'India first' is my definition of secularism, Narendra Modi tells NRIs

[FOX80]

WASHINGTON: Denied a visa to visit US, Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on Sunday took to video conferencing to address Indian-American community, saying his idea of secularism is "India first".

Modi, who often faced questions over the killing of Muslims in the post-Godhra riots in 2002, did not refer to the controversial issue in his nearly an hour-long speech in Hindi.

"My definition of secularism is simple: 'India first'. Whatever you do, wherever you work, India should be the top priority for all its citizens," he said.

"Country is above all religions and ideologies," he argued and asked people to follow the same.

"I agree friends that as an Indian, as a citizen who loves India, you will also agree with my definition...We might do any work or take any decision, India should be supreme," he said.

"Nothing less than India's wellbeing should be our goal. And if this happens, secularism will automatically run in our blood," the Gujarat Chief Minister said.

Modi was denied US visa on the issue of human rights violation.

Last week, the Wharton India Economic Forum cancelled Modi's keynote address to the prestigious annual event because of opposition from a section of professors and students of the University of Pennsylvania.

But, Modi did not touch upon the controversial Wharton issue. The event organised by the Overseas Friends of BJP was planned much in advance of the Wharton controversy.

Several hundred people gathered at two places - Edison in New Jersey and Chicago - to listen to Modi's speech.

In his address, Modi emphasised on skilled development of the youth - who now constitute 65 per cent of the total population of the country -- and asked the diaspora to help in holistic development of India - tourism being one of them.

'India first' is my definition of secularism, Narendra Modi tells NRIs - TOI Mobile | The Times of India Mobile Site

 

[Friei Indien]

Modi ji is our Hero. he doesnt give a **** about appeasing assholes moslems terrorists.

 

[Developereo]

Sophistry.

In these people's mind, India = dharmic culture = Hinduism

 

[Ayush]

Sophistry.

In these people's mind, India = dharmic culture = Hinduism

and u know it all

 

[Developereo]

and u know it all

This is the agenda of Modi and a certain faction of his supporters.
It doesn't mean all his supporters have this agenda.

 

[Bilal.]

He seems to be inspired by Musharaf's slogan of "Pakistan First"...

 

[Ayush]

This is the agenda of Modi and a certain faction of his supporters.
It doesn't mean all his supporters have this agenda.

there are fools everywhere.
just how some people want non muslims(definition varies) to be wiped out from the face of the earth.
such extremism is more prevalent in our neighbourhood.

btw,u know a lot about the agenda of modi
let us see if u are right. give it an year

 

[janon]

Well, he can't have his own definitions of words, especially words which have a well established legal meaning in the constitution. There is nothing wrong in him saying India first - but that has nothing to do with secularism.

Secularism, as understood in the constitution, and accepted in british and indian english long before that, is that the state will treat all religions equally, and show no preference for one religion over another.

'India first' or 'India last' is not related to secularism, and let's not pretend it is.

BTW, this news is several months old. Please check the date before posting.

 

[Dash]

Sophistry.

In these people's mind, India = dharmic culture = Hinduism

when he said India first, the equation of your changes slightly..

Like this - India > dharmic culture = Hinduism

 

[adwityagrata]

Well, he can't have his own definitions of words, especially words which have a well established legal meaning in the constitution. There is nothing wrong in him saying India first - but that has nothing to do with secularism.
Secularism, as understood in the constitution, and accepted in british and indian english long before that, is that the state will treat all religions equally, and show no preference for one religion over another.
'India first' or 'India last' is not related to secularism, and let's not pretend it is.
BTW, this news is several months old. Please check the date before posting.

He most certainly can, since the Indian constitution DOES NOT Define "secularism".

In fact the congress stonewalled BJP attempts to define 'secularism' in the constitution via the parliament.

Currently secularism as understood by the constitution of India means the overlap of religion with the state , not its separation from the state.

You are wrong again when you mentioned secularism in the British context, in Britain/Europe it means separation of the christian church from the state.

So you see, Modi can have his own definition and in fact it is required to remove any sort of ambiguity and shadows in which pseudo-secular thrive.

 

[janon]

He most certainly can, since the Indian constitution DOES NOT Define "secularism".

In fact the congress stonewalled BJP attempts to define 'secularism' in the constitution via the parliament.

Currently secularism as understood by the constitution of India means the overlap of religion with the state , not its separation from the state.

You are wrong again when you mentioned secularism in the British context, in Britain/Europe it means separation of the christian church from the state.

So you see, Modi can have his own definition and in fact it is required to remove any sort of ambiguity and shadows in which pseudo-secular thrive.

I knew that you would be the first to reply to my post.

The Indian constitution is not a dictionary, and not in the business of defining words that already exist. It uses words that are understood in context. The word secularism existed before it was inserted in the constitution, and it was already understood in a certain context in India, and that was why it was used in the constitution. It was a pre-existing word.

