India rejected separate Sikh Marriage Act which Pak enacted 4 yrs ago

[LiberalAtheist]

the fact that there are only a couple thousands Sikhs in Pakistan who have a Sikh marriage act and 20 million+ Sikhs in India with no Sikh marriage act is quite astonishing and Embarrassing for a secular nation like India those shaken by 1984 and the Punjab insurgency after 1984 have not received justice we don't have our own marriage act the truth is India is not a secular country but pseudo-secular

the acceptance of the original Anandpur resolution as an act,the transfer of Chandigarh as the capital ONLY for Punjab, and the enacting of a Sikh marriage act may ease some tensions and some pro Khalistanis but aside from that the SOB's who are responsible for the anti sikh riots and human rights abuses in Punjab during the 80's and early 90's must be brought to justice for satisfying the Sikh community entirely

we bled for the British by sacrificing 80,000 Sikhs in WW2 under the British and bled for India in 1948 1962 1965 1971 and 1999 and this is how we are paid back and treated?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Secularism as you define is an western connotation of equal distance from every religion.

In indian context , secularism as we practice means equal support for every religious sects.

How can you have equal support when two religion clash with each others for example Muslim has their right to eat beef while hindu dont want their mata to be killed infront of them. Babri mosque vs madir conflicts or other such riots etc.. Politicians can make good and neutral decisions only if they are are truly secular. If they are religious then they will have soft corner for hindus if they are hindu or soft feelings for Muslims if they are Muslim by faith

 

[jdme]

How can you have equal support when two religion clash with each others for example Muslim has their right to eat beef while hindu dont want their mata to be killed infront of them. Babri mosque vs madir conflicts or other such riots etc.. Politicians can make good and neutral decisions only if they are are truly secular. If they are religious then they will have soft corner for hindus if they are hindu or soft feelings for Muslims if they are Muslim by faith

Simple. Don't kill the cow in front! How do you think people eat pork in India? And Beef is not just eaten by Muslims. Beef steak or pork chops, I love it all!

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Simple. Don't kill the cow in front! How do you think people eat pork in India? And Beef is not just eaten by Muslims. Beef steak or pork chops, I love it all!

I have friends who eat pork in front of me or get drunk and act funny lol. I don't mind as long as they don't force me to eat or drink

But my point was if you have any religious leader who run a secular state then there are chances for him to be bias in his decision and will probably pick the side he belong to even if his side is wrong side . Few peoples has this dare to kill their brother if he is killing others : )

 

[jdme]

I have friends who eat pork in front of me or get drunk and act funny lol. I don't mind as long as they don't force me to eat or drink

But my point was if you have any religious leader who run a secular state then there are chances for him to be bias in his decision and will probably pick the side he belong to even if his side is wrong side . Few peoples has this dare to kill their brother if he is killing others : )

What religious leaders? India doesn't have priest or Maulvi politicians, not even in so called religious parties like BJP or Muslim party in Kerala.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

^^^^^^^ Bal and Raj Thackery

 

[jdme]

^^^^^^^ Bal and Raj Thackery

No different from your typical Indian politician. They all favor one religion or caste over another. Now you are going to complain about Akhali Dal?

 

[notsuperstitious]

Dude principle of secularism is to carry out the activities of life in this world whether in the fields of economy, politics, education, administration, culture, communications and so on in complete separation from religion or without any connection whatsoever with the Hereafter/God etc

So you are saying we should scrap all these acts and make one single uniform civil code right?

We have separate marriage acts for all our religious communities (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, etc..)

What is the act for Hindus called?

 

[LiberalAtheist]

No different from your typical Indian politician. They all favor one religion or caste over another. Now you are going to complain about Akhali Dal?

Sikhism does not favor any religion or caste because in Sikhism there is no caste or favored religion

 

[jdme]

Sikhism does not favor any religion or caste because in Sikhism there is no caste or favored religion

And Islam preaches tolerance and Christianity is all about love and...yeh, keep using the book as some kind of "defense" against real life insanity. Perhaps you should ask Sikhs to practice Sikhism then.

 

[Executioner]

Sikhism does not favor any religion or caste because in Sikhism there is no caste or favored religion

Bro do you forget why Guru Govind ji Shaab formed a group and who are the member of that group and selection process and what was the reason behind it. The only word "Hindu" is that the real problem which pinch you, I think the word hurts more. And what was happened in 84 that was not honorable, you know Indian not feel proud of it, whatever they Hindu, Buddhis, Jain, Christians, Muslim no one and you know that even you can see in the Punjab, people don't another any "stan".

 

[Manas]

Sikhism does not favor any religion or caste because in Sikhism there is no caste or favored religion

Hindu marriage act is encompasses all dharmic rteligions me and other memeber have stated so many times to prebvenet unnecessary act for each dharmic religion be hindu , buddist , sikh or jain etc .

These dharmic religions have to no prior written marriage codes unlike Muslim , Christians , so only after indian Independence a marriage code was formulated and it was only named Hindu marriage act for ease of nomenclature .


since you brounght of the caste issue, while muslims and Christians aren't eligible for reservation , backward castes hindus and sikhs have access to reservation quota since there is the issue of casteim in most dharmic religions . Mazhabi sikhs still suffer casteism of forward caste jatt Sikhs

PS: India is also called Hindustan doesn't mean every indian is automatically becomes Hindu religionist.

 

[mr42O]

lol ops i did it again.

No wounder u are so dumb. Has this news any thing do with how many sikhs live in Pakistan ??? And u havnet said one word about the actual news woundring why hmmm....

According to wiki, theres only under half a million sikhs in Pakistan, around 300k.

which is hardly much to boost about having Sikh marriage act.

What the hec, even small England, thousands of miles away from heartland of Punjab, has more Sikhs then whole of Pakistan.

 

[Tshering22]

^^^^^^^ Bal and Raj Thackery

Sidhu bhai, both of them are hated by Marathis themselves. They give the state a bad name and they give a bad name to Hindus as well. These idiots don't know the history themselves that when Chhatrapati Shivaji fought Mughal invaders and rats, he fought it for the entire land. In fact, at the peak of his empire, he was the last king to flutter the ancient saffron flag in Delhi. His territory covered nor just Maharashtra but also parts of north and central India.

These two idiots peed in their pants when after 26/11 all people came to the streets.

Now regarding the b@$t@rds that killed innocent Sikhs, I'd say the entire effing Congress is responsible. They screwed up with us, they screwed up with Hindus, they screwed up with you and now they are trying the same game with so-called minorities that they deem are minorities.

Congress is the root cause of all shyte in our country.

 

[scrumpy]

A Sikh marriage act would be a regressive step. We don't need any more religion based divisions. We should instead put all our focus on creating a Common Civil Code.