What's new

Mounting fury over religious discrimination by the Hindu majority in India

Not fair. You are trying to change the subject.

----

Just Say the Link title. I don't want to reply on that ....:tongue:

WHAT R U SAYING??? i am not changing the topic i am just adding more fuel to the fire in the topic... i am proving how the Hindus r showing discrimnation....:hitwall::hitwall::blah:
 
WHAT R U SAYING??? i am not changing the topic i am just adding more fuel to the fire in the topic... i am proving how the Hindus r showing discrimnation....:hitwall::hitwall::blah:

I can add Rocket Fuel to the topic. But I will not. It wont be fair.
 
....

Ok fateh71 as for ur OPINON whatever u say is ur opinon its not there in the LAW saying ohh why didn't DALITS convert to Islam or Christianity well my friend u think ur religion is right and i might think mine is wouldn't everyone just convert simple its just a spirtiual thing and people converting 1000years well its purely a CHOICE...but WRITING SUCH NONSESNE IN CONSTITUION ARTICLE OF A SECULAR STATE makes me wonder why a SECULAR country even needs to put such an article in the constituion!!

To constitutionally outlaw discrimination :hitwall:

thats absolutely allowed for a secular state.

We are a secular state, we will remain so, eat your heart out :lol:
 
India is a secular state and it shall remail that way. All of these people, at least most of them, who are trying to porove otherwise as from countries who them selves are not secular. India is not a religious state and her laws are not based on religious grounds. India is the most religious country but not a religious state. Pakistan is a religious state and her many laws are based on religious grounds and it's not a shot against Pakistan, That's just what Pakistan was formed on. India has many flaws, i will be the first one to admit that but no saffron hard line hindu party can just gain power and chage it's laws. The UPA government lasted for more than 3 years from support fomr left and they might evne lead third front in seats in next election. So basically if do the math and give expected seats to each front, there I believe 4 now, BJP and nor the Congress party will form the goverment without the support from other front(s). Secularism and Democracy at it's best.

Newton's law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I believe you can apply this law to Indian election and politics as well. If there are many communal forces, and yes there are in India, there are also forces who working hard to make and keep India a secular state.
 
Is is legal to pray in a Mosque which has Idols in it ?

There were idols in the mosque? Can proove that with credible source?

PS: Do not direct us toward VHP website or something similar.
 
WHAT HALAL THING...AND WHY IS THERE NO SUCH THING IN PLACE FOR MUSLIMS????:blah::blah:

Because nobody is going into muslim masjids in india and trying to convert muslims away right there. if they do, it will become a law and order problem too and govt will have to stop that too.

if its happening, muslims can also petition the govt and the christian chief minister of andhra pradesh will also have to regulate the activity of christian missionaries in mosques. simple.
 
Sharvan no where in BABRI masjid did we have Idols and secondly ur so called secular stete is completely bias by not killing that guy called BAL THACKREY for actions that hurt a whole community within ur SECULAR INDIA.....and i also sent u a link saying ONLY HINDUS ALLOWED IN HINDU TEMPLES...another proof why such rules exsist only for HINDUS and not for muslims or christians....a SECULAR COUNTRY should have freedom of religion...and we PAKISTANIS r not secular but dont have such LAWS....


and please let me tell u try and convert as many muslims as u want into whatever u want when the christians did it it was called being missionaries and were symbol of heroism

FATEH71 like i said i don't care if INDIA is SECULAR or not my point is that facts are there to prove that INDIA is not secular and i stated them...simple now if u want to believe them or not that is ur choice cuz all u talking is JIBBRISH taking cheap shots....

1) india tries to portray secularism from outside but behind the indian drama is a true FACE OF HINDUISM...facts have been provided by me
 
Sharvan no where in BABRI masjid did we have Idols and secondly ur so called secular stete is completely bias by not killing that guy called BAL THACKREY for actions that hurt a whole community within ur SECULAR INDIA.....and i also sent u a link saying ONLY HINDUS ALLOWED IN HINDU TEMPLES...another proof why such rules exsist only for HINDUS and not for muslims or christians....a SECULAR COUNTRY should have freedom of religion...and we PAKISTANIS r not secular but dont have such LAWS....


and please let me tell u try and convert as many muslims as u want into whatever u want when the christians did it it was called being missionaries and were symbol of heroism

FATEH71 like i said i don't care if INDIA is SECULAR or not my point is that facts are there to prove that INDIA is not secular and i stated them...simple now if u want to believe them or not that is ur choice cuz all u talking is JIBBRISH taking cheap shots....

1) india tries to portray secularism from outside but behind the indian drama is a true FACE OF HINDUISM...facts have been provided by me

:) ok its obvious you can't follow a civilised dialogue. the simple case of people spreading abrahmic religions inside hindu temples is denial of freedom of worship to hindus is difficult for u to see :)

and yes u do care if india is called secular. all the secular world calls us secular. only religious bigots have a problem with our secularism. its obvious where the problem is :lol:

and ur FACTS ave been answered adequately. i even asked u to prove some of your assertions, but u opted out. so tata.
 
