Does India need Secularism?

[Manindra]

In a ideal state religion limited under personal matter. Majority or minority thats not matter to in view point of states.

 

[vsdave2302]

Does the video talk about specific time and place?

Thank you

I do not recall place but it talks of incidents of 1989 and 1990

 

[Dash]

You are either Naive or you choose to be ignorant.

Religious struggle is over in most part of the world where Islam and Christianity has taken over and has established their supremacy by eating and digesting native religion and culture. Today Christianity and Islam control most of the Lands, Finance and Firearms and the Media in the WORLD. If it wasn't for the rise of China ...India would have been alone in fighting this loosing battle.

In Rest of the Lands like China and India the Religious struggle is still on by the Natives. They fight Well Funded and organized Rabid Supremacists from Christianity......and to a much smaller extend by Islamic supremacists.

India today is a Battle Ground.

Keeping your eyes closed will not make this reality go away.

How do you expect Stability is a world that is full of such rabid extremists ? India did not go to other countries to start this war ......they have come uninvited to our land to destroy our culture, our value systems and our way of life. Its a battle for Survival.

The jews once thought like you did and thought the world was a nice beautiful place and they could live happily ever after there ........ you know how that story ended.

So you want to follow the path of Christianity and Islam and do what they did and reach the same destiny? or you choose a different one.

For the underlined part, They cant destroy our land, forget it.....but tell me, WHAT is our culture..?

 

[Spring Onion]

if we give up secularism we will suffer the same fate as that of Pakistan....

Cow riots are still onn.

please keep us out of your own confusion.

allowing hindu gods as witness in Indian Govt higher courts if called secularism then indeed you are

 

[sankranti]

So you want to follow the path of Christianity and Islam and do what they did and reach the same destiny? or you choose a different one.

For the underlined part, They cant destroy our land, forget it.....but tell me, WHAT is our culture..?

........why on earth should I want to follow the path of Christianity or Islam ?

I want to follow the path of Dharmic Religions ............you just don't get it, do you ?

Who said anything about destroying our Land ? Comprehension issue ?

You seems clueless about what your culture is or should be. I suspect the worse

 

[Koovie]

Cow riots are still onn.

please keep us out of your own confusion.

allowing hindu gods as witness in Indian Govt higher courts if called secularism then indeed you are

Still we are 6246262463 times more secular than any other country on the subcontinent

 

[Spring Onion]

Still we are 6246262463 times more secular than any other country on the subcontinent

Is that landline Number of secular state ? ))))))))))))))))))))))))))).


Look the only issue with India as a state and Indians as public is

1. The India as a Govt is forced secular term down its throat for a world facepalm. Blame Congress or anyone for that. Thats your cal.

2. Anti-Congress political parties and their ideology is NOT secular neither they stand for such version or any version of secularims in the continent.

3. These parties call for advocating/protection of Hindu cutoms/rules/faith/rituals by law or by force (which in my personal opinion is NOT a bad idea).

4. The Indian majority public share the above idea .

5. In the face of point 2-3-4, the dilema of any Indian govt is that they are in a fix with the word secular in constitution and its practical implementation on ground which is not yet possible neither can be unless you apply it without bias. and if you apply it without bias you are going to face majority Hindu ire


6. You have to be clear either 100% practice what you say in constitution wrg to this word or altogether denounce it and announce laws which can side with hinduism.

Currently you cant ban cow slaughter in entire India and yet you have to bend down to some states and ban cow sluaghter/cow meat etc etc.

 

[Koovie]

Is that landline Number of secular state ? ))))))))))))))))))))))))))).


Look the only issue with India as a state and Indians as public is

1. The India as a Govt is forced secular term down its throat for a world facepalm. Blame Congress or anyone for that. Thats your cal.

2. Anti-Congress political parties and their ideology is NOT secular neither they stand for such version or any version of secularims in the continent.

3. These parties call for advocating/protection of Hindu cutoms/rules/faith/rituals by law or by force (which in my personal opinion is NOT a bad idea).

4. The Indian majority public share the above idea .

5. In the face of point 2-3-4, the dilema of any Indian govt is that they are in a fix with the word secular in constitution and its practical implementation on ground which is not yet possible neither can be unless you apply it without bias. and if you apply it without bias you are going to face majority Hindu ire


6. You have to be clear either 100% practice what you say in constitution wrg to this word or altogether denounce it and announce laws which can side with hinduism.

