How Modi defeated liberals like me

[Cherokee]

Neither do i . this is spot on analysis which i had been saying for years on PDF.

Indian Majority Hindus are left feeling discriminated due to this forced concept.

Not due to Secularism but due to "2nd Rate Nehruvian " interpretation of secularism .

 

[Spring Onion]

Not due to Secularism but due to "2nd Rate Nehruvian " interpretation of secularism .

well both including the modified people wants to twist the interpretation thats why we see issues even in the foreign land the concept experiences some shock-waves as against its true spirit but since goras are more open to give rights to their people and apply laws strictly thats why they dont see much problems

 

[Roybot]

Not one of these so called seculars will have the balls to speak up for uniform civil code, and they call themselves secular

 

[Android]

Secularism is just a state of mind.

 

[livingdead]

Actually its NOT wrong concept in my opinion BUT forced application always rebound. Such changes if take place gradually through common people by change in their mindset are the better than just putting a word in constitution and them discriminate against either majority or fail to implement it completely and discriminate against minority.

i personally feel hindu rashtra wont be a disaster , it will learn in the long run and gradually transform into moderate level

well, there was certain perception in majority community that minorities were given extra benefit due to secularism. That is factually untrue, but it was made worse by public utterances of leaders from many parties(excluding BJP) who will specifically mention minority in their promises. That aleanated majorities.
In practice, the idea of secularism will not be changed, even when bjp rules, dont go by overt hindu rituals that they do. There will be no hindu religious leader that can influence govt.(not that I can think of)

Also, its the job of leaders to give direction to people not follow the people. If Nehru waited for secularism to evolve from grassroot, we will be exactly like pakistan, still struggling to even talk about it.

Not one of these so called seculars will have the balls to speak up for uniform civil code, and they call themselves secular

why should there be uniform civil code? And if we do, which one we should follow because the codes are influenced by religions. I wont want to follow muslim civil laws. And why should they be forced ours?

 

[Roybot]

why should there be uniform civil code? And if we do, which one we should follow because the codes are influenced by religions. I wont want to follow muslim civil laws. And why should they be forced ours?

It shouldn't be based on any religion, but based on whats fair and doesn't discriminate on basis of sex.

 

[livingdead]

It shouldn't be based on any religion, but based on whats fair and doesn't discriminate on basis of sex.

it will go against people's right to have their own faith. the only bits (among all laws) that are different is laws regarding marriage. but thats a traditionally religious institution.
if you want fairness of sexes, go for civil partership. That is available to everybody including minorities (women)

can you list a few that is anti woman.

 

[Roybot]

it will go against people's right to have their own faith. the only bits (among all laws) that are different is laws regarding marriage. but thats a traditionally religious institution.
if you want fairness of sexes, go for civil partership. That is available to everybody including minorities (women)

can you list a few that is anti woman.

A secular person by the very definition of secularism would not give a toss about religious sensitivities when it comes to laws. Laws should be the same for everyone. Which brings me back to my original point about these people being secular only when it suits them.

 

[livingdead]

A secular person by the very definition of secularism would not give a toss about religious sensitivities when it comes to laws. Laws should be the same for everyone. Which brings me back to my original point about these people being secular only when it suits them.

in this case it will go against right to profess and practice your religion which is a fundamental right. But am very surious to know the cases where such religious laws are against somebody else's rights.
Majority of our laws apply equally to everybody anyway (criminal laws), its only laws regarding practices that differ in religion and the practices are religious themselves.
for example certain temples do not give access to people of other religion, are you suggesting that should be done away because its against non-hindus?
Marriage itself is a religious action traditionally which is why its fair to let people deal with it the way they want. This is also the reason why I am against govt forcing religions to accept gay marriage.
If a muslim goes into civil marriage , he or she has to abide by single rule, meant for everybody, there is no special rule for them. Thats secular marriage.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There are two vital points at play here -

1. A pretty elitist point of view, yet not unsurprising coming from The Hindu. In any case, it is not Modi actually who defeated this self declared liberal (of course, since I am unaware of any authority giving certificates to that effect) but the people of India.

2. We should discard any and all lessons from Pakistan, precisely because it is not one. You can't learn how to be a good civil engineer from a doctor and vice versa.

 

[Roybot]

in this case it will go against right to profess and practice your religion which is a fundamental right. But am very surious to know the cases where such religious laws are against somebody else's rights.
Majority of our laws apply equally to everybody anyway (criminal laws), its only laws regarding practices that differ in religion and the practices are religious themselves.for example certain temples do not give access to people of other religion, are you suggesting that should be done away because its against non-hindus?

Marriage itself is a religious action traditionally which is why its fair to let people deal with it the way they want. This is also the reason why I am against govt forcing religions to accept gay marriage.
If a muslim goes into civil marriage , he or she has to abide by single rule, meant for everybody, there is no special rule for them. Thats secular marriage.

Yes it should be done away with and there is precedence for this.

