India: Last Nail in the coffin of Secularism?

[masterchief_mirza]

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.

Don't make a fool out of yourself. The Kashmiris dissolved their government?? No, the governor appointed by Delhi (Indian President specifically) dissolved it.

"There was no mandate for a ruling government once BJP withdraw support"

Really? So BJP, via a BJP sympathetic centrally imposed governor dissolves j&k legislative assembly because of a lack of mandate? Why are you fabricating these fictitious regulations? BJP determines Kashmir legislative assembly's mandates and the make up of their assembly?

There's me thinking in a "democracy" that the people who voted in a district or region get to decide on mandates.

No. If mehbooba wanted to represent her constituents with a new coalition, that was her right. BJP dissolved it because they didn't want to lose their grip on Kashmir.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.econ...claims-for-power/amp_articleshow/66739283.cms

Hence the BJP sympathetic governor activated the override switch.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Don't make a fool out of yourself. The Kashmiris dissolved their government?? No, the governor appointed by Delhi (Indian President specifically) dissolved it.

You're making a fool out of yourself by arguing over basic things. Here are the basics of democracy.
There is more than a million people in jammu and Kashmir, they can't fit in the parliament so they elect a MLA's. The party with most MLA's (or they form a coalition with other parties) then elect CM the CM then select his cabinet. If there is no majority MLA's to rule the CM dissolve his cabinet.

In case of jammu and Kashmir, the ruling parties broke up the government failed. Governor rule was imposed. Governor cannot automatically dissolve a government at his whim.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

BJP has been plotting and scheming like a snake for much longer than you or I have even been aware. Maintaining this "kill switch" over Kashmir while mehbooba and Abdullah foolishly remained oblivious was the clever part.

In case of jammu and Kashmir, the ruling parties broke up the government failed. Governor rule was imposed. Governor cannot automatically dissolve a government at his whim.

So why did the governor dissolve it all when an alternative coalition was on the table??

Abuse of power by a centrally appointed governor is dictatorship, not democracy.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Really?

Oh yeah. Surprised there is BJP in Jammu and Kashmir?

No. If mehbooba wanted to represent her constituents with a new coalition, that was her right. BJP dissolved it because they didn't want to lose their grip on Kashmir.

She could've or she couldn't have. The thing is, if you wanted to stake claim you have to meet the governor with enough representatives and give a letter signed by head of the coalition. You don't announce it through media.
There is nothing illegal about the process.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Imagine this in Northern Ireland! We'd be at war again tomorrow.

"if you wanted to stake claim you have to meet the governor with enough representatives and give a letter signed by head of the coalition. ".. works fine if the governor is listening.

 

[Chhatrapati]

BJP has been plotting and scheming like a snake for much longer than you or I have even been aware. Maintaining this "kill switch" over Kashmir while mehbooba and Abdullah foolishly remained oblivious was the clever part.

BJP toppled many governments around the country through politics. Is it fair game? Hell yeah. That's why all these are pre written in constitution. Which everyone agreed upon. If it's illegal, that's where court comes in.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

"There is nothing illegal about the process."

Here you are correct. In all dictatorships masquerading as democracies, this sort of thing is all kosher.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Imagine this in Northern Ireland! We'd be at war again tomorrow.

"if you wanted to stake claim you have to meet the governor with enough representatives and give a letter signed by head of the coalition. ".. works fine if the governor is listening.

This is not Northern Ireland, and we are not a Constitutional Monarchy.

Just today, Maharashtra state had governors rule imposed. Governor didn't give time for parties to discuss and form governments by negotiation. He invited individual parties they didn't have a majority, neither could they bring letter. Parties requested for more time to negotiate, governor simply denied it. Is it illegal? No.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

This is not Northern Ireland, and we are not a Constitutional Monarchy.

Just today, Maharashtra state had governors rule imposed. Governor didn't give time for parties to discuss and form governments by negotiation. He invited individual parties they didn't have a majority, neither could they bring letter. Parties requested for more time to negotiate, governor simply denied it. Is it illegal? No.

Yes it's quite the cake Delhi is baking.

Indians and their elected representatives are perhaps dumb enough to believe this "world's biggest democracy" thing.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Yes it's quite the cake Delhi is baking.