@zob
do you know who was the chief architect of the indian constitution?
Dr. B.R Ambedkar...a dalit.
 
toxic puss u r a loud sounding nothing what is ur point i gave u the STANCE OF UR GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION THAT U ASKED FOR....now what r u talking about u said give me a fact that the government of INDIA is discriminating... i did now what do u want....and whatever ur poster kid nonesense little puss please throwing crap at me and calling me names doesn't make u a better or higher man... i am not revising my stance i am still sticking to the FACT that stop calling INDIA SECULAR it is out right a HINDU STATE!!! simple nothing more nothing less....
No, mr hypocrite, you haven't come close to providing any evidence of discriminatory Govt. policy. You have just copy pasted someone's rant, without actually understanding what he is getting at.

1: Constitutional Discrimination

Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." India’s constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it defines followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Article 25 (2) (b) (Explanation II) states: "the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion…"

Isn’t this the concern of Brahmin establishment to allow or disallow whoever they deem fit to enter a temple? Why should a secular state be concerned with the social welfare of only one religion? The motive of the constitution writers was obvious: to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.
This is by far the most twisted interpretation of Article 25(2) that I have ever come across. First lets see what is there in Article 25(2):

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.​

First thing that one would notice is that, Article 25(2), Explanation I specifically provides constitutional protection to their religious symbol of carrying kirpans. No other religion enjoys such protection of their symbols as the Sikhs do. The author doesn’t let the reader have a clue about this. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.

Second, the author, true to his intellectual dishonesty, edits the later part of the Explanation II, so that it is easier for him to make his point. The explanation actually ends up defining “Hindu religious institutions” as Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religious institutions as well. The Explanation II reads:

“In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

The author tried to score some very cheap points here, by suppressing the complete text of the Article and then editing it at will, and finally disingenuously interpreting it as an attempt “to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.” If anything, Article 25(2), actually empowers the GoI to interfere with the religious institutes belonging to not only Hindus, but Sikhs, Jainas and Buddhists, to ensure social welfare.

In any case, Explanation II to Article 25(2)(B) is indeed, a controversial one, not for the reasons, the author has tried to portray, but because it clubs other religions within the same bracket as Hindus. A commission, Justice M N Venkatachalian Commission, has proposed to do away with the said explanation and word the Article itself as:

“Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of these religions"

Pathetic attempt. Really. This Article is not a proof of deliberate Govt. policy of discrimination. Because this Article 25(2)(b) doesn’t infringe on anybody’s right to religious practice. If anything, it is an issue of identity.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to

(a) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any person domiciled in the territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

In other words, legally there is no such thing as a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh marriage, which is another attempt to deny other religions a distinctive identity and absorb them in the Hindu fold.
Another fail. Some salient features of Hindu marriage act.

  • At the time of marriage, neither party shall have any living spouse, thereby prohibiting polygamy and polyandry. Also, this protects the right of existing spouse, in case s/he is being cheated.

  • Prohibits intra sapinda marriages, unless custom or usage so allows.

  • It has a specified age for bride (not below 18 years of age) and groom (not below 21 yrs of age)

  • Section 7 states that, “A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.” Given that the word "Hindu" includes, Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists, this gives freedom to all such communities to hold ceremonies according to their customs.

  • Compulsory registration. Needed for administrative purpose.

  • Provides bases for divorces, e.g. if the spouse converts, or adultery etc.
Which part appears to you as deliberate discrimination against minorities. Oh wait. The name part. Isn’t it.

Again, it is all about identity, not about restrictions on ones right to religious practice.

The Office of the Registrar General that conducts the decennial census enumerates anyone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi as Hindu, most particularly in tribal areas, in pursuance of a policy of Hindu by default to inflate the religious majority.
Lies. If you had ever bothered to look at any of India’s census report, you would have known that the population data is broken down in terms of religion and data is presented separately for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains. The accusation of the author is purely speculation.

Article 290A of the Constitution, which was added in 1956, provides for Kerala state funds to be paid for the upkeep of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories of former princely state of Tranvancore. What state but a denominational one would spend government funds to promote a particular religion?

[As an aside, a forest has been destroyed in arguing for a uniform civil code as opposed to Muslim Personal Law and the issue of Haj subsidy. But perhaps I can save those issues for a full discussion at a different time]
Careful what you wish for. Haj subsidy is something that also qualify as spending of “government funds to promote a particular religion.”
Although freedom of religion is granted under the constitution’s Article 25 (1), a Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation during the heyday of Nehru in 1954. Since then as many as 7 state legislatures (Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tripura) have passed laws severely restricting conversion from Hinduism to other religions while facilitating conversion to Hinduism.

