus still live with Muslims in India while East and West Pakistanis failed to live with each other. 

Your country mean hindu country or secular country. If it is hindu country then it make sense because cow is scared in hindu scripture but if it claim to be secular country based on secular principles or country of non hindu as well then they should have right to kill it and eat it. Why they should be forced to live according to hindu scripture. Cow is special to you then treat her special but dont expect from others to give her special treatment because for them she is not mata pita

 

[pk_baloch]

Your country mean hindu country or secular country. If it is hindu country then it make sense because cow is scared in hindu scripture but if it claim to be secular country based on secular principles or country of non hindu as well then they should have right to kill it and eat it. Why they should be forced to live according to hindu scripture. Cow is special to you then treat her special but dont expect from others to give her special treatment because for them she is not mata pita

india is not even a secular state .......ajeeb o gareeb democracy......

 

[Nassr]

It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.

Here is Article 25.

Quote

25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health

and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are

equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right

freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation

of any existing law or prevent the State from making

any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,

political or other secular activity which may be

associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the

throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a

public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans

shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the

Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the

reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a

reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or

Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious

institutions shall be construed accordingly

Unquote.

From the explanation I understand that what applies to Hindus will also apply to Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists. You interpret as “Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists are Hindus”. You choice.

Niaz Sahab,

Talking about Article 25 of Indian constitution you state that “It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.” To resolve this aspect, in most countries the higher courts translate and decipher the provisions laid out in a country’s constitution. This also seems to be the case in India. And this is what Indian Supreme Court states unequivocally:

Jains, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, August 10
In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional frame work, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

“The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies,” a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation

Does this leave any doubt Mr. Niaz or you also want to join the honourables, eminences, exalted maha-rishis and famous conscientious objectors. Your choice.

 

[shazlion]

TNT will Never Die because it is reality on Ground also if Remaining India Dies as there are more then 2 Dozen movements of Independence in India then Baluchistan Movement will Die with India Death also, InshAllah and Ameen to this one, BLA is finance by India so India Death will be good OMEN for Pakistan
Long Live Pakistan and Death to all Haters of Pakistan

 

[Ajatashatru]

I have read enough about this shining and incredible India where there is no religious/caste prejudiced and discrimination , no poverty, no riots, no hinduvata extremist or Hindu nationalists who consider Muslims outsider and think India belong to Hindus(follower of those religion originated in India i.e Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism ), no quota systems for dalits and low castes because they get equal rights. We have also seen how Indian Muslims saved old Babri mosques and many others from Hindu extremists. 500 mosques and shrine were destroyed in Gujraat.


Allahabad: Peoples Union for Human Rights (PUHR), a human rights organization, which toured the riot affected areas of Gujarat and closely examined the anti-Muslim riots there has published its report wherein it has been stated that in the whole of Gujarat it was a one-sided violence against Muslims wherein 500 mosques, ‘dargahs’ and ‘imam-baras’ were demolished and in their places religious places of the majority community were established. It is further stated in the report that during the riots the state ministers, MLAs and VHP leaders were sitting in the police control room and inciting and directing the rioters against Muslims and that the state government is fully responsible for anti-Muslim riots of Gujarat. The PUHR team which toured Gujarat consisted of 3 members led by its senior member and former President of JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) students union, Pranor Krishn.

It was further stated in the report that Muslims living in refugee camps are so much afraid that even after one month they do not want to go back to their houses for fear of being killed or burnt alive. As regards Gujarat administration, it is stated in the report the activists associated with Bajrang Dal and other Sangh organizations have been recruited upto the level of constables and inspectors in large numbers by the state government. These people were taking orders and guidance from their organizations during the riots.

The report further says that conditions have so much deteriorated that the affected persons are afraid of lodging FIRs against the culprits because all of them are associated with Sangh Parivar and ‘trishuls’ and swords were distributed in large numbers to the rioters by the Parivar. Vehicles of Muslims were selectively burnt by the rioters so that they may not be able to shift to other places.

It has been said about VHP in the report that they are trying to incite their members to terrorise the people in those areas also where Muslims are safe so far. While holding the state government fully responsible for the riots, it is stated that anti-Muslim movement started by the government is still going on at secret level. Finally, it has been demanded in the report that central government should set up a high level committee to thoroughly probe the whole events so that the deep conspiracy behind anti-Muslim riots could be exposed.

And here is the example of secular Indian mindset who welcome Indian Muslim and other Indian ethnicities to live in their housing society

[video]

[/video]

[video]

[/video]

Are Muslims getting a fair deal in India? good debate

[video]

[/video]

Only secular India will give you imprisonment of one year ( can be extended upto seven years and a fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs 50000 or both) for slaughtering cow . Its more imprtant to protect the rights of cow than protecting the rights of Muslims, dalits and low castes

Do not post from Islamic countries' news sites. Everyone knows they highly exaggerate things in their propaganda. Post from neutral news sites. The one from CNN IBN clearly says that housing problem is not specific to Muslims. Many Hindu/Muslim/Jain/Sikh housing societies do not want people from other communities to settle in their areas due to cultural differences (like Jains' preference for vegetarian people). Furthermore, the cases you mentioned are isolated. We never say their is no problem with minority protection in India. India has got its fair share of problems just like the rest of the countries of the world. And India, unlike many other countries (in which we can include some neighboring countries) is doing a lot to address the concerns of its minorities. By posting a few isolated cases you cannot say that Indian Muslims are not enjoying their faith freely. As I said earlier, come to India and see for yourself. Do not fall for other people's and organisations' propaganda.

