Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[Dillinger]

A Hindu Rashtra?
Constitutionally?

Should never even be attempted. In essence we can be more Dharmic/Martian/Reptilian etc, but being a Hindu Rashtra will require a strict definition of who is a Hindu and who is not. This results in the end of open source Hinduism, or the way we know our faith to be.
In my opinion religion should not be mixed with governance. The examples are right in front of us, and we better not emulate them.

This is without even considering the legal possibility as @Dillinger mentioned previously.

Not to mention, we've got so many enlightened fellows here who deem that being an adherent of the Hindu religion requires said adherent to comply with so many other "practices" and "obligations". Lets see someone impose their preferred dietary practices upon say a Bengali who happens to be Hindu, don't slaughter animals for food you say, best of luck convincing a Bong of that, chances are you will end up with the whole WB populace turning Maoist just to spite such people.

We have folks who deem that under "our culture" same gotra marriages are to be "considered" as incest, leave alone the legal definition of incest, to which the flawed argument follows that said definition is part of the Judeo-Christian derived jurisprudence.
In short, we'll be doomed. This nation will tear itself apart within decades if not years.

There are also folks who hold the view that one compulsory aspect a Hindu Rashtra will be the compulsory acceptance of Sanskrit as the singular national language that ALL its citizens must learn. In a nation where language is a touchy topic this is the worst sort of burden we can unload on the people. AND before someone argues that if we could employ English as a language prevalent through every single state of the nation then we should have no objections to doing the same with Sanskrit, bare in mind that English was and is a language of compulsion due to the fact that it is the enabling tool for all forms of mainstream higher education.

Take note though that promoting research and reviving interest in old Sanskrit tomes and works in other older regional tongues is a must. Scholarly research in these fields MUST MOST DEFINITELY be promoted.

Trying to encapsulate the Hindu religion within a rigid and majoritarian framework will destroy it, it will lead to the "I am more Hindu than thou" complex. In fact it would strike a blow to the very aspects which ensure that there are no sectarian schisms in the religion despite VAST differences. And that is the just the tip of the iceberg, in a whole minefield of icebergs!

Now should the populace be more Hindu, that depends upon exactly what is entailed by that? Under the above definitions, it is a recipe for disaster.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Not to mention, we've got so many enlightened fellows here who deem that being an adherent of the Hindu religion requires said adherent to comply with so many other "practices" and "obligations". Lets see someone impose their preferred dietary practices upon say a Bengali who happens to be Hindu, don't slaughter animals for food you say, best of luck convincing a Bong of that, chances are you will end up with the whole WB populace turning Maoist just to spite such people.

We have folks who deem that under "our culture" same gotra marriages are to be "considered" as incest, leave alone the legal definition of incest, to which the flawed argument follows that said definition is part of the Judeo-Christian derived jurisprudence.
In short, we'll be doomed. This nation will tear itself apart within decades if not years.

There are also folks who hold the view that one compulsory aspect a Hindu Rashtra will be the compulsory acceptance of Sanskrit as the singular national language that ALL its citizens must learn. In a nation where language is a touchy topic this is the worst sort of burden we can unload on the people. AND before someone argues that if we could employ English as a language prevalent through every single state of the nation, bare in mind that English was and is a language of compulsion due to the fact that it is the enabling tool for all forms of mainstream higher education.

Trying to encapsulate the Hindu religion within a rigid and majoritarian framework will destroy it, it will lead to the "I am more Hindu than thou" complex. In fact it would strike a blow to the very aspects which ensure that there are no sectarian schisms in the religion despite VAST differences. And that is the just the tip of the iceberg, in a whole minefield of icebergs!

Now should the populace be more Hindu, that depends upon exactly what is entailed by that? Under the above definitions, it is a recipe for disaster.

You are referring to Lord Manvan. He probably got some 'special treatment' in his childhood that screwed up his psyche. He wants to model Hinduism according to the Abrahamic religions. Not going to happen. Period.

 

[KS]

Not to mention, we've got so many enlightened fellows here who deem that being an adherent of the Hindu religion requires said adherent to comply with so many other "practices" and "obligations". Lets see someone impose their preferred dietary practices upon say a Bengali who happens to be Hindu, don't slaughter animals for food you say, best of luck convincing a Bong of that, chances are you will end up with the whole WB populace turning Maoist just to spite such people.

We have folks who deem that under "our culture" same gotra marriages are to be "considered" as incest, leave alone the legal definition of incest, to which the flawed argument follows that said definition is part of the Judeo-Christian derived jurisprudence.
In short, we'll be doomed. This nation will tear itself apart within decades if not years.

There are also folks who hold the view that one compulsory aspect a Hindu Rashtra will be the compulsory acceptance of Sanskrit as the singular national language that ALL its citizens must learn. In a nation where language is a touchy topic this is the worst sort of burden we can unload on the people. AND before someone argues that if we could employ English as a language prevalent through every single state of the nation, bare in mind that English was and is a language of compulsion due to the fact that it is the enabling tool for all forms of mainstream higher education.

