Enough of secular non sense, declare India as Hindu state.

[ranjeet]

Modi is SECULAR.Whoever want to portray otherwise I want to see evidence not allegations.

Infact the biggest mistake of Congress was to leave the arena of nationalism in favour of secularism as if two are contradictory terms.

Congress was secular-nationalist party till Narsimha Rao after that it dropped nationalism.

Congress dropped Secularism and dived into politics of appeasement during Shah Bano case. They tried to monkey balance it with Ram Mandir issue but ended up creating a deep communal rift in the country.

 

[Kathin_Singh]

Supreme Court will never allow such thing to happen because you cannot play with the basic structure of the constitution, though there is no proper definition of the word "Basic Structure" given by the Supreme Court but I am quiet sure that Supreme Court will just scrap such Constitutional Amendment.

Which Amendment you are talking about ? 42nd or something else?

Plus all the articles you have mentioned has nothing to do with the term secular, these article from part-3 of constitution provide fundamental right to the "people" remember not only Indian Citizen but an Alien(foreigner) can also enjoy this rights in India. Plus Parliament has all the rights to play with fundamental rights of people they can change it whenever they want to, but all they have to do is keep the SC happy.

Secularism is part of basic structure and so as judicial review.So Parliament can not touch the secularism aspect of our constitution.

Lekin tum kehna kya chahate ho ? Samajh nahi aa raha

Congress dropped Secularism and dived into politics of appeasement during Shah Bano case. They tried to monkey balance it with Ram Mandir issue but ended up creating a deep communal rift in the country.

I agree partially. If you go by Hindu code bill 1956, Nehru has to compromise with real secularism due to communal backlash from rigid Hindu sections of society. Then also Secularism was compromised.

But what puzzles me that they have dropped nationalism . for e.g. when Rahul baba supported fringe element of anti nationalists of JNU . Kanhaiiya and their elk.

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

Which Amendment you are talking about ? 42nd or something else?



Secularism is part of basic structure and so as judicial review.So Parliament can not touch the secularism aspect of our constitution.

Lekin tum kehna kya chahate ho ? Samajh nahi aa raha

Parliament can update or delete any fundamental rights, like Art-25,26,27 ,etc But it cannot change the Basic structure of the constitution according to the 1973 verdict of "Keshvanand Bharti vs Union government of India" case SC.

Me ye kehna chahta hu, 42nd CA has nothing to do with "Secularism", it was just a word added to the Preamble. If Parliament wants they can change it any time want to. But lets say if the Legislatures wants to change some of the provisions of fundamental rights related to Religion they can change it, but all they have to do is keep SC with them.
In short we can become "Hindu nation" if Parliament & SC forms a nexus and pass this Constitutional Amendment.

 

[911]

Since when India is secular? Its constitution recognises p0eople by their religion.

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

Since when India is secular? Its constitution recognises p0eople by their religion.

Recognizing people by religion doesn't prove that we are not secular, we have provisions in our constitution that protects individuals rights to preach and practice their religion freely in the country. We have even provide fundamental rights to foreigner to preach their religion in India. This kind of provisions make India's constitution "Secular" in nature.

India was always secular since it was discovered, even after there are no mention of the word "Secular" before 42nd amendment we still had FR which protects individuals rights regarding religion.

 

[Kathin_Singh]

Me ye kehna chahta hu, 42nd CA has nothing to do with "Secularism", it was just a word added to the Preamble. If Parliament wants they can change it any time want to. But lets say if the Legislatures wants to change some of the provisions of fundamental rights related to Religion they can change it, but all they have to do is keep SC with them.
In short we can become "Hindu nation" if Parliament & SC forms a nexus and pass this Constitutional Amendment.

Bhai sahab ..Ye kya tha ..!

Since when India is secular? Its constitution recognises p0eople by their religion.

Secularism does not mean atheism.

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

Bhai sahab ..Ye kya tha ..!



Secularism does not mean atheism.

Matlab agar Supreme Court aur Parliament mil jaye to "Hindu Rashtra" ban jayenge.

Yaar meri Angreezi itni kharab hai kya ??? Mujhse bhi kharab angreezi bolne walo ko me samajh leta hu..

 

[ranjeet]

I agree partially. If you go by Hindu code bill 1956, Nehru has to compromise with real secularism due to communal backlash from rigid Hindu sections of society. Then also Secularism was compromised.

But what puzzles me that they have dropped nationalism . for e.g. when Rahul baba supported fringe element of anti nationalists of JNU . Kanhaiiya and their elk.

Chacha Nehru loved compromises.

 

[Omega007]

Yup ! But for that I blame every body . Modi said swach bharat abhiyan and People in my town can't resist the temptation of spitting pan supari , Plastic bags and wastes on road .

Hahahaha, same shitt here as well!!

Modi will do nothing . India was great in the past because population was less hence population of stupids were less . I can hardly see a sane person in my town . Instead its me who is declared insane

Well,as bad as that may be,i's better than getting shunned by the townsfolk altogether for your views!!

 

[911]

Recognizing people by religion doesn't prove that we are not secular, we have provisions in our constitution that protects individuals rights to preach and practice their religion freely in the country. We have even provide fundamental rights to foreigner to preach their religion in India. This kind of provisions make India's constitution "Secular" in nature.

India was always secular since it was discovered, even after there are no mention of the word "Secular" before 42nd amendment we still had FR which protects individuals rights regarding religion.

Saperation of state and religion is ideal secularism. Every citizen bounded by same laws.

 

[Kathin_Singh]

Chacha Nehru loved compromises.

I see what you did there.

Still I am a big fan of him even though some of his decisions backfired.

Matlab agar Supreme Court aur Parliament mil jaye to "Hindu Rashtra" ban jayenge.

Yaar meri Angreezi itni kharab hai kya ??? Mujhse bhi kharab angreezi bolne walo ko me samajh leta hu..

Ha Ha Ha ...

last wala question nahi tha, exclamation tha..

 

[911]

UK being a secular country has Anglican churches as part of state ,declaration is useless what matters is how the laws are framed.In fact one can oppose minority communalism/appeasement better in a secular umbrella.

True. Play smart.

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

Saperation of state and religion is ideal secularism. Every citizen bounded by same laws.

There is a provision in the Directive Principle for State Policy Article-44 for Uniform civil code(same law for all), which can be implemented if the states wants to. But once again for that we need census from all the part of the society, we only think about whether the muslims will give up their chance of marrying 4 wives, but we almost forget about the tribal population in North-East they have their own religious practices and rules.

So we cannot have an absolute uniform civil code where there are people from dozens of religion living in a state or country.It's just not practical.

 

[Omega007]

Saperation of state and religion is ideal secularism. Every citizen bounded by same laws.

Exactly but in a country like ours, with the politicians and the society as a whole like that of ours, it seems that its implementation will remain a pipe dream!!

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

I see what you did there.

Still I am a big fan of him even though some of his decisions backfired.



Ha Ha Ha ...

Main last wala question nahi tha, exclamation tha..

To meri Angreezi definitely langdi hai