Hindu migrants from Bangladesh must be accommodated: Modi

[amitkriit]

The word was added to the preamble by IG. But even before that, India was a secular country, right from birth. There are plenty of provisions in the constitution that make that clear, and those were in place since 1947.

India was not a Secular country right from birth because our constitution did not have this word when we became a republic in 1950. The word "Secular" has not been defined in the Constitution of India.

Just because our constitution guarantee "Freedom to practice and propagate Religion" doesn't change the nature of our society and state, which is Hindu in nature and in spirit. If a secular state like UK can have an "official church" then India can also be the home land of all Hindus.

 

[IamBengali]

India is not a Hindu country. Nepal is.

India is secular. Bangladesh is also secular.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Ah.. that squares things up. Now both the communities of BD will have parties to fall back in India. While Congress is already looking after the interest of one community... BJP pitches for another one. Things can only get better...

 

[janon]

India was not a Secular country right from birth because our constitution did not have this word when we became a republic in 1950. The word "Secular" has not been defined in the Constitution of India.

Just because our constitution guarantee "Freedom to practice and propagate Religion" doesn't change the nature of our society and state, which is Hindu in nature and in spirit. If a secular state like UK can have an "official church" then India can also be the home land of all Hindus.

Just because the word didn't exist in the constitution doesn't mean that it wasn't one. The constitution clearly specifies that all religions shall be treated equally by the state, and no one shall be discriminated positively or negatively on the basis of religion. Also, India does not have a state religion, like judaism for israel or islam for pakistan. That is why India is a secular country, whether that word itself exists in the constitution or not.

So your intitial assertion and false equivalence of India and Israel do not hold water. India does not have a state religion. Whether UK does or not is irrelevant to India.

India is not a Hindu country. Nepal is.

India is secular. Bangladesh is also secular.

Not anymore. Since 2006, Nepal is officially secular, and not a hindu republic.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

No, it isn't. Israel is a jewish state, India is a secular one.

Nope. Israel is also a secular state. It just accepts what is an Universal Truth - all Jews feel safest in Israel. India is NOT a secular state either. India is a Muslim appeasing State.

Just because the word didn't exist in the constitution doesn't mean that it wasn't one. The constitution clearly specifies that all religions shall be treated equally by the state, and no one shall be discriminated positively or negatively on the basis of religion. Also, India does not have a state religion, like judaism for israel or islam for pakistan. That is why India is a secular country, whether that word itself exists in the constitution or not.
So your intitial assertion and false equivalence of India and Israel do not hold water. India does not have a state religion. Whether UK does or not is irrelevant to India.
Not anymore. Since 2006, Nepal is officially secular, and not a hindu republic.

India has always been a secular entity. For millenia it has remained tolerant. It remains true that for Hindus India will remain the natural home. That is the present reality.

 

[janon]

Nope. Israel is also a secular state. It just accepts what is an Universal Truth - all Jews feel safest in Israel. India is NOT a secular state either. India is a Muslim appeasing State.


India has always been a secular entity. For millenia it has remained tolerant. It remains true that for Hindus India will remain the natural home. That is the present reality.

Israel practices secularism in that it treats people equally; however, officially it is declared as a "Jewish and democratic" state.
A Jewish and Democratic State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much like European countries like Britain and Germany, which are not officially secular, but are so in practice (for the most part).

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Israel practices secularism in that it treats people equally; however, officially it is declared as a "Jewish and democratic" state.
A Jewish and Democratic State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much like European countries like Britain and Germany, which are not officially secular, but are so in practice (for the most part).

True. But still is secular. Which was my point.
India was and shall be the special land of Hindus. For a multitude of reasons. This however is not mutually exclusive to the inclusive society we live in.

 

[A Town]

Yes, India is the homeland if Hindu people.

 

[janon]

True. But still is secular. Which was my point.
India was and shall be the special land of Hindus. For a multitude of reasons. This however is not mutually exclusive to the inclusive society we live in.

It becomes a problem if the state of India decides to accept refugees on the basis of religion alone - if Bangladeshi hindus are allowed to settle, but Bangladeshi muslims are not. That violates our constitution.

That is where it is different for Israel - jews from anywhere in the world are welcomed (and permitted by law) to migrate to Israel, if they can prove their ancestry. No such provision exists for people of other religions. But India emulating such a policy would be unconstitutional, and that is why I said that the other person's assertion of equivalence between India and Israel is wrong.

 

[janon]

Yes, India is the homeland if Hindu people.

But not only of hindu people. It is also home to people of many other faiths. Also, it is not the home of all hindu people. There are plenty of citizens other countries, from bangladesh to USA, who are hindus. The republic of India is not their home.

 

[A Town]

But not only of hindu people. It is also home to people of many other faiths. Also, it is not the home of all hindu people. There are plenty of citizens other countries, from bangladesh to USA, who are hindus. The republic of India is not their home.

Of course there ism we pride our selves on diversity but people are becoming overly secular and trying to deny entry too Hindus. The fact remains that whenever someone thinks of Hinduism they also think of India.

 

[amitkriit]

It becomes a problem if the state of India decides to accept refugees on the basis of religion alone - if Bangladeshi hindus are allowed to settle, but Bangladeshi muslims are not. That violates our constitution.

That is where it is different for Israel - jews from anywhere in the world are welcomed (and permitted by law) to migrate to Israel, if they can prove their ancestry. No such provision exists for people of other religions. But India emulating such a policy would be unconstitutional, and that is why I said that the other person's assertion of equivalence between India and Israel is wrong.

No it doesn't violate our constitution. Our constitution doesn't discriminate on any basis, does that mean recent decision of not granting certain nationalities "VISA on arrival" is extra-constitutional?

Refugees do not have the right to challenge Indian government's decision on who gets to stay and who doesn't. That is Government of India's prerogative. All the The government of India has to do is to "selectively" grant citizenship to the Hindu refugees.

 

[janon]

No it doesn't violate our constitution. Our constitution doesn't discriminate on any basis, does that mean recent decision of not granting certain nationalities "VISA on arrival" is extra-constitutional?

Refugees do not have the right to challenge Indian government's decision on who gets to stay and who doesn't. That is Government of India's prerogative. All the The government of India has to do is to "selectively" grant citizenship to the Hindu refugees.

And that is precisely what will violate the letter and spirit of the constitution.

 

[amitkriit]

And that is precisely what will violate the letter and spirit of the constitution.

How? Foreigners have no constitutional rights, they only enjoy the rights guaranteed by the international treaties signed and ratified by the Government of India.
It is Government of India's prerogative to grant or deny citizenship.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

It becomes a problem if the state of India decides to accept refugees on the basis of religion alone - if Bangladeshi hindus are allowed to settle, but Bangladeshi muslims are not. That violates our constitution.

True. But I would still support it Refugees from all over the world got refuge here. From the Parsis to the Jews.
Now Muslims are NOT leaving BD. Hindus are. I personally would love them to settle in India.