Trying to encapsulate the Hindu religion within a rigid and majoritarian framework will destroy it, it will lead to the "I am more Hindu than thou" complex. In fact it would strike a blow to the very aspects which ensure that there are no sectarian schisms in the religion despite VAST differences. And that is the just the tip of the iceberg, in a whole minefield of icebergs!

Now should the populace be more Hindu, that depends upon exactly what is entailed by that? Under the above definitions, it is a recipe for disaster.

What do you think will make a nation "Hindu Rashtra" ? In the sense what do you think are the attributes of a HIndu rashtra and what are the changes do you think will it entail ?

 

[Sergi]

Simple meaning Change in Indian constitution.
One need 2/3 majority and more than 15 state assemblies on his/her side.

Appoint a constitutional review committee and make them suggest primary changes with reducing court rights to review Laws passed by LS.
And apply new constitution. Done. Now do whatever you want.
But it isnt simple is it

 

[Dillinger]

What do you think will make a nation "Hindu Rashtra" ? In the sense what do you think are the attributes of a HIndu rashtra and what are the changes do you think will it entail ?

My personal view on what a Hindu Rashtra ought to be?



Quite simple, follow the constitution. Surprise surprise it is the much maligned Modi and co. who have summed this up perfectly in their manifesto (taking what's written in the context literally and at face value).

Do not be fooled by the dalals who pimp out concepts such as egalitarianism and secularism, reducing such necessary principles to rhetoric and horribly disfiguring them.

Do not give into the base impulse of hate, most certainly not against your fellow Indian. If we can kill each other over who's god has the bigger appendage than surely we should be willing to pour a little sweat in to fixing the lot of the less blessed of our folk. In fact Modi has summed this one up better than I ever could.

Do not forget that the greatness of what was once India did not lay in its seminaries, not in its mosques or its temples, it lay in Nalanda.

Do not forget that what we take pride in, Sarva Dharma Sambhava, is not merely a truism.

Above all, never forget, no man or woman is more deserving than the next. We cannot treat our "minorities" as some monster who will rebel if we do not pamper it and provide it with the proverbial sacrificial virgin nor can we treat our "majority" as being non existent and devoid of all sentiment. In the public and political sphere we must ensure that minority and majority identities are removed, in said contexts we must cease to be Hindu or Musalman or Christian.

As I have often mentioned to @SarthakGanguly, some aspects of Savarkar's ideology (no matter how demonized the man or his views maybe) were actually quite relevant, in fact read what he wrote and tell me where the above digresses from said writings.


IF ON THE OTHER HAND A "HINDU RASTHRA" ENTAILS A THEOCRATIC STATE, WELL THEN WE WILL END UP DIGGING A HOLE TO BURY OURSELVES IN.

Simple meaning Change in Indian constitution.
One need 2/3 majority and more than 15 state assemblies on his/her side.

Appoint a constitutional review committee and make them suggest primary changes with reducing court rights to review Laws passed by LS.
And apply new constitution. Done. Now do whatever you want.
But it isnt simple is it

Indira Gandhi did just that, how well did that work out? When the SC retaliated even she had to buckle down and accept it.

 

[KS]

@Dillinger

I didnt ask what the ideal "Hindu Rashtra" should be. I asked what do you think the "Hindu rashtra" would be if it was to be introduced. What would be the real world changes you think would come with it ?

 

[Dillinger]

You are referring to Lord Manvan. He probably got some 'special treatment' in his childhood that screwed up his psyche. He wants to model Hinduism according to the Abrahamic religions. Not going to happen. Period.

Which is what I told him early on. That if we make Hinduism a religion driven primarily by dogma rather than the good that's in it then we shall reduce it to nothing more than a shallow approximation of Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Sergi]

Indira Gandhi did just that, how well did that work out? When the SC retaliated even she had to buckle down and accept it.

Nope she didn't or couldn't. Rajiv was in position to do that but he didn't.
You didn't understand. She made Swarn Sing to edit FRs specially Property right and add FDs in constitution.

SHE DIDNT TRY TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. She amend it. If she have reduced the court powers first well then it was whole different game

SC ruling was on here elections and not on what she did in LS. But she did get away from it and remove court from election disputes

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger

I didnt ask what the ideal "Hindu Rashtra" should be. I asked what do you think the "Hindu rashtra" would be. What would be the real world changes you think would come with it.

That depends on who's idea of a Hindu Rashtra we are referring to.

In the context of this thread, in literal terms it would imply a theocratic state which will derive its laws and governance from Hindu scripture- a theocracy. THAT would be the real world change within the parameters of the topic broached in this thread.

Nope she didn't or couldn't. Rajiv was in position to do that but he didn't.
You didn't understand. She made Swarn Sing to edit FRs specially Property right and add FDs in constitution.

SHE DIDNT TRY TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. She amend it. If she have reduced he court powers first well then it was whole different game

Oh but she did. That's why I mentioned the specific amendment dealing with the same and the Court's comment on the same in my first post in this thread.

 

[KS]

That depends on who's idea of a Hindu Rashtra we are referring to.

In the context of this thread, in literal terms it would imply a theocratic state which will derive its laws and governance from Hindu scripture- a theocracy. THAT would be the real world change within the parameters of the topic broached in this thread.

