In favor of Hindutva; by a Pakistani muslim

[xeuss]

I repeat, TTP is a terrorist group.

And why do you think Hindutvawadis are not?

If you don't consider Hindutvawadis as terrorists, then you are either a terrorist sympathizer or a hypocrite

 

[fitpOsitive]

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

Actually we are listening since long time that people from India want to setup a govt based on Sarvarkars ideology.
I mean majority seems to be happy with this idea. If we stopped people at this moment from doing so, this will come back some later time, and with increased intensity.
My point of view is, religious, non religious. Whatever. We must at least give these people a chance.
My effort is all about channeling the energy in safe direction.
Ager bomb bhi phatay tu nuksan na ho.

And why do you think Hindutvawadis are not?

If you don't consider Hindutvawadis as terrorists, then you are either a terrorist sympathizer or a hypocrite

I am a hypocrite. You can safely say that. I am.

 

[waz]

At least 30% of HIndus in Andhra. Telangana, Tamil Nadu & Kerala are hindus only on paper, to get caste benefits.
They have already converted to Christianity.

One positive is, Hindus who have emigrated tend to be more religious Hindus than ones back home, comparing the same social circles here.

Didn't know that. Yes those who have migrated to tend to stick to their faith.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually we are listening since long time that people from India want to setup a govt based on Sarvarkars ideology.
I mean majority seems to be happy with this idea

It is to be hoped that you are observing your normal food and drink habits.

 

[Nilgiri]

Actually we are listening since long time that people from India want to setup a govt based on Sarvarkars ideology.
I mean majority seems to be happy with this idea. If we stopped people at this moment from doing so, this will come back some later time, and with increased intensity.
My point of view is, religious, non religious. Whatever. We must at least give these people a chance.
My effort is all about channeling the energy in safe direction.
Ager bomb bhi phatay tu nuksan na ho.

It would need a revolution for that to happen (given Indian constitution framework), and likely rip India apart (at least temporarily) and be a great cost on just about everything.

No I do not want them to have that chance. Simply put it rides on emotion...not logic.

Modi and team are the high water mark for this stuff....a stress test Indian secularism must and will survive.

The majority are certainly not happy with that idea either...especially if its presented to them honestly and starkly.

BJP politics just know how to wrap it up in several layers and pander to majoritarianism reactionary sentiment. Congress and regional politics enables it all....because politicians care about politics the most....gee who knew.

 

[fitpOsitive]

It is to be hoped that you are observing your normal food and drink habits.

I am bhai.

 

[xeuss]

Modi and team are the high water mark for this stuff....a stress test Indian secularism must and will survive.

The majority are certainly not happy with that idea either...especially if its presented to them honestly and starkly.

BJP politics just know how to wrap it up in several layers and pander to majoritarianism reactionary sentiment. Congress and regional politics enables it all....because politicians care about politics the most....gee who knew.

The highlighted part is the key

 

[T-123456]

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

You could have simplified your answer by asking a simple question.
Which religion based state is doing well?

 

[Nilgiri]

You could have simplified your answer by asking a simple question.
Which religion based state is doing well?

I prefer first principles approach sometimes ...if audience I feel is deserving.

Practical end-correlation approach is good too.... in interest of time like you mention....esp if say its certain CCP-stronk audience here lol.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Why can't you live under the TTP? It's not like they are killing everyone. They are killing just some people.

Further partition of India is the only answer, for now.

However Hindutva shows that there needs to be a final answer to this question.

I think Modi is on the right track, let it all end in a big war and then we pick up the pieces and rebuild the subcontinent in the image of Islam or Hinduism.

The problem is he keeps screaming, just pick up the gun and do something.

You could have simplified your answer by asking a simple question.
Which religion based state is doing well?

Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, and now Pakistan.

 

[Awan68]

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

Mate, it would do u well to actually understand what a hindutva state is and what an Islamic one is.

An islamic state ensures rights of minorities to worship, property and security while the concept of an hindutva state build upon the beliefs of RSS in 1920's calls for all non hindus to be converted back to hinduism or be evicted from India as they are all considered "Maleechs" or outsiders. Nazi's had a right to a state as well going by ur theory.

The problem lies not with the right of a majority religious group to declare their country an ideological state, the problem lies in what that majority group believes said ideological state to be and therein lies the difference between a hindutva and an islamic state, lending credibility to the creation of an islamic one while at the same time negating the idea of an hindutva one to ever emerge.

 

[T-123456]

I prefer first principles approach sometimes ...if audience I feel is deserving.

Practical end-correlation approach is good too.... in interest of time like you mention....esp if say its certain CCP-stronk audience here lol.

And you really expect them to have the intelligence to comprehend and understand what is written?
You are a second @Joe Shearer ,im forced to simplify your posts,so that the common man/woman understands what is written.
You guys give me headaches.

Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, and now Pakistan.

Iran is doing well,yeah sure,dream on.
Türkiye and Malaysia are secular,not religion based.
Lets just not talk about Pakistan.
Come back to reality.

 

[Nilgiri]

You are a second @Joe Shearer

I wonder who the 3rd will be....

 

[El Sidd]

See, in whole of this platform, only you cought me there.
You are special indeed

What kind of a shameless person are you to praise someone in front of their face?

All Praise Belongs To Allah

 

[T-123456]

I wonder who the 3rd will be....

Havent seen him/her yet.
You have someone in mind?