It is only in the USA that secularism means nothing but the strict seperation of church and state, as expounded in the first amendment to the US constitution. In the british-Indian context, and in the republic of India since independence, it was understood as govt impartiality to any religion. That is why I specifically mentioned indian english, because the word has different meanings in different jurisdictions.

No, modi cannnot have his own definitions for words, especially those that are important to the fabric of the social contract, and to the very spirit of the constitution. For example, tomorrow he cannot say that 'democracy means BJP first', and some other party cannot say 'secularism means minorities first', and rahul gandhi cannot say 'republic means rule of congress'. These words have pre-existing meanings well understood in context, and politicians cannot redefine them for their convenience.

 

[adwityagrata]

I knew that you would be the first to reply to my post.

LOL. How does that make you feel ?

The Indian constitution is not a dictionary, and not in the business of defining words that already exist. It uses words that are understood in context. The word secularism existed before it was inserted in the constitution, and it was already understood in a certain context in India, and that was why it was used in the constitution. It was a pre-existing word.

It is only in the USA that secularism means nothing but the strict seperation of church and state, as expounded in the first amendment to the US constitution. In the british-Indian context, and in the republic of India since independence, it was understood as govt impartiality to any religion. That is why is specifically mentioned indian english, because the word has different meanings in different jurisdictions.

In which case, Why does India Not have a Uniform Civil Code ?

Why does India provide 'partiality' to muslims in practicing sharia law and has even constituted a "Muslim Law Board" ?

That seems to go against your basic premise of 'impartiality to any religion'. Since in Hinduism polyandry is permitted, how come the same does not extend to constitute a 'Hindu law board' ?

 

[janon]

LOL. How does that make you feel ?

Vindicated. My expectation proved true.

In which case why Does Not India have a Uniform Civil Code ?

Why does India provide 'partiality' to muslims in practicing sharia law and has even constituted a "Muslim Law Board" ?

That seems to go against your basic premise of 'impartiality to any religion'. Since in Hinduism polyandry is permitted, how come the same does not extend to constitute a 'Hindu law board' ?

That is a much larger debate, and in fact irrelevant to Indian legal system. You see, whether India should allow different legal systems for different religions is the question there. I for one believe that India should have one civil code for everybody, but unfortunately that is not how it is practiced.

However, the Indian law courts, the IPC and CrPC all have to be impartial to any religion, and they are. SImilarly, the govt of the day also has to be impartial. (Whether they are or not is debatable.) But muslim law is obviously not impartial to muslims and non muslims.

A hindu law board (if there is such a thing) or a muslim law board practice their own laws, and obviously are not expected to be secular by any definition of the term. Whether such law boards should exist in India is another question.

All this is irrelevant to the topic, of what secularism means in the Indian context. It means govt neutrality/impartiality to religions. For instance, the parliament cannot pass a law making one religious community pay more taxes than another. An appointment to a constitutional or govt post cannot be tied to the religion of the applicant, as happens on non secular countries like pakistan. And so on.

And for the record, I would be very happy if the american idea of secularism is accepted in India. The govt being completely blind to religions, neither promoting nor hindering them. But then that is my wish, not how it is aceepted in India.

 

[adwityagrata]

However, the Indian law courts, the IPC and CrPC all have to be impartial to any religion, and they are.

No they are NOT. Which is why there is a 'Muslim LAW Board'. LOL.

All this is irrelevant to the topic, of what secularism means in the Indian context. It means govt neutrality/impartiality to religions. For instance, the parliament cannot pass a law making one religious community pay more taxes than another. An appointment to a constitutional or govt post cannot be tied to the religion of the applicant, as happens on non secular countries like pakistan. And so on.

Wrong again

A Hindu CAN NOT be appointed into a constitutional body like Central Wakf Council (for muslims) nor do they every get to head Central Minority commission.

And for the record, I would be very happy if the american idea of secularism is accepted in India. The govt being completely blind to religions, neither promoting nor hindering them. But then that is my wish, not how it is aceepted in India.

So in effect you are admitting that

1. India is NOT secular
2. If it is secular, then its secularism is NOT defined.

So which is it ?

 

[Dillinger]

No they are NOT. Which is why there is a 'Muslim LAW Board'. LOL.



Wrong again

A Hindu CAN NOT be appointed into a constitutional body like Central Wakf Council (for muslims) nor do they every get to head Central Minority commission.



So in effect you are admitting that

1. India is NOT secular
2. If it is secular, then its secularism is NOT defined.

So which is it ?

That we do not understand what secularism means, neither the public nor a single leader born from the soil of independent India (nor the Nehruvian folks). Ironically the one man who came the closest to understanding it and creating a framework for implementing it was Savarkar.