What's new

India’s PM to attend temple groundbreaking at disputed site

You do not have any respect for GODs or their places?
God is not in a Temple, it is only a place of worship as soon that's why Hinduism didn't go down with the destroying of the temple. They thought, invading temples and destroying idols will make people convert to Islam as it worked with those pagans in the ME.
 
correction not church a museum, No person was killed no violence and no local worshiper or guards were kill no property was damaged.
Where are you martyred masjid killed guards and worshipers and locals , then your supreme court forcefully gave it to the offenders to build their temple wah re Bharat.
If justice is not served we will erase katas raj oldest hindu shiv ji temple here. Then you all will have tearful eyes.

Any killing and violence in islamic turkey is done by the state. Christians are just 0.2% of turkey, they know better than to protest and be killed.

The only person who was killed during the demolition of "Masjid e Janamsthan" was a lone hindu who died when the collapsing structure fell on him. LOL at your LIES. Not that we expect anything better from your kind.

SC in fact did not address the very core issue of "right to religion" of the Hindus in its judgement and thus failed the Hindu community for the sake of muslim appeasement.

LOL at you for threatening to keep the Katas raj temple as a hostage to your evil desires :lol:

I am only surprised it has survived for this long. I expect it to be destroyed anyway in a few years.

God is not in a Temple, it is only a place of worship as soon that's why Hinduism didn't go down with the destroying of the temple. They thought, invading temples and destroying idols will make people convert to Islam as it worked with those pagans in the ME.

Wrong. A temple is literally a "house of god" where God resides.

Hindus go to temple to "meet" god in his home and pay respect.
 
Any killing and violence in islamic turkey is done by the state. Christians are just 0.2% of turkey, they know better than to protest and be killed.

The only person who was killed during the demolition of "Masjid e Janamsthan" was a lone hindu who died when the collapsing structure fell on him. LOL at your LIES. Not that we expect anything better from your kind.

SC in fact did not address the very core issue of "right to religion" of the Hindus in its judgement and thus failed the Hindu community for the sake of muslim appeasement.

LOL at you for threatening to keep the Katas raj temple as a hostage to your evil desires :lol:
Many people were killed when hindus attacked the masjid.

We don't want to keep any thing hostage just respect Islamic historic monuments as we are keeping safe hindu sacred historic temples here.
 
Many people were killed when hindus attacked the masjid.

We don't want to keep any thing hostage just respect Islamic historic monuments as we are keeping safe hindu sacred historic temples here.

It was a ram temple in the shape of a masjid and NO ONE except Hindus used it for the last 50 years. So, NO, NO ONE was killed when that structure was demolished. (except 1 hindu)

LOL at your claims of "respect" and "keeping hindu temples safe" :lol: ........ find me ONE person in the word outside pakistan who will believe you :lol:
 
It was a ram temple in the shape of a masjid and NO ONE except Hindus used it for the last 50 years. So, NO, NO ONE was killed when that structure was demolished. (except 1 hindu)

LOL at your claims of "respect" and "keeping hindu temples safe" :lol: ........ find me ONE person in the word outside pakistan who will believe you :lol:

Go to punjab ask sikhs they will tell you about it , only then may be you give-up your delusions.
 
Go to punjab ask sikhs they will tell you about it , only then may be you give-up your delusions.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...ve-in-delhi/story-D3RWJD4X4fTWaLVxfBpCAL.html

_a5e4c5da-cf50-11ea-98f0-14dc794b6a99.png
 
"secularism" was NEVER part of the Indian constitution until Indira Gandhi FORCIBLY inserted in into the constitution during EMERGENCY , when the entire opposition was in JAIL.

Even after that, "secularism" itself is NOT DEFINED in the constitution.

But it has come to mean every communal act of appeasement is now called "secularism". It has now come to mean Hinduphobia and moral cowardice.





Who are you to declare someone else's Understanding "misplaced" ?

It takes a certain amount of Hubris just to make that claim.




A "State religion" is not a "religious state".

