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

[janon]

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

Yes they are. The CrPC and IPC do not have any non-secular laws. The existence of the muslim law board does not mean that the CrPC or IPC are non secular. They apply to different situations. The muslim law board's laws and judgements are obviously not going to be secular.

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.

Where did you learn that they cannot head the minority commission? As for central wakf council, obviously it is a muslim body set up only to cater to muslims. I dont like the existence of such a body, but you have to understand that that body only administers law to people who choose to come under its jurisdiction.

So in effect you are admitting that

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

Wrong. I am saying that India is secular as secularism is understood in the Indian constitution, and not as understood in the american constitution. Secularsim has different meanings in these two countries, but there are established meanings for that, and individuals do not get to redefine it as they please. In India secularism is defined as govt being neutral and impartial to every religion, and in the US it is understood as govt having nothing to do with religion. In common usage in the USA, people use secular to mean atheistic - another meaning that Indians don't apply to that term.

Secularism is defined, and modi or somebody else can't simply redefine it, any more than they can redefine words like republic or democracy. Those words also mean diffrerent things in different jurisdictions, but that doesn't mean it is not defined at all.

So which is it ?

Responses in red.

 

[WAR-rior]

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

If that is the case then how do u explain Modi's words where he says, 'No mandir till toilets for all Indians'? Is this hindusism?

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

 

[funtoosh]

ayyo.. this site is getting so boring...

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

 

[Developereo]

If that is the case then how do u explain Modi's words where he says, 'No mandir till toilets for all Indians'? Is this hindusism?

I don't see how this is incompatible with what I wrote. The two are unrelated.

 

[WAR-rior]

I don't see how this is incompatible with what I wrote. The two are unrelated.

How is it unrelated? When you say something as a living fact that the agenda of Modi is Hinduism and nothing else. I just said, Modi talks about Development first. With development all other factors follow. Religion grows with development not development grows with religion.

 

[KRAIT]

 

[adwityagrata]

Yes they are. The CrPC and IPC do not have any non-secular laws. The existence of the muslim law board does not mean that the CrPC or IPC are non secular. They apply to different situations. The muslim law board's laws and judgements are obviously not going to be secular.

You are talking total nonsense and quite frankly it is irritating to educate you.

Section 125 and Section 3 of the CrPC gives separate treatment for Muslims. It covers Legal Rights Of Maintenance & Guardianship Of Muslim Women, child, parent.

Similar rules are followed for Christian women and their inheritance rights which are NOT part of the general rule for other Indians.

Where did you learn that they cannot head the minority commission? As for central wakf council, obviously it is a muslim body set up only to cater to muslims. I dont like the existence of such a body, but you have to understand that that body only administers law to people who choose to come under its jurisdiction.

LOL. So you ADMIT that "appointment to a constitutional or govt post IS tied to the religion of the applicant" and that you were wrong before.

Wrong. I am saying that India is secular as secularism is understood in the Indian constitution, and not as understood in the american constitution. Secularsim has different meanings in these two countries, but there are established meanings for that, and individuals do not get to redefine it as they please. In India secularism is defined as govt being neutral and impartial to every religion, and in the US it is understood as govt having nothing to do with religion. In common usage in the USA, people use secular to mean atheistic - another meaning that Indians don't apply to that term.

It has already been shown & proven that the Indian Govt. is NOT Neutral and Impartial to every religion. LOL

So in effect you have proved that by your own Limited understanding of secularism in India, India is NOT Secular.

However the constitution says India is secular . Which would obviously indicate that YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Secularism is WRONG.

Do you understand what a Logical Contradiction is ? Because that is what your whole 'logic' boils down too.

Secularism is defined, and modi or somebody else can't simply redefine it, any more than they can redefine words like republic or democracy. Those words also mean diffrerent things in different jurisdictions, but that doesn't mean it is not defined at all.

The only other premise that is yet to be proven false is that Secularism in the Indian context is NOT defined.

Hence it is all the more reason for Modi to define it and establish what his Idea of India looks like.

There is no such ambiguity about what republic or democracy mean. (classic Red Herring)

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.

Well Narendra Modi has made a start by defining what He means by secularism. Its a start.

Can't say I disagree with his definition. In fact I find it quite appealing. Right sense of Nationalism without dragging religion into it.

 

[funtoosh]

modi is the prophet of prosperity

 

[Developereo]

How is it unrelated? When you say something as a living fact that the agenda of Modi is Hinduism and nothing else. I just said, Modi talks about Development first. With development all other factors follow. Religion grows with development not development grows with religion.

He is about promoting both development and Hinduism.
I didn't say Hinduism is his sole agenda.

 

[janon]

You are talking total nonsense and quite frankly it is irritating to educate you.
Then don't.


Section 125 and Section 3 of the CrPC gives separate treatment for Muslims. It covers Legal Rights Of Maintenance & Guardianship Of Muslim Women, child, parent.

