India: Last Nail in the coffin of Secularism?

[Imran Khan]

It's cute when Islamic republics teach us about secularism, and China teaches us about democracy

its cute when hindutva terrorist teach us about peace

 

[prashantazazel]

A big chunk of India is secular. But religious fights get votes.. So....

 

[PradoTLC]

Cry as much as you want .
No matter how much you cry ,we did a great job within 70 years of independence .
And soon we will become a top line of nation.

A Pakistani opinion is least concern to us



Do you have doubt?
Of Course we are modernized .
Most advanced state in this part of the world .

A country which has almost cleansed it's minority population since independence is lecturing us on secularism

https://www.hudson.org/research/9781-cleansing-pakistan-of-minorities

cos we have grown up... you are however are on a retarded trajectory

 

[SrNair]

No one cries here as much as indians do on this forum ^__^ we understand your pain.

Soon ?? You mean 2020 ?? Ok got it

Indian Bhakts opinion is least of concern to us period

Indian Bhakts of Bharat is talking about the matters concerns their nation .
There opinion matters .
Pakistan is not a factor there

cos we have grown up... you are however are on a retarded trajectory

Didnt ask for your certificate.

 

[hussain0216]

A big chunk of India is secular. But religious fights get votes.. So....

You can't keep repeating a lie

 

[SIPRA]

You can't keep repeating a lie

Modi won the election, with thumping majority, because a large section of India is secular.

 

[Dalai Lama]

India is still secular in the sense of seperation of Church from State although BJP seem to have an agenda to change this. I'd rather they focused on the economy as they seem to be able to follow through with their goals.

 

[Zapper]

cos we have grown up... you are however are on a retarded trajectory

It's always a good sign when your adversary is living in a fool's paradise and that's exactly what you're doing right now

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You know shit about art 370, anyone can read it from your verbal diarrhea.
These measures are precautionary, it's not like we wait for things to go south before taking actions. Maybe that's some people wish to happen. Chaos...


As far as lynching goes, Modi don't oversee every village or state in India, that's the duty of state police to maintain law and order. In some places they does an exemplary job, sometimes they are bad at it. You've lost count on what?! nobody is pardoned, some people are out on bail and it's not a pardon it just mean they are not a risk to public safety or travel risk as they are awaiting a trial.


There was enough historic evidence to suggest the place was infact ram temple otoh court didn't explicitly mention them, only a soft stance to avoid any rifts. There is no shred of evidence that shows Muslims were owners of the land around it, or the mosque.


Yeah, as usual Pakistani wish things go apeshit, like 70 years you believed it'll happen soon. How desperate one must be.

"Precautionary" suspension of democracy , summary arrests and incarceration without charge is required a lot in India these days then? That's fine. if you need to do that and station crore troops there to enforce an unpopular ruling, no problem. But why call yourself secular or democratic when other nations with these titles don't do such things? If you enforce laws against the will of - wait, without even consulting - relevant stakeholders, then need excessive force to maintain them, you're a fascist state. Simple.

 

[prashantazazel]

Modi won the election, with thumping majority, because a large section of India is secular.

Dude, you guys have a state religion.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Why don't some of the extreme Hindutva fanboys on this thread simply come out and declare this sort of thing is unacceptable and that the perpetrators of these cow lynchings should be executed quickly and not acquitted? Is it so so difficult?

I can't comprehend it. If a Muslim did this to a Hindu, I would want him executed. Yet a certain group of Hindus - who proudly declare their nation as "secular" and "democratic" as their summary defence against any and all accusations on human rights issues - seem to avoid criticism of these barbarians at all costs.

Miraculous Hindu innocence seems to be a never-ending eternal phenomenon when Muslims are victims...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/india-struggles-with-religious-lynchings/a-49950223

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...-terror-unpunished-india-190327111755815.html

"There was enough historic evidence to suggest the place was infact ram temple otoh court didn't explicitly mention them, only a soft stance to avoid any rifts"

At least your narrative on this has changed since your education in English language basics the other day.

Btw, "on the other hand" doesn't mean what you think it means.

So apparently now, the court chose not to mention the specific evidences to avoid hurting muslim sentiments? This is a new level of narrative escapology.

I think the court said what it meant to say - that they agree on what the relevant beliefs and faith of Hindus were. They didn't say they legally proved beyond reasonable doubt that ..Ram temple was there or that whatever was there was intentionally destroyed by invaders who then built a mosque on it.. simply because they knew full well that could not be done. They don't wish to be laughed at by other judges around the world.

The court proved nothing regarding a "crime against ram's temple" having been committed, yet they delivered a ruling that fully recompenses and remunerates for that theoretical crime.

Muslims are left wondering, why did they deliver this judgement when the above hasn't actually been proved?? Are their arbitrary rights to worship and preserve their heritage by default less than the same arbitrary rights of Hindus?

And still posters here say this is a win-win judgement.

 

[Chhatrapati]

"Precautionary" suspension of democracy , summary arrests and incarceration without charge is required a lot in India these days then? That's fine. if you need to do that and station crore troops there to enforce an unpopular ruling, no problem. But why call yourself secular or democratic when other nations with these titles don't do such things? If you enforce laws against the will of - wait, without even consulting - relevant stakeholders, then need excessive force to maintain them, you're a fascist state. Simple.

Seems like you don't understand what a secular state means. The state don't discriminate people based on their religion. They can be whatever they want irrespective of their religion a PM, President, do business, be a scientist, join military and raise up in ranks to any level. State don't enforce a religion on it's masses or declare a state religion either. Simple.... ....

Democracy, guarantee an elected representative to rule them, and make laws that's best for them. What democracy doesn't guarantee is separatism. No matter how democratic a country is they will thoroughly discourage it, democracy is not at the expense of national integrity.
Who said we didn't consult the stake holders? There was a ruling coalition in the state that was elected by the people, then they broke up and imposed governors rule who de facto head of state passed a resolution to abrogate article 370. Approved by the president, the parliament passed the resolution with the support of MPs from the state, yeah the elected representatives. Everything is fine if it's in the framework of the constitution.

We don't have to consult public for every other decision that should be taken. Some decisions are not favorable to the public like say GST should the government consult public on it's implementation? Simple... ...

 

[El Sidd]

Dude, you guys have a state religion.

you are dealing with 220 million Jinnahs who have mastered secularism and religion both.

goodluck

 

[masterchief_mirza]

There was a ruling coalition in the state that was elected by the people, then they broke up and imposed governors

Who dissolved the parliament? Who imposed the governor?

 

[Chhatrapati]

Who dissolved the parliament? Who imposed the governor?

They themselves dissolved it. There was no mandate for a ruling government once BJP withdraw support, the ruling government couldn't get enough support from opposition. Governor dissolved the parliament with the constitutional power vested in him.