Currently you cant ban cow slaughter in entire India and yet you have to bend down to some states and ban cow sluaghter/cow meat etc etc.

1.) Sry, dont get it.

2.) They (the BJP) arent that non secular, especially if you read their programs. But more importantly, the SC and the law forbid something like a state religion, the major opposition party (Congress) and other parties together will block any such move, and it the end the human desire for power and money, state politics etc etc etc will simply outweigh any such ambitions.
Yes, a government can set such priorities, but it can go only as far as allowed by the highest law (The Constitution and the SC).
Just take a look what the NDA did in their term of office.

3.) See point 2.


4.) From where did you get that from? The political composition in the national parliament and the state parliaments speak for themselves.

5.) The GOI cannot change the constitution like that, it needs a sufficient majority which no GOI enjoyed for years now. Besides, the SC already ruled out any changes regarding religion.

6.) Tell me, which constitution is followed by 100% ?

I cannot think of any. Americans held slaves even decades after the formation of the USA, they did not allow women to vote for over 150 years till 1920.

But 6 decades after independence India withstood all kind of religious violence and now people from major religions are living together peacefully. And the best example for this is the how people from all communities and religions are represented in all areas of life:

Just a few examples:

PM: Sikh

President: Hindu

MoFA: Muslim

Defence Minister: Atheist

FM: Hindu

Chief of the IA: Sikh

IN Chief: Hindu

IAF Chief: Christian etc etc et

And I could go on for this like forever.

And there is simply no other country which has this kind of astonishing diversity.

And the thing about cow slaughter: India is an extremely federal country. The states have much responsibilities on their own... including the topic of cow slaughter. Even the question whether to allow FDI in retail was a decision of each state! Or just look at the different living standards of each state, which reflect their differing approaches on topics like healthcare and education!

This high autonomy was embodied in our constitution from the very beginning!

 

[sankranti]

1.) Sry, dont get it.

...........

One corrections .......

Constitution can be amended by the govt., even fundamental rights can be changed. SC has no say in that matter. It can only interpret law i.e. the constitution.

 

[Tshering22]

1.) Sry, dont get it.

2.) They (the BJP) arent that non secular, especially if you read their programs. But more importantly, the SC and the law forbid something like a state religion, the major opposition party (Congress) and other parties together will block any such move, and it the end the human desire for power and money, state politics etc etc etc will simply outweigh any such ambitions.
Yes, a government can set such priorities, but it can go only as far as allowed by the highest law (The Constitution and the SC).
Just take a look what the NDA did in their term of office.

3.) See point 2.


4.) From where did you get that from? The political composition in the national parliament and the state parliaments speak for themselves.

5.) The GOI cannot change the constitution like that, it needs a sufficient majority which no GOI enjoyed for years now. Besides, the SC already ruled out any changes regarding religion.

6.) Tell me, which constitution is followed by 100% ?

I cannot think of any. Americans held slaves even decades after the formation of the USA, they did not allow women to vote for over 150 years till 1920.

But 6 decades after independence India withstood all kind of religious violence and now people from major religions are living together peacefully. And the best example for this is the how people from all communities and religions are represented in all areas of life:

Just a few examples:

PM: Sikh

President: Hindu

MoFA: Muslim

Defence Minister: Atheist

FM: Hindu

Chief of the IA: Sikh

IN Chief: Hindu

IAF Chief: Christian etc etc et

And I could go on for this like forever.

And there is simply no other country which has this kind of astonishing diversity.

And the thing about cow slaughter: India is an extremely federal country. The states have much responsibilities on their own... including the topic of cow slaughter. Even the question whether to allow FDI in retail was a decision of each state! Or just look at the different living standards of each state, which reflect their differing approaches on topics like healthcare and education!

This high autonomy was embodied in our constitution from the very beginning!

Again you are stuck up with the imagery of who's the PM and president.

When riots or attacks happen, these folks are the least affected by it.

Rather it is the common man who suffers due to wrong use of secoolarism.

Since you're talking about imagery, how about this:

It was the same 'evil hindutva' BJP party that anointed Dr. Abdul Kalam as the president of India.