Similar rules are followed for Christian women and their inheritance rights which are NOT part of the general rule for other Indians.

Yes I know, and that is a contentious issue, as I said several times before.

LOL. So you ADMIT that "appointment to a constitutional or govt post IS tied to the religion of the applicant" and that you were wrong before.

You did not answer the part about national commission for minorities. OK, the appointment to the wakf board is for muslims only, but that is because it caters only to muslims. Similarly the appointment to the devaswom board of kerala is only for hindus, because it is a body set up to administer temples. These are specific bodies set up to cater to specific communities.

It has already been shown & proven that the Indian Govt. is NOT Neutral and Impartial to every religion. LOL

As I said before, it is debatable whether govts have adhered to the impartiality or not. But regardless of whether they have been secular in their conduct or not, what secularism means is not in doubt.

So in effect you have proved that by your own Limited understanding of secularism in India, India is NOT Secular.

For you to even claim that India is not secular, you have to know that secularism already means something. It is because we understand what secularism is, that we can argue about whether India is not secular or not. And remember, all my posts in this thread were to prove that point - that the word secularism already means something, and people can't bring out their own definitions. Sure we can argue all day whether India is secular or not - and that argument itself is a valiidation of my point that we already know what the word means. Otherwise we will not be in a position to argue it.

However the constitution says India is secular . Which would obviously indicate that YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Secularism is WRONG.

Do you understand what a Logical Contradiction is ? Because that is what your whole 'logic' boils down too.

I do, but I wonder if you do.

The only other premise that is yet to be proven false is that Secularism in the Indian context is NOT defined.
It is very much defined. It simply means govt impartiality to religions. If you think the govt has not always been impartial, then it means they have not adhered to secularism. But that doesnt mean secularism can be redefined.

Hence it is all the more reason for Modi to define it and establish what his Idea of India looks like.

He can say what his idea for India is, but he cannot redefine words.

There is no such ambiguity about what republic or democracy mean. (classic Red Herring)
I've told you this before. You need to understand terms like red herring' carefully, before applying it liberally all over the place.

Responses in red. In short: Maybe the govt of india has not adhered to secularism. Maybe the very existence of wakf board and such bodies is a violation of the secularism enshrined in the constitution. Indeed, people have often argued that, and I have as well. But that does not mean that we can or should redefine what secularism is. In fact, it is precisely because we have a good idea of what secularism is, that we can form such judgements.

This is like saying that just because there are murderers in India, the law against murder is not well established. If a practice violates secularism, it can be argued in a court of law.

So yes, you can keep pointing out non secular practices that various govts have done. But that doesnt mean that secularism can be redifined.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That there is no meaning for the word secularism, so its a free for all? All right, then for me secularism is about eating fish everyday. It doesnt work that way, words already have an established meaning, and it can't suddenly mean something different just because a politician says so.

My argument is not really whether various govts have been secular or not, but that secularism is an understood concept. The very fact that you are pointing out non secular practices undersocres that point, because it is only because we know what secular means, that you are in a position to highlight unsecular practices. You are the one trying to change the argument into whether everything in India adheres to secularism, thereby creating the red herring avoidance tactic that you tried to accuse me of. The point I was originally making is that the word secularism has a meaning already. Not whether Indians and the govt has always adhered to it.

 

[adwityagrata]

Responses in red. In short: Maybe the govt of india has not adhered to secularism. Maybe the very existence of wakf board and such bodies is a violation of the secularism enshrined in the constitution. Indeed, people have often argued that, and I have as well. But that does not mean that we can or should redefine what secularism is. In fact, it is precisely because we have a good idea of what secularism is, that we can form such jedgements.

This is like saying that just because there are murderers in India, murder is permissible. If a practice violates secularism, it can be argued in a court of law.

So yes, you can keep pointing out non secular practices that various govts have done. But that doesnt mean that secularism can be redifned.

Your entire point is so full of lies, contradictions and ignorance that I do not know where to start.

1. Jose Rajan A CHRISTIAN was appointed to Travancore Devaswom Board. Its only HINDUS who are denied equal opportunity in Muslim and christian boards.

2. I do know what a Logical fallacy, Red herring and Logical contradiction is. So unless you can PROVE me wrong and catch me RED HANDED in misusing those words, stop pretending to know what those mean.

3. We are discussing your assertion of WHAT secularism Means for India. Not a universally understood term.

4. You have NOW Agreed India DOES NOT Practice secularism AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT. Yet the constitution of India declares it to be a Secular Nation. The ONLY possible conclusion is that YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Secularism is WRONG. I am not sure why such simple logic is hard for you to grasp.

5. Now since India claims to be secular and yet gives importance of religion in state affairs, it binds to reason that the very definition of secularism in India is skewed. Or a MORE CORRECT conclusion wold be that Secularism is NOT DEFINED NOR IS IT UNDERSTOOD in the Constitution of India.