Yeah, because they walked over the previous one easily with absolute majority. They won the test, now they make the rules. Isn't it how democracy is supposed to be?

Indians and their elected representatives are perhaps dumb enough to believe this "world's biggest democracy" thing.

You're just another British Pakistani, you don't even come up in the 'pecking order' to matter in the grand scheme of things. Hence your opinion is...

 

[Smarana Mitra]

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.

I am openly saying that lynching in the name of cow is unacceptable. I am a pure dharmic. But, I am also saying that lynching must be done solely because the person is a muslim and not for cow.

Court is not here to prove anything. Court only gave judgement. But, ideally, there was no need to go to court at all. Babur did not go to court, neither did Lodhis, Mughals or Khiljis when they destroyed temples. It was simply being polite by going to court where it was not really necessary.

India is secular in the sense that India will give conditional parity to religions but not absolute parity. The parity of religion is only on real time basis and not on absolute basis. Tomorrow, India feels to not be secular, then India also has that option. India is only temporarily secular, not permanently. There is no argument about defending secularism as it not an ideology but a conditional arrangement.

Muslims don't have any inherent rights entitled from anyone else. Muslims have no heritage as they are just recent converts who did not exist before 600AD. There is nothing to preserve or cherish about muslims. Muslims can always leave to Pakistan if they want and India will not stop them.

 

[Chhatrapati]

India is secular in the sense that India will give conditional parity to religions but not absolute parity. The parity of religion is only on real time basis and not on absolute basis. Tomorrow, India feels to not be secular, then India also has that option. India is only temporarily secular, not permanently. There is no argument about defending secularism as it not an ideology but a conditional arrangement.

Sorry bruh. We can't change the constitution tomorrow no matter what majority the ruling party gets. Supreme Court will strike it down, we can't change the preamble that would give major change to the constitution. Secularism is not conditional, it's now part and participle for the country.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Yes it's quite the cake Delhi is baking.

Indians and their elected representatives are perhaps dumb enough to believe this "world's biggest democracy" thing.

India is a repuplic, not exactly a democracy. India does not claim itself to be largest democracy. It is simply the term used while media talks and some people use it as catch phrase.

Sorry bruh. We can't change the constitution tomorrow no matter what majority the ruling party gets. Supreme Court will strike it down, we can't change the preamble that would give major change to the constitution. Secularism is not conditional, it's now part and participle for the country.

Constitution can be made and unmade. Supreme Court is non-entity and has no right to decide anything about constitution. It is directly the will of the people. Supreme Court itself can be abolished by abolishing the constitution. Why would anyone with common sense think that some random book written by some people is absolutely supreme? There are many other people who can write many other books. What is so great about this one book? Why should someone else adhere to the book written by some bunch of self appointed people?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Yeah, because they walked over the previous one easily with absolute majority. They won the test, now they make the rules. Isn't it how democracy is supposed to be?


You're just another British Pakistani, you don't even come up in the 'pecking order' to matter in the grand scheme of things. Hence your opinion is...

More filth spewing forth from this gutter mentality where caste-type designations are simply the norm.
Whatever I am, seems to have triggered you into full Brahmin mode with a simple demonstration of facts and the English language. I'll remember the template for next time.

Court is not here to prove anything. Court only gave judgement. But, ideally, there was no need to go to court at all. Babur did not go to court, neither did Lodhis, Mughals or Khiljis when they destroyed temples. It was simply being polite by going to court where it was not really necessary.

Mughals etc didn't need to go to court because Hindus also committed barbaric acts in that era without going to court for legal dispensations.

Or do you believe in some kind of absolute moral or legal code that exists throughout the whole timeline of the Indian subcontinent? I'd be interested to know if that's the case.

 

[SIPRA]

More filth spewing forth from this gutter mentality where caste-type designations are simply the norm.
Whatever I am, seems to have triggered you into full Brahmin mode with a simple demonstration of facts and the English language. I'll remember the template for next time.

We must realize that ultimately issues between India and Pakistan would be settled in a medieval fashion, where there is not much scope for rational discussions and deliberations. At least, this is absolutely clear to me, having regard to the mentality of these Gangadoos.