George Fernandes a Christian was the defense minister.

Chief spokesperson was a Muslim Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.

And yet India experienced some of the fastest execution of targets in NDA era.

Secoolarism is just against the host communities of India.

Otherwise there is no need for just a word.

Dharmic culture by default has been tolerant of religions.

Otherwise no minority would exist today to argue in the country.

Cow riots are still onn.

please keep us out of your own confusion.

allowing hindu gods as witness in Indian Govt higher courts if called secularism then indeed you are

That's the majority Indian culture simply.

Like it or hate it, neither the Hindus nor we converted for the greed of money or because of identity crisis.

If some did, it is not our problem.

 

[Koovie]

Again you are stuck up with the imagery of who's the PM and president.

When riots or attacks happen, these folks are the least affected by it.

Rather it is the common man who suffers due to wrong use of secoolarism.

Since you're talking about imagery, how about this:

It was the same 'evil hindutva' BJP party that anointed Dr. Abdul Kalam as the president of India.

George Fernandes a Christian was the defense minister.

Chief spokesperson was a Muslim Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.

And yet India experienced some of the fastest execution of targets in NDA era.

Secoolarism is just against the host communities of India.

Otherwise there is no need for just a word.

Dharmic culture by default has been tolerant of religions.

Otherwise no minority would exist today to argue in the country.

And you think there wont be violence if there is a state religion, despite 300 million people who dont follow it and countless other political differences?

Since you're talking about imagery, how about this:

It was the same 'evil hindutva' BJP party that anointed Dr. Abdul Kalam as the president of India.

George Fernandes a Christian was the defense minister.

Chief spokesperson was a Muslim Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.

And yet India experienced some of the fastest execution of targets in NDA era.

Where did I say that this was not the case? In fact I referred to this in point 2

Dharmic culture by default has been tolerant of religions.

Almost every religion claims to be peaceful tolerant blah blah blah

But in the end human nature will always prevail.... when humans can get power, money or influence, they will sh** on religion.

 

[Bang Galore]

One corrections .......

Constitution can be amended by the govt., even fundamental rights can be changed. SC has no say in that matter. It can only interpret law i.e. the constitution.

No it can't. The ruling of the " basic structure doctrine" on the constitution laid that down.

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. Key among these "basic features", are the fundamental rights granted to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of a limited power of the Indian Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional amendments enacted by the parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the constitution

. Chief Justice Subba Rao writing for the majority (six judges in special bench of eleven, overruled the previous decisions) held that:

# A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13.
#Article 13 prevents the passing of laws which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions.
#Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure.
#The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament.
#Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.

Chief Justice Sikri, writing for the majority, indicated that the basic structure consists of the following:

# The supremacy of the constitution.
# A republican and democratic form of government.
# The secular character of the Constitution.
# Maintenance of the separation of powers.
# The federal character of the Constitution.

Justices Shelat and Grover in their opinion added three features to the Chief Justice's list:

# The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
# Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India.
# The sovereignty of the country.

Justices Hegde and Mukherjea, in their opinion, provided a separate and shorter list:

# The sovereignty of India.
# The democratic character of the polity.
# The unity of the country.
# Essential features of individual freedoms.
# The mandate to build a welfare state.

Justice Jaganmohan Reddy preferred to look at the preamble, stating that the basic features of the constitution were laid out by that part of the document, and thus could be represented by:

#A sovereign democratic republic.
#The provision of social, economic and political justice.
#Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
#Equality of status and opportunity.

Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dash]

........why on earth should I want to follow the path of Christianity or Islam ?

I want to follow the path of Dharmic Religions ............you just don't get it, do you ?

Who said anything about destroying our Land ? Comprehension issue ?

You seems clueless about what your culture is or should be. I suspect the worse

Dharmic, worshiping cow?...

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

@Bang Galore
I have seen a post of yours which says there is 1991 law which freezed the statues of all religious structures, but I couldn't find any thing related in search, do you have a link ??

 

[sankranti]

Dharmic, worshiping cow?...

So ....you are a christian ?

No it can't. The ruling of the " basic structure doctrine" on the constitution laid that down.
[/I][/B]

Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.....wrong choice of word ....it cannot be 'amended' but a new constitutions can be drawn up and implemented.