6. Secularism in Early British writing meant separation of Philosophy from religion. Secularism in later years meant separating social affairs from religion. Secularism in Europe arose from the need to Separate Church from the State. In France Secularism means removal of ANY Religious symbolism from state.

In India, we are still confused since our constitutions defies every know definition of secularism.

7. Your e.g. of a Murder is illogical. It would be more appropriate to state that if the State sanctioned certain kind of Murders then will Murders be permissible in India ?


There is an URGENT need to define Secularism in India and bring it into the ambit of the law so that there is No more confusion and ambiguity that can be and IS used for Political gains.

 

[janon]

Your entire point is so full of lies, contradictions and ignorance that I do not know where to start.

1. Jose Rajan A CHRISTIAN was appointed to Travancore Devaswom Board. Its only HINDUS who are denied equal opportunity in Muslim and christian boards.

2. I do know what a Logical fallacy, Red herring and Logical contradiction is. So unless you can PROVE me wrong and catch me RED HANDED in misusing those words, stop pretending to know what those mean.

3. We are discussing your assertion of WHAT secularism Means for India. Not a universally understood term.

4. You have NOW Agreed India DOES NOT Practice secularism AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT. Yet the constitution of India declares it to be a Secular Nation. The ONLY possible conclusion is that YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Secularism is WRONG. I am not sure why such simple logic is hard for you to grasp.

5. Now since India claims to be secular and yet gives importance of religion in state affairs, it binds to reason that the very definition of secularism in India is skewed. Or a MORE CORRECT conclusion wold be that Secularism is NOT DEFINED NOR IS IT UNDERSTOOD in the Constitution of India.

6. Secularism in Early British writing meant separation of Philosophy from religion. Secularism in later years meant separating social affairs from religion. Secularism in Europe arose from the need to Separate Church from the State. In France Secularism means removal of ANY Religious symbolism from state.

7. Your e.g. of a Murder is illogical. It would be more appropriate to state that if the State sanctioned certain kind of Murders then will Murders be permissible in India ?

In India, we are still confused since our constitutions defies every know definition of secularism.


There is an URGENT need to define Secularism in India and bring it into the ambit of the law so that there is No more confusion and ambiguity that can be and IS used for Political gains.

Well guess what, vinod sharma is a member of the national commission for minorities, but that doesn't invalidate your point, does it?

About jose rajan - he has sworn allegiance to the hindu faith, and that is a prerequisite for being a member of the dewaswom board. That stems from the hindu religious act of 1950. Each dewasvom board in kerala has a primary deity, and the members have to swear allegiance to that deity, as well as to that board. By that action, jose rajan stops being a christian (thou shall have no gods above me and all that).


Anyway, all this is irrelevant to my original point. As usual, you have derailed the original point to something else. The original point was whether secularism has an understood meaning or not. Are you saying that it does not?

Whether all practices in India have adhered to that concept is a different issue. I know they havent. I don't like haj pilgrimages being subsidized by the govt of India, and that is because I feel it goes against secularism. And I can make that judgement only because the word secularism means something already.

 

[Dillinger]

You are talking total nonsense and quite frankly it is irritating to educate you.

Section 125 and Section 3 of the CrPC gives separate treatment for Muslims. It covers Legal Rights Of Maintenance & Guardianship Of Muslim Women, child, parent.

Similar rules are followed for Christian women and their inheritance rights which are NOT part of the general rule for other Indians.



LOL. So you ADMIT that "appointment to a constitutional or govt post IS tied to the religion of the applicant" and that you were wrong before.



It has already been shown & proven that the Indian Govt. is NOT Neutral and Impartial to every religion. LOL

So in effect you have proved that by your own Limited understanding of secularism in India, India is NOT Secular.

However the constitution says India is secular . Which would obviously indicate that YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Secularism is WRONG.

Do you understand what a Logical Contradiction is ? Because that is what your whole 'logic' boils down too.



The only other premise that is yet to be proven false is that Secularism in the Indian context is NOT defined.

Hence it is all the more reason for Modi to define it and establish what his Idea of India looks like.

There is no such ambiguity about what republic or democracy mean. (classic Red Herring)



Well Narendra Modi has made a start by defining what He means by secularism. Its a start.

Can't say I disagree with his definition. In fact I find it quite appealing. Right sense of Nationalism without dragging religion into it.

Perhaps, administration and governance aimed at national benefit sans any religious bias/prejudice/bigotry- pretty much the same as the actual definition of secularism but with the essential addition of stressing on the fact that the governance must still be aimed at achieving beneficial (for the nation as a whole) objectives. Perhaps necessitated by the dual fact that Congress treats secularism as favoritism for earning political cookie points and is willing to compromise certain national interests to do so. IF that is what he means then its kosher. Although I doubt he has the gumption to bring about a uniform civil code, nope.