Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[NKVD]

Secularism is a basic feature of our preamble, and even the Parliament (let alone the PM!) cannot amend the basic features of our preamble. Even if they do, the SC will just strike it down.

Btw, why would he want to do that? 2014 is surely not the last time elections are gonna be conducted?

And who decided secularism is a essense of are preamble not the people i think.Its was few Intellatual or radicals who just created are constitutions on the basis of Western theories without understandind the culture of this Land

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

what if NAMO one day declare that india is now officially Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ??? what will u do ? (after 2016)

just passed 400 posts cool !

If Hindus had 90 percent or more of total population of India then it would be Hindu republic even much earlier

You don't need to worry though because you still have majority people over there who think that India belong to Hindus that mean those who are the follower of Dharmic faiths(Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism ,Sikhism) while followers of Abrhamic religion( Christianity and Islam) are outsiders

 

[janon]

And who decided secularism is a essense of are preamble not the people i think.Its was few Intellatual or radicals who just created are constitutions on the basis of Western theories without understandind the culture of this Land

Doesn't matter that the constitution was created by people you don't approve of. It is still the constitution, and the govt has to abide by it. By the way the democratic setup, common law system, parliament, prime minister and union cabinet, these were all foreign institutions as well.

 

[NKVD]

That's a bit of a deceitful statement. Are you then saying that there can be no Sri Lankan or American or French hindus ever, only desis can be hindus?

'Hindu' can mean many things. At first it referred to the people in hind, but later it was applied as a collective name for all the religions native to the land (at that time) as well.

It may not be "a" (single) religion, but it does apply as a name for the reigious thoughts and practices as well.

Did you ever heard the Sloka"Vasudhya kutumbhkam" Means all the world is One Family Its a Essense of Vedas.Sole ethics of our hinduism

 

[A Town]

Why?


Look at the OP again. It wasn't simply a name change he was talking about. He was talking about making it a hindu republic, which very much does violate the basic nature of the constitution.

Almost all religions have a religious state, Jews have Israel, Muslims have Saudi Arabia etc.

 

[Indischer]

If Hindus had 90 percent or more of total population of India then it would be Hindu republic even much earlier

You don't need to worry though because you still have majority people over there who think that India belong to Hindus that mean those who are the follower of Dharmic faiths(Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism ,Sikhism) while followers of Abrhamic religion( Christianity and Islam) are outsiders

Yeh sab kaun hain yaar?

 

[A Town]

If Hindus had 90 percent or more of total population of India then it would be Hindu republic even much earlier

You don't need to worry though because you still have majority people over there who think that India belong to Hindus that mean those who are the follower of Dharmic faiths(Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism ,Sikhism) while followers of Abrhamic religion( Christianity and Islam) are outsiders

Bro, Hindus are 80%. There's not much difference between 80% and 90%.

 

[janon]

If Hindus had 90 percent or more of total population of India then it would be Hindu republic even much earlier

You don't need to worry though because you still have majority people over there who think that India belong to Hindus that mean those who are the follower of Dharmic faiths(Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism ,Sikhism) while followers of Abrhamic religion( Christianity and Islam) are outsiders

Well, since you unnecessarily put those pictures, I feel obligated to respond with the expected:

Google can bring up plenty more. BTW that first person who is now the poster boy for islamic rage, is very mch Indian. Neither he nor any other muslims or christians in India are outsiders.

 

[Indischer]

Did you ever heard the Sloka"Vasudhya kutumbhkam" Means all the world is One Family Its a Essense of Vedas.Sole ethics of our hinduism

It's Vasudeva Kutumbakam.

Precisely, if we are all One Family, the Non-Hindus are to be treated on par with Hindus. So either India can aspire to be a Hindu-Muslim-Isai-Sikh-Buddh-Jain-Parsee Rashtra, or simply proclaim itself secular. They all amount to the same.

 

[NKVD]

Doesn't matter that the constitution was created by people you don't approve of. It is still the constitution, and the govt has to abide by it. By the way the democratic setup, common law system, parliament, prime minister and union cabinet, these were all foreign institutions as well.

Yes and No pal yes we should abide it as now we have to live with it .but if we say India is Jantantra and Swaraj no its not Laws we Follow today are not Not stated By "THE PEOPLE" but Stated by few Radicals who Impose there thinking ON "WE THE PEOPLE" Its sad But True

 

[janon]

Did you ever heard the Sloka"Vasudhya kutumbhkam" Means all the world is One Family Its a Essense of Vedas.Sole ethics of our hinduism

It's not from the vedas, it is from the Mahopanishad. The full sloka goes like this:

"ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam.
udaaracharitaanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam."

I myself have often quoted it on this forum. It is not an "essence of the vedas" or even found in the vedas at all, but nevertheless it is a sloka that I love. And it is actually a little more profound than the common trite translation of "all the world is one family."

What it really means is that the narrow/small minded person thinks "this is mine, this is not", "he is mine, he is not" etc, but to the truly large hearted perosn, the whole world is his family.

The difference from how you interpreted it is that the sloka speaks on an individual level, how individuals should look at every person as one's own, and not create artificial barriers of nationality or other things.

Anyway, quoting this sloka does not really address my question. If you say that "hindu" means native of the land, does that mean that non natives cannot be hindus? If not, let's accept the logical conclusion - "hindu" does not simply mean native of the land. That would be "desi".

Yes and No pal yes we should abide it as now we have to live with it .but if we say India is Jantantra and Swaraj no its not Laws we Follow today are not Not stated By "THE PEOPLE" but Stated by few Radicals who Impose there thinking ON "WE THE PEOPLE" Its sad But True

And that is true of many other great nations as well. The american constitution was drafted and signed by a few very rich white men. The Magna Charta, the precursor to all modern constitutions and laws, was signed by a king almost at gunpoint (spearpoint, rather) of a few barons.

 

[Durrak]

we dont want to become another pakistan..
hindus are the most divided religious group in the world,the end result would be disastrous,when true hindus start killing fake hindus..

@Ayush why relate everything with Pakistan?


The whole system work in a particular manner he alone can't change that.

 

[Span]

And who decided secularism is a essense of are preamble not the people i think.Its was few Intellatual or radicals who just created are constitutions on the basis of Western theories without understandind the culture of this Land

'Secularism' was added to the preamble with the 42nd amendment in 1976 (or was it 79?). What I mean to say is, the amendment was carried out by the MP's which the public elected, thus, you cannot blame 'radicals or intellectuals' who have created the constitution on the basis of their fantasies, as you take it.

 

[janon]

Almost all religions have a religious state, Jews have Israel, Muslims have Saudi Arabia etc.

So? Why do you want to do something just because others do? "All my neighbours wear pink blouses, so I should too" is not a logical necessity. What difference does it make, whether hindus have a state for themselves or not, as long as they are free to practice and profes their religion?

Also, do christians have a state solely for themselves? Atheists? Sikhs?

 

[NKVD]

It's Vasudeva Kutumbakam.

Precisely, if we are all One Family, the Non-Hindus are to be treated on par with Hindus. So either India can aspire to be a Hindu-Muslim-Isai-Sikh-Buddh-Jain-Parsee Rashtra, or simply proclaim itself secular. They all amount to the same.

Indeed Yes Mate you can see it in Supreme court Vertict on Hindutva as essense Core of are Nation