It is pure rubbish to claim other religions were denied equal space especially since a host of other religions actively sought refugee and thrived when they were denied space in other abrahamic societies.

Jews, zorashtrians, syrian Christians, Tibetan buddhists, Ahmedias, Jains, sikhs, Bahaits etc.

Arjun Appadurai OTOH is a well known Hinduphobic American colonialist who claims postcolonial identity is created through globalization. This while the US is actively denying visa and entry to people from colonial pasts.




RUBBISH. A secular state merely has to provide equal space to all religion / non religion and practices. To be secular there only needs to be no specific laws favoring the Hindu majority, nor can the Government control the expression of Hinduism.

Napal has learn from the sabotage of Hindu identity and secularism in India. It has now clearly defined its own secularism as " religious and cultural freedom, along with the protection of religion and customs practised from ancient times'.

There is little doubt what that means for the ancient Dharmic religions.




This too is a LIE perpetuated by those who seek to pervert secularism to make it act communal.

There was a lengthy debate in the parliament on this very topic when the constitution was being formed and Dr. Ambedkar was very clear on this topic.

On 15 November 1948 at the Constituent Assembly debate in Parliament, a member, Prof K.T Shah from Bihar moved an Amendment to the original Preamble statement. He insisted that the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist” be inserted into the statement. In a detailed reply, BR Ambedkar justified why he did not include the words “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble:

Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social (secular) and economic (socialist) side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.

Then Ambedkar remarked, “The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous.”





In a Hindu majority country, when things go wrong, the blame should rightly be put on the Hindus for their moral cowardice, laziness and dishonesty.

But that does not excuse the muslims for their communal behaviour and past which in turn

Andhadhun/Gadkari/Whatever has written a lot, but none of it is either relevant to the points nor is it even remotely intelligent. Most of it, is a cover, once again, to bash Muslims and Islam. This is what happens when bhakts google up words like "secular" and "appeasement" and try to fit then into every scenario.
 
LOL.... you need an "article" for this ? :cheesy:

There are at least 10,000 mosques in India which are built over Temples and their only claim to that property is "adverse possession"

Turkey just converted a church called Hagia Sophia into a mosque citing "adverse possession".


They’ve only changed its usage and not destroyed hagia Sofia . Hardly comparable to what you people do.

In India mobs running around razing down Indian Muslim structures. As a act of worship.

Turkey Hagia Sofia in future can easily be turned back to its original status.

10,000 Indian Muslim masjid’s you quoted ... lol that will never be enough for you backward Apes ....
 
Last edited:
Andhadhun/Gadkari/Whatever has written a lot, but none of it is either relevant to the points nor is it even remotely intelligent. Most of it, is a cover, once again, to bash Muslims and Islam. This is what happens when bhakts google up words like "secular" and "appeasement" and try to fit then into every scenario.

You want Bhakt's to search words like Secular but Islam itself by definition is un-secular.
No other religion has absurd concept like Kafir.
 
What's the best article/analysis you have come across for this?

The best legal articles are from Gautam Bhatia. There are also other articles available on LiveLaw and BarandBench that you can read by other various authors.

There is also an addendum that I wish to add. The judgment has also established a judicial precedent where flagrant violations of the rule of law by the majority (or anyone powerful) is rewarded and minorities are simply compensated for such violations. In other words, I can grab your prime land in Mumbai and give you land in Mumbra as compensation. Tell me how many people will sign up for such a legal system?
 
You want Bhakt's to search words like Secular but Islam itself by definition is un-secular.
No other religion has absurd concept like Kafir.

You don't seem to be well versed in either religion or secularism. Therefore, such comments come as no surprise.
 
You want Bhakt's to search words like Secular but Islam itself by definition is un-secular.
No other religion has absurd concept like Kafir.

Why is it absurd? Islam was born to replace Idol worshiping Kafirs.

Islam is a more modern religion than any other religion.

How long will you keep following your primitive religion with archaic practices?
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom