Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[Hermione]

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.

Interesting choice of words. That is exactly what we will be required of you when you are asked to give up certain ideas/identity.

 

[Dillinger]

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.

A tree with a crooked nose, although she did have a pair of HUGE cajones on her you have to admit.

Listen you, buff is my second love so no need to preach to me.

Interesting choice of words. That is exactly what we will be required of you when you are asked to give up certain ideas/identity.

Only in one case the "greater whole" is defined clearly by the articles which gave birth to the republic of India and ergo cannot be equated to any notion of religious or cultural identity which is not so defined in de jure terms.

 

[Puchtoon]

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.

So if madhya pradesh finds it better to leave india ,it will leave ? its just about interest ?

 

[Hermione]

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.

Then you can bet there are no secular countries out there and we are definitely not secular nor do we seem to care much about being one. Let us say the word "secular" is a mere decoration in our constitution brought about by a romance with a term we neither understood nor was applicable to our society.

 

[Dillinger]

So if madhya pradesh finds a better to leave india ,it will leave ? its just about interest ?

Obviously..if the day comes that a certain region feels that they can do without the union of India certain factions in said state might attempt secession..which would be illegal as per the constitution and would necessitate action up to armed suppression of said movement. An union is freely joined but much like any legal contract it cannot be freely breached without repercussions.

 

[Roybot]

A tree with a crooked nose, although she did have a pair of HUGE cajones on her you have to admit.

Listen you, buff is my second love so no need to preach to me.

.

To be honest I can't even tell the difference

 

[Hermione]

Only in one case the "greater whole" is defined clearly by the articles which gave birth to the republic of India and ergo cannot be equated to any notion of religious or cultural identity which is not so defined in de jure terms.

That greater whole is the Hindu religious and cultural identity which gave birth to the republic of India. There was no need for any of those Hindu Kingdoms or populace to join the union if it was to be made clear to them that their dearest beliefs had no place in the country they were going to form.

 

[Dillinger]

Then you can bet there are no secular countries out there and we are definitely not secular nor do we seem to care much about being one. Let us say the word "secular" is a mere decoration in our constitution brought about by a romance with a term we neither understood nor was applicable to our society.

To you perhaps..unfortunately your opinion is not as important as the words clearly worded in the constitution till the day said word is amended out. Unless you are now asserting that as a citizen of this nation you are willfully going to insult its constitution in part or whole.

 

[Hermione]

Only in one case the "greater whole" is defined clearly by the articles which gave birth to the republic of India and ergo cannot be equated to any notion of religious or cultural identity which is not so defined in de jure terms.

It has already been interpreted as such by our supreme court. Hindutva was considered the saar, the essence of what holds India together.

 

[Dillinger]

That greater whole is the Hindu religious and cultural identity which gave birth to the republic of India. There was no need for any of those Hindu Kingdoms or populace to join the union if it was to be made clear to them that their dearest beliefs had no place in the country they were going to form.

Funnily enough those "Hindu kingdoms" didn't join up because they were told their Hindu beliefs would be respected..the joined thanks to one particular person's valiant actions after the British cleverly stated that the princely states would have free reign to join or not join the Union of India. Is a history lesson in order? And still one looks for a de jure demarcation of the Hindu identity along the lines of the Indian identity as defined by the charter of this nation.

It has already been interpreted as such by our supreme court. Hindutva was considered the saar, the essence of what holds India together.

And yet no one bothered to delineate said identity as a binding criterion for being Indian in enforceable terms.

 

[Puchtoon]

Obviously..if the day comes that a certain region feels that they can do without the union of India certain factions in said state might attempt secession..which would be illegal as per the constitution and would necessitate action up to armed suppression of said movement. An union is freely joined but much like any legal contract it cannot be freely breached without repercussions.

and hence no nationalism exist,its just about interest,thanks for sharing your view, I rest my case :|

 

[Dillinger]

To be honest I can't even tell the difference

Honestly neither can I but then its not exactly possible to walk into Salt water grill and ask them to replace the beef with buff now is it...

 

[Hermione]

Funnily enough those "Hindu kingdoms" didn't join up because they were told their Hindu beliefs would be respected..the joined thanks to one particular person's valiant actions after the British cleverly stated that the princely states would have free reign to join or not join the Union of India. Is a history lesson in order? And still one looks for a de jure demarcation of the Hindu identity along the lines of the Indian identity as defined by the charter of this nation.

That one person was Sardar and he was a Hindu leader make no doubt about it. It was the trust between him and the kingdoms that lead to the union.

 

[Dillinger]

and hence no nationalism exist,its just about interest,thanks for sharing your view, I rest my case :|

Oh my..what else do you think nationalism is..consider that all nations in the world are the amalgamation of regions on the basis of common interest smoothed over by some pretext or another.

 

[VeeraBahadur]

@Dillinger

Secular country.

New York police surveillance of Muslims constitutional: judge