Well, I may sound crazy, but yes, I fully support the idea of constitution of a Hindu national country in our neighborhood.
At the time of partition, muslims were 23% of the total population, yet they demanded a separate country. My forefathers supported that idea, I also stick to it.
However, Hindus were 76 percent, and even today, they are 80%(if I may consulider bodh, jains as Hindus as well) in India. And yet they are not allowed to declare India as a Hindu country.
My question is why not?
If USA can write : In god(christian god) we trust, why can't a Hindu do the same? If top leadership in USA and Germany and even in Russia today declares themselves Christians, Pakistan and Iran can use the name Islamic republic, why only Hindu is pushed to declare themselves as secular? Why can't Hindus also write Hindu republic or Sanatana Republic?
I kick this bigotry and superlative hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, Hindus reserve full right to declare India as Hindus Rashtra.
Individual thoughts please.
@Joe Shearer dont kill me for my thoughts, but I really think that Hindus are victim here.
@Nilgiri @pothead @Soumitra @jamahir
Wow 12 pages already....I am sure its the same ole for most part....so I am just going to respond to you directly.
I do not think religion is
ever a good idea to found a country on. I disagree with it in all cases....and I would disagree with it for India as well. It is a foul foul thing to introduce to politics as it inherently carries/transmutes unquestioned (and inevitably faulty) authority in enough abundance given human psychology, reality and imperfection. We are already seeing the toxic accumulation of identity politics in the wealthiest and most developed countries....what chance is there for developing ones with religious identity politics as another yoke?
It gives politicians and powerbrokers (and their inevitable mobs) a most easy way to set people against each other with yet another (real or assumed) identity....and gives it to them free from the start....without them even striving for it....to add to all the other ways they already have at their disposal....to keep the underclass at each others throats, figuratively and sadly often literally.
This runs deeply contrary to my minimalist take on govt setup....i.e it should be set up as cleanly, simply with crystallised focused mandate for existence as possible in interest of it not becoming immensely unwieldy with natural force inevitable force of political entropy (after original enlightened conception). This clean simple set up then needs to be enforced as well as possible (so govt credibility might actually build up and strengthen before looking to expand into more roles)....but that is a different conversation heading.
Having studied the US constitution in depth (and its enlightened first principles it took much inspiration from), its reference to "in God we trust" and "one nation under God" does not make it a Christian nation (in say a non-secular sense). Many papers have been written on this which you can look up if interested.
Rather, it is a grand recognition that a political entity comes into being at point, when it didn't exist before...as opposed to that which
always existed (God). This is very important to set up the basis for a sound legal system and setting it up in such a way that simple chronological logic can be used in that the new political entity cannot take away rights (of individuals) that existed before it (as bequeathed to them by their eternal Creator).
The concept itself is not a matter of secular/non-secular as you would put it for this topic....as even an atheist, agnostic or non-Christian can logically realise that individual rights preceded creation of any political state, and thus ought to be enshrined as such and thus can be subsumed under a great enough cultural allegory.
Any country can do the same if it chooses to (state divine allegorical inspiration), but it can simply enshrine secularism for same result...as recognition that is the citizen's right to decide upon his faith and cultural conscience...and not the state's to prefer or idealise one over others. The US is thus fundamentally secular in setup.
A country framework must be built on that which can be inherited and imbued
equally in every citizen be they man, woman or child. Religion is simply not a sound case in my estimation for that (for vast majority you are simply born into it). For even within Religion there exist many identities within it, where does the splitting actually stop...and who do you empower to decide that?
The fundamental issue is that God himself does not come here to tell us these answers...and physically adjudicate and dispense the authority on the matter we assign to Him.
We operate (often
quite downstream) on a larger body of good faith transmittance of the great ideals from the original (heard and written) revelations....conveyed faithfully over time by our progenitors, ancestors and most recent generations too, interpreted and applied as we seek nourishment for the ethereal part of us...all of which can not be summarily dismissed in societal relevance (for many darker forces wait to grab that psychological void left for the taking).
But it is matter of faith (for us as individuals to believe they are as they say they are) in the end. For I cannot prove to you such things and likewise you cannot prove to me yours. It is thus not a matter for a Govt to take a stance on this in my opinion....each citizen should simply be a citizen in front of govt...to put the weight of law and justice on, period....nothing more need be added to it....and certainly nothing need be taken away.
There are a multitude of questions that open up like this when you bring up and permeate religion in the basic national law, and they all stray away from my ideal take on what a Govt should be, and what it is there for. You may ask yourself, did God create and put govt where it is....or did imperfect humans? If the latter, you see the big problem for partaking into the matters of God?
@Joe Shearer @SQ8 @Jungibaaz @saiyan0321 @T-123456 @Gomig-21 @VCheng
