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

[janon]

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.

Various governments have violated secularism left and right. I am not arguing that they haven't. The congress, by opening reservation blanketly to all muslims was violating secularism. There are many legitimate cases like that which enrage our sense of secularism. And why does it enrage us? Because we have an understanding of what secular means.

As for the last sentence, no - neither Modi nor anybody else will bring a uniform civil code, unless they get an overwhelming majority. And even then, it is doubtful - too much at stake.

 

[Dillinger]

Various governments have violated secularism left and right. I am not arguing that they haven't. The congress, by opening reservation blanketly to all muslims was violating secularism. There are many legitimate cases like that which enrage our sense of secularism. And why does it enrage us? Because we have an understanding of what secular means.

Oh don't get me wrong, my definition of secularism is the same as it is defined in any reputable dictionary. I simply don't expect us Indians to either understand it or implement it in its true form, albeit we still do a better job of it than others.

 

[janon]

Oh don't get me wrong, my definition of secularism is the same as it is defined in any reputable dictionary. I simply don't expect us Indians to either understand it or implement it in its true form, albeit we still do a better job of it than others.

Yes, that was mmy only point originally, whether that word already has a meaning or not. It does - as I said earlier, the indian constitution doesn't define words, it uses words that already exist and have a well understood meaning. I fell into @adwityagrata 's usual tactic of going off on an irrelevant tangent and arguing all day about something else - in this case, whether we have practiced secularism to the T. No, we havent.

But my original point stands, that the word has an understood meaning, and Modi cannot change that at will. My mistake for indulging aditwya with his usual need to argue pointlessly about a point that nobody made.

 

[adwityagrata]

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.

Just to set the record straight. 1.) I said a Hindu cannot "get to head Central Minority commission". The rest was your STRAWMAN. 2.) Jose Rajan is a practicing Christian belong to the Church of South India. He has mentioned chritianity as his religion in his employment records. But I am sure he must have signed an "affidavit" swearing his allegiance the that Hindu deity to get that post It just shows the kind of man he really is.

Now to the main issue at hand, I AM saying that Secularism is NOT understood in India and hence it is Misused by parties like the CONgress and SP. Neither is it understood by the common public w.r.t the Constitution of India.

BJP tried to define Secularism in the Parliament but was NOT allowed to by the Congress Since it would have exposed their stand on the Uniform Civil Code ( especially after the Shah Bano case).

However IT IS HIGH TIME, India decides to define what Secularism Really mean and ensure it is practiced in letter of the law and in sprite.

 

[Dillinger]

Yes, that was mmy only point originally, whether that word already has a meaning or not. It does - as I said earlier, the indian constitution doesn't define words, it uses words that already exist and have a well understood meaning. I fell into @adwityagrata 's usual tactic of going off on an irrelevant tangent and arguing all day about something else - in this case, whether we have practiced secularism to the T. No, we havent.

But my original point stands, that the word has an understood meaning, and Modi cannot change that at will. My mistake for indulging aditwya with his usual need to argue pointlessly about a point that nobody made.

Honestly, I do not care whether he changes the meaning for better or for worse or what people think of what he meant. His actions, IF he get elected as PM, are what I am going to be looking at. Albeit even then in a detached manner, either way he will serve my interests, although so would his competition- so on a personal note it doesn't matter. As for how it may affect the rest, meh, beyond caring as things stand.

 

[adwityagrata]

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.

What HE means should be gauged by his record of governance for the last 11 years. I believe that should be more relevant than anything he 'says'. All this IF's and BUT's should be measured against WHAT IS.

If BJP gets 273 seats, I pretty sure they will try to implement UCC. After all it is part of their Manifesto.

 

[janon]

Just to set the record straight. 1.) I said a Hindu cannot "get to head Central Minority commission". The rest was your STRAWMAN. 2.) Jose Rajan is a practicing Christian belong to the Church of South India. He has mentioned chritianity as his religion in his employment records. But I am sure he must have signed an "affidavit" swearing his allegiance the that Hindu deity to get that post It just shows the kind of man he really is.

Now to the main issue at hand, I AM saying that Secularism is NOT understood in India and hence it is Misused by parties like the CONgress and SP. Neither is it understood by the common public w.r.t the Constitution of India.

BJP tried to define Secularism in the Parliament but was NOT allowed to by the Congress Since it would have exposed their stand on the Uniform Civil Code ( especially after the Shah Bano case).

However IT IS HIGH TIME, India decides to define what Secularism Really mean and ensure it is practiced in letter of the law and in sprite.

I know that's what you said, which is why I said it doesn't invalidate your point. However, Jose rajan is not a practising christian. He has sworn allegiance to the deity and to the hindu faith. That is a prerequisite for being a member of the dewaswom board, which does innvalidate your point that only hindus are the victims of bias. There are many such practices across the country, but only in matters already pertaining to a certain religion only. Employment to a non religious post like the railways or the primeministership is not tied to any religious affiliation, like in pakistan.

However the main point is that secularism has an understood meaning. Otherwise the constitution would not use that word. Just because it may not be adhered to doesnt mean it can be redefined by one person. Eapecialy not to something as airy and vague as 'INDIA FIRST'.

 

[Dillinger]

What HE means should be gauged by his record of governance for the last 11 years. I believe that should be more relevant than anything he 'says'. All this IF's and BUT's should be measured against WHAT IS.

If BJP gets 273 seats, I pretty sure they will try to implement UCC. After all it is part of their Manifesto.