In 1982, when a few hundred Dalits embraced Islam in Meenakshipuram, the central government took measures to curb conversions. No less than Indira Gandhi characterized conversions as a threat to national security.
There is no anti-conversion law that prohibits voluntary conversion, because that would be un-constitutional – a direct infringement of right to religious practices. All anti conversion laws are aimed at prohibiting conversion through deceit. Deceit, in any case, is a criminal offence as per CrPC.
Christian missions and churches have been under attack since decades, often with state complicity as demonstrated in August-September 2008 in Orissa and Karnataka.

Hundreds of mosques are in illegal possession nationwide including in New Delhi, where scores are occupied by the central government.

It was a Congress government that first locked up the Babari Mosque in 1949 by court order effectively converting it into a Hindu temple. What began under Nehru was successfully completed by Narasimha Rao in 1992 through the Mosque’s destruction under the very nose of army, paramilitary and police. It is ironic that the Indian state is ready to deploy army to flush out Sikh insurgents from Golden Temple and Muslim rebels from Charar-i Sharif, but not protect Babari Mosque from the Hindu mobs’ jack hammers.

The states of Gujarat and UP spent government funds to rebuild the Somanatha Temple around the same time when Babari Mosque was locked up. It was President Rajendra Prasad who inaugurated the rebuilt temple in 1951 amidst official fanfare.
Again, all these are failure of governance on the part of Central or State got.. Nothing, what so ever, to do with deliberate discriminatory policy of the government.

Nice try, but epic fail.
 
Last edited:
Why is the constituion not defining what A HINDU is? please clarify that...
Because Hindu is a blanket term for hundreds of different schools of thought which are all based on the concept of dharma. Thus you have saivites, vaishnavites, lingayats and the followers of Prarthana on one hand and Arya and Brahma Samaj on the other.

You would have known that already, if you had taken your time out from your busy schedule of India bashing and had the decency of learning about something that you want to bash.
 
ok about HAJ subsidary...

Politics of Haj

there is nothing in ISLAM about HAJ subsidary... it just another drama to get muslim votes...and my QUESTION about BAL THACKREY AD NARINDER MODI being out and about is still not answered my friends....

as for religion well i didn't want to bring it up but ASHOKA was a HINDU until the battle of KALINGA where he got tired and just stoppd it all and turned towards budhism...and he made the lrgest HINDU empire ever that is why the EMBLEM of india is bsed on his empire!!!


Fateh please tel me what had u asked me 2 prove??? i asked u something and u gave me alot of BLA BLA BLA BLA and took cheap shots by calling me names bu ohh well truth is bitter... bt u wanted a law in the constitution and i gave t 2 u nw u can interpret it as wish

noreligion in the world should be srpead by force and tht is a fact and ISLAM cannot beand has not een spread by force....so please spare me ur grade 2 childish claims of islam being spread in HINDU TEMPLES by force if we wated to do so we could have done it i the MOGHUL era.... as for HINDUS the CONRESS came to power in 1935 till 1939 and carried out such atrocities that only after looking at the true HINDU face of india DID the formation ofpakistan resolution get passed!!!! INDIA is HINDU state

all ur mssiles are named after hindu warriors...PRTHVI after PRTVI RAJ CHUAHN...ANI GOD OF FIRE...TRISHULWAS THE WEPON CARRED BY ONE OF HE GODS....ad NO THESE R TOO MUCH OF A coincidence to be jut SANSKRIT WORDS!!!

i kno this is my opinon just the way ur interpretation of the ARTICLE was a hindu interprtation. waitlet me give u more
 
Last edited:
Employment Discrimination

Article 16 (2) of the constitution prohibits discrimination in public employment on religious grounds. Yet there are numerous examples of outright discrimination. Per Presidential orders of 1950 and 1956 the beneficiaries of Scheduled Castes’ reservation can only be Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists but not Christians and Muslims. If an SC changes religion after obtaining employment or admission to school, he or she must forfeit job and withdraw from school as has happened in numerous instances. But if the SC reverts to Hinduism, he or she can resume his/her status as an SC as courts have ruled.

Discrimination in Army

Right after 1947, Kashmir’s predominantly Hindu army was absorbed in the national army; whereas Hyderabad’s largely Muslim army was disbanded, rendering nearly 20,000 jobless. The Indian army’s infantry regiments are still based on religion (Sikh regiments), or ethnicity (Gorkha) or caste (Rajput) or region (Garhwal) in which members of other faiths, ethnicities, and regions are barred.

While a bearded Sikh may become chief of the army staff as did Gen. J.J. Singh, a Muslim may not sport beard in any of the armed forces. Only Jhatka is served in army messes and langers forcing Muslims to become vegetarian. A Hanuman temple greets visitors upon entering virtually every cantonment in the nation, hinting non-Hindus that they don’t belong there. In their public addresses to the soldiers and officers, at least two army chiefs—Generals B.C. Joshi and Shankar Roy Chowdhury—have used references to Hindu scriptures to the exclusion of the Quran and the Bible.
 
sorry boys trut hurts accept it.....all i am saying is INDIA is not SECULAR.
 
Back
Top Bottom