 

[toxic_pus]

Constitutional equality is denied to some minorities in India to serve the purpose of constitutional majority. The fact that Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not given a separate religious status through application of Indian constitutional clause enacted through Article 25 of Indian Constitution presents ample proof in this regard.

Niaz Sahab,

Talking about Article 25 of Indian constitution you state that “It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.” To resolve this aspect, in most countries the higher courts translate and decipher the provisions laid out in a country’s constitution. This also seems to be the case in India. And this is what Indian Supreme Court states unequivocally:

Jains, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, August 10
In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional frame work, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

“The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies,” a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation

Does this leave any doubt Mr. Niaz or you also want to join the honourables, eminences, exalted maha-rishis and famous conscientious objectors. Your choice.

Contrary to what you believe, or wish, Article 25-30 are meant to provide constitutional safeguard to the minorites. This has been explained in brief by @Joe Shearer.

As evidence to your claim that 'Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not given a separate religious status through application of Indian constitutional clause enacted through Article 25 of Indian Constitution' you have cited a Supreme Court case, as reported by an Indian newsportal. What you don't know, because a brain as prejudiced as yours can never pick up the clues that go against your prejudice, that the case has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Article 25.

The case - Bal Patil v/s Union Of India & Others [case no: Appeal (civil) 4730 of 1999] is about the applicant seeking the Central Govt. to declare Jains as minorities. The case was rejected on the ground that it should be done through 'State Minorities Act' (State here means province) and not 'Central Minorities Act'. Even by the most imaginative stretch of mind can it be said that 'the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion', unless of course you are you (or that ignorant reporter you have decided to rely on). The comment of the Judges that you have highlighted in red, are in connection with how these religions are perceived in broader Indian society and are not an explanation of the legal status of these religions.

The Central Government has expressedly declared who the minorities are. According to Section 2(c) of The National Commission for Minorities:

"Minority, for the purposes of this Act, means a community notified as such by the Central Government"​

The notification [SO no. 816(E), F. No. 1/11/193-MC (D) dated 23.10.1993] states:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Commission of Minorities Act 1992 the Central Government hereby notifies the following communities as 'the Minority communities' for the purpose of the said Act. namely:
1. Muslims
2. Christians
3. Sikhs
4. Buddhists
5. Zoroastrians (Parsis)"​

 

[Nassr]

Contrary to what you believe, or wish, Article 25-30 are meant to provide constitutional safeguard to the minorites. This has been explained in brief by @Joe Shearer.

As evidence to your claim that 'Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not given a separate religious status through application of Indian constitutional clause enacted through Article 25 of Indian Constitution' you have cited a Supreme Court case, as reported by an Indian newsportal. What you don't know, because a brain as prejudiced as yours can never pick up the clues that go against your prejudice, that the case has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Article 25.

The case - Bal Patil v/s Union Of India & Others [case no: Appeal (civil) 4730 of 1999] is about the applicant seeking the Central Govt. to declare Jains as minorities. The case was rejected on the ground that it should be done through 'State Minorities Act' (State here means province) and not 'Central Minorities Act'. Even by the most imaginative stretch of mind can it be said that 'the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion', unless of course you are you (or that ignorant reporter you have decided to rely on). The comment of the Judges that you have highlighted in red, are in connection with how these religions are perceived in broader Indian society and are not an explanation of the legal status of these religions.

The Central Government has expressedly declared who the minorities are. According to Section 2(c) of The National Commission for Minorities:

"Minority, for the purposes of this Act, means a community notified as such by the Central Government"​

The notification [SO no. 816(E), F. No. 1/11/193-MC (D) dated 23.10.1993] states:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Commission of Minorities Act 1992 the Central Government hereby notifies the following communities as 'the Minority communities' for the purpose of the said Act. namely:
1. Muslims
2. Christians
3. Sikhs
4. Buddhists
5. Zoroastrians (Parsis)"​

Please tell this to the Indian Supreme Court. The Judges of Indian Supreme Court do not agree with @Joe Shearer and your explanation. In the verdict they gave, it is very clearly stated that they identify Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as a sub-sect of Hinduism and denied the request to grant them a separate religious status, based on the edicts of Indian Constitution. 

Do not post from Islamic countries' news sites. Everyone knows they highly exaggerate things in their propaganda. Post from neutral news sites. The one from CNN IBN clearly says that housing problem is not specific to Muslims. Many Hindu/Muslim/Jain/Sikh housing societies do not want people from other communities to settle in their areas due to cultural differences (like Jains' preference for vegetarian people). Furthermore, the cases you mentioned are isolated. We never say their is no problem with minority protection in India. India has got its fair share of problems just like the rest of the countries of the world. And India, unlike many other countries (in which we can include some neighboring countries) is doing a lot to address the concerns of its minorities. By posting a few isolated cases you cannot say that Indian Muslims are not enjoying their faith freely. As I said earlier, come to India and see for yourself. Do not fall for other people's and organisations' propaganda.

I have been to India many a times and I am sorry, I do not agree with you.

 

[Ajatashatru]

I have been to India many a times and I am sorry, I do not agree with you.

I don't believe that you have been to India.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

I have no special love for pigs man. Kill and eat all you want in my country. But you will not slaughter cows in my country because for me cows are special. And those who try to slaughter cows will feel my wrath. Now if 900 million of us feel the same way, that's a s.hitload of wrath. The government will fall, security and law and order will be swept away like twigs.

Be sensible, be safe. Eat buffalo.

Or go across the border and eat all the cow you want.

Have some shame Baniya, every day there are reports of hindus raping cows. Muslims will continue to slaughter your matas in India, you cant stop them.