Would it be theocratic, not to make India a constitutional Hindu state, but just acknowledge its dharmic civilizational roots and work towards the preservation of it from onslaught of imperialistic abrahamic movements like for example the well funded conversion campaigns going on different parts of the country ?

 

[madooxno9]

what a stupid thread . NaMo is going to be a average PM , that's all. Few dream projects will pop up as Atal Ji did. Rest India will remain same as it is . Most we can see is some reforms along Economic front and Little increase maybe by 5% in FDI.

Welcome to reality

 

[Dillinger]

@Sergi You need take cognizance of what exactly "changing the constitution" implies in de jure terms.

refer to Article 329A of the 39th amendment which sought to convert the limited power of amendment of the parliament to unlimited power of amendment, in layman terms.

As such that alone, by attempting to subvert even a single basic principle, was deemed by the SC to be an attempt to fundamentally altering the constitution.

The Basic Structure Doctrine holds that NOT even a single such basic principle IN ISOLATION EVEN can be altered under ANY means, since it countermands the very authority devolved unto the Parliament by the constitution itself. Let us not forget that the Parliament has the right to operate and do what it does because of the said authority devolved by the constitution, it cannot use said authority to expand what would be "intra vires" for it when the same constitution has deemed that it is indeed "ultra vires" for said body be it even the Parliament.

 

[Sergi]

Oh but she did. That's why I mentioned the specific amendment dealing with the same and the Court's comment on the same in my first post in this thread.

Oh no she didn't. change and amend are different things. Aren't they ???
I added few lines in the post before you quote. I think you missed them.
Part of your post

will leave you all with the following, "Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power to convert the limited power into an unlimited one." Mind you even Indira Gandhi at the height of her power did not have the balls to challenge the above.

Article 368 forbids Parliament from changing the core structure or famously called as Iron frame. But Parliament on its own power can reassign or remove or extend the power of judiciary.
First thing need needed to do is remove or minimise review power of SC. can be done by 2/3 majority and half of states. . Constitution itself made judiciary weak infront of Parliament. Our judiciary isnt as powerful as US's
So who decide whats core structure. It was defined by our SC in one case against GOI where court said GOI is in no power to amend FRs what followed is known as mini constitution made by Indira kicking out the FR governing property.

 

[Dillinger]

Would it be theocratic, not to make India a constitutional Hindu state, but just acknowledge its dharmic civilizational roots and work towards the preservation of it from onslaught of imperialistic abrahamic movements like for example the well funded conversion campaigns going on different parts of the country ?

No it would not, as long as any such measures adhere to the ultimate structure provided by the constitution.

Putting a cap on foreign funding for seminaries which deal in conversion for example would most probably be perfectly in adherence.

Oh no she didn't. change and amend are different things. Aren't they ???
I added few lines in the post before you quote. I think you missed them.
Part of your post


Article 368 forbids Parliament from changing the core structure or famously called as Iron frame. But Parliament on its own power can reassign or remove or extend the power of judiciary.
First thing need needed to do is remove or minimise review power of SC. can be done by 2/3 majority and half of states. . Constitution itself made judiciary weak infront of Parliament. Our judiciary isnt as powerful as US's
So who decide whats core structure. It was defined by our SC in one case against GOI where court said GOI is in no power to amend FRs what followed is known as mini constitution made by Indira kicking out the FR governing property.

That is exactly what was argued out and deemed unconstitutional. When certain clauses of the 39th amendment were struck down by the SC.

That "minimizing of power" is exactly what was attempted under the article 329A, which is EXACTLY what the SC objected to and ruled against. The procedure you have outlined was used and yet what was the net result, Indira Gandhi had to accept that she had over stepped.






Change and amendment are not different things if the amendment is aimed at altering the fundamental framework. That is exactly why the SC outlined the principle that the right to amend could not extend to a right to destroy. In this context "destroy" stood for "fundamentally alter or change".

 

[Sergi]

@Segi You need take cognizance of what exactly "changing the constitution" implies in de jure terms.

refer to Article 329A of the 39th amendment which sought to convert the limited power of amendment of the parliament to unlimited power of amendment, in layman terms.

As such that alone, by attempting to subvert even a single basic principle, was deemed by the SC to be an attempt to fundamentally altering the constitution.

The Basic Structure Doctrine holds that NOT even a single such basic principle IN ISOLATION EVEN can be altered under ANY means, since it countermands the very authority devolved unto the Parliament by the constitution itself. Let us not forget that the Parliament has the right to operate and do what it does because of the said authority devolved by the constitution, it cannot use said authority to expand what would be "intra vires" for it when the same constitution has deemed that it is indeed "ultra vires" for said body be it even the Parliament.

You right for the current scenario. I am not doubting or saying its wrong. I am providing the way to change the constitution

Constitution assembly was also a parliament then. And they had made the provisions for review on timely basis. so parliament is top if not absolute power. To make it so Problem is court. Article 368 has given enough power to limit judiciary's sphere of influence. I DONT SUPPORT THAT THOUGH