They will dither and procrastinate, its a congenital issue and Modi will run into a wall composed of his own party members. Manifesto promises be damned, IF it happens then I will celebrate till then I am not going to be holding my breath for it. Anything else would be and very well could be an exercise in futility.

 

[Android]

Supreme Court must provide a proper definition of the term secularism and communalism like it has for term Hindutva. That would be the first step in stopping balant misuse of the that term by many leaders and organizations for their own benefits and will be the first step implementation of true secularism in country by getting rid of these fake seculars.

 

[adwityagrata]

Yes, that was mmy only point originally, whether that word already has a meaning or not. It does - as I said earlier, the indian constitution doesn't define words, it uses words that already exist and have a well understood meaning. I fell into @adwityagrata 's usual tactic of going off on an irrelevant tangent and arguing all day about something else - in this case, whether we have practiced secularism to the T. No, we havent.

But my original point stands, that the word has an understood meaning, and Modi cannot change that at will. My mistake for indulging aditwya with his usual need to argue pointlessly about a point that nobody made.

LOL. Since you are graceless in defeat, I will be graceful in victory.

However it would have been a lot better if you had kept and open mind and tried to understand a different POV rather than blaming the messenger.

They will dither and procrastinate, its a congenital issue and Modi will run into a wall composed of his own party members. Manifesto promises be damned, IF it happens then I will celebrate till then I am not going to be holding my breath for it. Anything else would be and very well could be an exercise in futility.

How many animals do I have IF all BUT 3 are dog, all BUT 3 are cat, all BUT 3 are pig and all BUT 3 are cow ?

Some IF's and BUT's have answers, some don't.

 

[Dillinger]

LOL. Since you are graceless in defeat, I will be graceful in victory.

However it would have been a lot better if you had kept and open mind and tried to understand a different POV rather than blaming the messenger.



How many animals do I have IF all BUT 3 are dog, all BUT 3 are cat, all BUT 3 are pig and all BUT 3 are cow ?

Some IF's and BUT's have answers, some don't.

Perhaps you are more optimistic and I am not, I do no think of them as being capable enough of achieving the goal as much as I want them succeed in said venture.

 

[adwityagrata]

Perhaps you are more optimistic and I am not, I do no think of them as being capable enough of achieving the goal as much as I want them succeed in said venture.

One step at a time. Let us define what Secularism really means w.r.t the Constitution. Everything else will flow from their.

Either way, once it is defined, we will have to modify the constitution to accommodate the definition. UCC or the lack of one will flow from there.

 

[Dillinger]

One step at a time. Let us define what Secularism really means w.r.t the Constitution. Everything else will flow from their.

Either way, once it is defined, we will have to modify the constitution to accommodate the definition. UCC or the lack of one will flow from there.

No need to define it, pick up a dictionary and you will find the meaning. If by the process you mean educating the masses as to the existence of said dictionary meaning, all well and good- if not then we are in deeper $hit than one could have imagined. 65 years and counting and we can't even decide upon the meaning of a simple word. Well we are at an impasse, perhaps you are right and Modi will understand what the word means and implement it, perhaps he will have the spine to implement the UCC..IF so I will be pleased and if not then it shall be more of the usual. Not much use arguing over it.

 

[janon]

No need to define it, pick up a dictionary and you will find the meaning. If by the process you mean educating the masses as to the existence of said dictionary meaning, all well and good- if not then we are in deeper $hit than one could have imagined. 65 years and counting and we can't even decide upon the meaning of a simple word. Well we are at an impasse, perhaps you are right and Modi will understand what the word means and implement it, perhaps he will have the spine to implement the UCC..IF so I will be pleased and if not then it shall be more of the usual. Not much use arguing over it.

That is all that I have been telling him from the beginning. But to him everything is a question of victory or defeat, and he will continue belabouring strawmen points to get his daily dose of 'victory'.

@adwityagrata - I have told you before that I do not come here for victories and defeats, so spare me this lecture of grace in defeat. Enjoy your silly 'victory' for the day, and may you have lots more.

My original point was simple, and dillinger is also trying to tell you that, that secularism already has a meaning. Politicians cannot redefine it, especially in vague catchphrases like 'india first'. These are good electioneering slogans, but not very useful to define an important aspect of the social contract.

While you enjoy your supposed victory, just understand this - that word already has a meaning. That was my only point, and that hasn't been refuted, so I don't know what your 'victory' is, but hey...whatever brings you satisfaction.

 

[WAR-rior]

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

But Development and Hinduism is good. Only hinduism without development means fundamentalism and extrimism. If there was to be a riot, investor sentiment will lower down and hence no development. And in India unlike Pakistan, there cant be systematic exclusion of anyone, especially in case of minorities. Coz any clash will end up into riots. So if RSS want to kill some muslims as everyone believe, it will be the 1st pin in coffin for BJP govt. As Modi says, 'Sabko saath mein leke badhna hai'. 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas'. Hes saying so after trying and testing this in Gujarat. There has been no riots past 10 years in Gujarat which is a record breaking achievement. Pakistanis very conviniently buy those politically motivated reports on Modi for 2002. Its proved Modi wasnt able to control the riot which he cud have but under pressure of Hindu Extrimists. Now the times have change and in past 10 yrs the clout he has earned, its not gonna happen this tym. Indians know this and thats why they support Modi.

Also if you are saying the Hinduism as any agenda is bad the its exactly same as Islam as agenda in Pakistan, Imran Khan style. Soft n peaceful Islam. exactly the same.