Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[Puchtoon]

Only issue there being that Turk is an ethnicity while Hindu isn't.

That's you view and you can have that :|

 

[Dillinger]

Let us say we will have to keep a watch on you then. People who do not assimilate or hold contempt for people of his land, generally turn out to be troublemakers one way or other.

I see..so we are now to be a state which imposes upon its people what to believe, eat, wear and how to behave (even within the remit of the law)...oh my...

That's you view and you can have that :|

Enhh..no..that's a fact unless you think that Hindu is an ethnicity..I wan't aware that a Bihari was of the same ethnicity as say a Keralite.

 

[Roybot]

 

[Hermione]

I see..so we are now to be a state which imposes upon its people what to believe, eat, wear and how to behave (even within the remit of the law)...oh my...



Enhh..no..that's a fact unless you think that Hindu is an ethnicity..I wan't aware that a Bihari was of the ethnicity as say a Keralite.

Those sorts of things are always there. You cannot be a cannibal in most countries for example or if you are a streaker then you get in legal troubles. So all countries have reasonable restrictions on everything. Even behavior. Nothing new there.

 

[Puchtoon]

Enhh..no..that's a fact unless you think that Hindu is an ethnicity..I wan't aware that a Bihari was of the ethnicity as say a Keralite.

That's sub regional,we identify as a nation on the same principle as Turks ,other than that why are we a nation?why the notion of bharat exists even in 300BC ?

 

[Dillinger]

Those sorts of things are always there. You cannot be a cannibal in most countries for example or if you are a streaker then you get in legal troubles. So all countries have reasonable restrictions on everything. Even behavior. Nothing new there.

AND ergo my clearly mentioning "within the remit of the law", surely you caught that bit yes..? Such "restrictions" are placed by the law not by the sentiments of one group or another. How does this relate to acceding to the tenets of a culture?

That's sub regional,we identify as a nation on the same principle as Turks ,other than that why are we a nation?why the notion of bharat exists even in 300BC ?

Sure but then we are not a nation based on an unified ethno-centric identity...

NO! That was because a VERY IMPORTANT "TREE" "FELL"!!

 

[Hermione]

AND I ergo my clearly mentioning "within the remit of the law", surely you caught that bit yes..? Such "restrictions" are placed by the law not by the sentiments of one group or another..

If the law of the land forbids beef eating, then you are in trouble since you proclaim to be unable to live without beef right? Who makes these laws and on what basis are they formed? The religion/culture of the land. Law does not get born out of thin air. It has to be in consonance with the society.

 

[Puchtoon]

Sure but then we are not a nation based on a unified ethno-centric identity...

You can argue on the word used but there is something that binds us and that's definitely not cow .

 

[VeeraBahadur]

@Bhai Zakir , this is today's poll and Congress' alliance are well accounted in this poll results that's why they call Congres + allies = UPA

Now start crying , you are not getting any reservations.

NDA to fall just 36 short of majority: survey | Business Standard

 

[Dillinger]

If the law of the land forbids beef eating, then you are in trouble since you proclaim to be unable to live without beef right? Who makes these laws and on what basis are they formed? The religion/culture of the land. Law does not get born out of thin air. It has to be in consonance with the society.

Funny thing then that the law of the land does NOT forbid beef eating..it forbids cow slaughter and ergo most eateries import the beef..which is in legal terms absolutely legal.

Another funny thing about claiming to be secular is that laws cannot be framed on the basis of religious beliefs..that being posited by the dictionary meaning of the word "secular". Didn't I tell you that semantics is important.

You can argue on the word used but there is something that binds us and that's definitely not cow .

Obviously not..so what is it that binds us?

 

[Puchtoon]

Obviously not..so what is it that binds us?

so why are we together ,why we have such notion ?

 

[Hermione]

Funny thing then that the law of the land does NOT forbid beef eating..it forbids cow slaughter and ergo most eateries import the beef..which is in legal terms absolutely legal.

Another funny thing about claiming to be secular is that laws cannot be framed on the basis of religious beliefs..that being posited by the dictionary meaning of the word "secular". Didn't I tell you that semantics is important.



Obviously not..so what is it that binds us?

That can be amended. That is the thing about law. It is not cast in stone. Availability of any beef products can be made illegal. We do not follow the Western model of secularism in India anyways. Our model is more of Dharma Sarpekshtha.

Being an agricultural country, it wont be difficult to spin it as against the ethos of the country as well as fundamental to the survival of agriculture in this country.

 

[Dillinger]

so why are we together ,why we have such notion ?

Quite a simple answer..common interest..all our ethnic and linguistic identities cannot in isolation form a nation with the same potential as that of the nation which comprises the current political and geographical extent of India. Therefore it is in our interest to subsume said factional identities to the greater whole- ie. India/Indian. A self evident fact.

 

[Roybot]

NO! That was because a VERY IMPORTANT "TREE" "FELL"!!

Secular tree

Why all this hullabaloo over Beef. Bufallo meat is readily in India, and tastes just fine. I tried at the Chilli's, in Quest Mall Kolkata, pretty nice.

 

[Dillinger]

That can be amended. That is the thing about law. It is not cast in stone. Availability of any beef products can be made illegal. We do not follow the Western model of secularism in India anyways. Our model is more of Dharma Sarpekshtha.

Being an agricultural country, it wont be difficult to spin it as against the ethos of the country as well as fundamental to the survival of agriculture in this country.

There is no "Western model of secularism", that word has one clear meaning. You are either secular or you are not secular. When a babu gets off his haunches and claims that the first right to the resources of this nation belong to one particular community he's not being secular he's being an opportunist twit..when I say that I respect all religions I am not being secular..I am simply being equitable and tolerant. Words have meanings which should not be muddled up.

Obviously all laws can be amended..and whatever the law maybe as a loyal citizen I will have to abide whether I like it or not and whether my sentiments are in line with said law or not.