The appointment of a non-Brahmin to perform pujas in a Temple in Kerala was challenged on the ground that the appointment offended and not only violated a long-followed mandatory custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins for such jobs but that it denied the right of the worshippers to practise and profess their religion in accordance with its tenets and manage their religious affairs as secured under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court rejected the claim and upheld the appointment saying:

“Any custom or usage, irrespective of even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days, cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament”.

People can have their wedding ceremony any which way they want, practices however the registration can only be done one way at the registrar's office. Having 4 wives and 20 kids, just because some xyz religon allowed it some 1300 years or so ago doesn't mean it should be legal today. Similarly many archaic Hindu rituals and practices have ben outlawed, without any fuss. So why do these hurr durr champions of secularism feel the need to pussy foot around the issue of uniform civil code, do these people have the right to call themselves secular?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

why should there be uniform civil code? And if we do, which one we should follow because the codes are influenced by religions. I wont want to follow muslim civil laws. And why should they be forced ours?

I will honestly tell you something, I will hope you don't take it as a rude post.

1. The Western concept of separation of the Church and the State is moot. In India that is. You may have a problem with that and that is fine. But that is irrelevant.

2. The Uniform Civil Code is coming. Again, many people will have a problem with that. But then again, there is nothing now they can do. If people follow it - fine, if they don't, they will be processed according to Law.

Needless to say, I am totally for the UCC. It will be formulated within the coming 4 months. The instructions will be sent to the Drafting Committee within a few weeks. We did not expect such a strong mandate, now that we have it - expect little delay.

 

[livingdead]

Yes it should be done away with and there is precedence for this.

The appointment of a non-Brahmin to perform pujas in a Temple in Kerala was challenged on the ground that the appointment offended and not only violated a long-followed mandatory custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins for such jobs but that it denied the right of the worshippers to practise and profess their religion in accordance with its tenets and manage their religious affairs as secured under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court rejected the claim and upheld the appointment saying:

“Any custom or usage, irrespective of even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days, cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament”.

People can have their wedding ceremony any which way they want, practices however the registration can only be done one way at the registrar's office. Having 4 wives and 20 kids, just because some xyz religon allowed it some 1300 years or so ago doesn't mean it should be legal today. Similarly many archaic Hindu rituals and practices have ben outlawed, without any fuss. So why do these hurr durr champions of secularism feel the need to pussy foot around the issue of uniform civil code, do these people have the right to call themselves secular?

well, thats your view. I think supreme court did a wrong thing in imposing their will on hindus here. Thats the local custom, what next allow muslims to do puja in temples?

what is wrong in having 4 wives and 40 kids, if somebody can afford it whats the problem.
btw, where will all this end? tribals of niyamgiri believe the hills near them are gods and hence cant be sold to a company for profit. Will supreme court tell them, hills cant be gods and they are devoiding country of progress?

I will honestly tell you something, I will hope you don't take it as a rude post.

1. The Western concept of separation of the Church and the State is moot. In India that is. You may have a problem with that and that is fine. But that is irrelevant.

2. The Uniform Civil Code is coming. Again, many people will have a problem with that. But then again, there is nothing now they can do. If people follow it - fine, if they don't, they will be processed according to Law.

Needless to say, I am totally for the UCC. It will be formulated within the coming 4 months. The instructions will be sent to the Drafting Committee within a few weeks. We did not expect such a strong mandate, now that we have it - expect little delay.

we are discussing what is right and wrong. not what will happen. crimea happened, we can still debate whether it is right or wrong knowing fully well the end result, right?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

well, thats your view. I think supreme court did a wrong think in imposing their will on hindus here. Thats the local custom.

what is wrong in having 4 wives and 40 kids, if somebody can afford it whats the problem.
btw, where will all this end? tribals of niyamgiri believe the hills near them are gods and hence cant be sold to a company for profit. Will supreme court tell them, hills cant be gods and they are devoiding country of progress?

The Supreme Court was correct in their assessment.

It depends on a case to case basis. The hill question is subordinate to a greater purpose. Many Indians consider the country itself as God. In any case a hill cannot be sold such that the hill itself ceases to exist.

So yes, if a person wants to marry 10 or even 100 wives he can surely do so but they will be legally prevented from doing so in only this country.

Like many Marijuana addicts/patrons have visited Columbia post legalization.

 

[livingdead]

The Supreme Court was correct in their assessment.

It depends on a case to case basis. The hill question is subordinate to a greater purpose. Many Indians consider the country itself as God. In any case a hill cannot be sold such that the hill itself ceases to exist.

So yes, if a person wants to marry 10 or even 100 wives he can surely do so but they will be legally prevented from doing so in only this country.

Like many Marijuana addicts/patrons have visited Columbia post legalization.

but mining has been going on in other places, whether by Indian or other companies. what is the greater purpose here, and not in other cases.
if everything is case by case basis, with no common argument then its all subjective what is the point of having rule of law. just say ah in this case this looks like better idea. like kings and queens used to do.