Shiv Sena wants 'Secular' word to be removed from Indian Constitution

[Spring Onion]

Then what's in it for you for us ceasing to be secular and becoming a frank Hindu state?

Chaos? Mayhem? Civil strife?

200 million honorary Pakistani soldiers implanted in India maybe?

whats wrong in becoming a a HINDU STATE ? can you state that as an Indian?

 

[doppelganger]

whats wrong in becoming a a HINDU STATE ? can you state that as an Indian?

Nothing at all.

Because I do not see any conflict in being Hindu and being Secular.

Ask our muslims how secular we are.

Then ask your hindus. And christians. And sikhs.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And it is bad?

Quite pathetic actually.

Our nation is secular NOT because one fine day two words were injected into the Consitution(in the absence of ANY Opposition) but BECAUSE it was secular IN CHARACTER to begin with.

 

[ares]

whats wrong in becoming a a HINDU STATE ? can you state that as an Indian?

Because primary purpose of a state is to treat all it citizens equally, irrespective of their faith.

Communal state like Pakistan can not do that, for preference towards to one particular community is ingrained in them, even at constitutional level .

 

[Spring Onion]

Actually If India became a Hindu state, most Pakistanis will be very glad..for it would justified of the existence of your state and would prooved the two nation theory correct.

After 60 years of our independence we do NOT to justify anything but if you are still fearing of any such justification well then you are shake-able not us.

The fact that hundred of millions of Hindus coexist relatively peacefully will with hundred of million minorities in a secular nation, does pose a big question mark to the purpose of Pakistani nation.

))))))))))))))))))))))) that is highly debatable.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Quite pathetic actually.

Our nation is secular NOT because one fine day two words were injected into the Consitution(in the absence of ANY Opposition) but BECAUSE it was secular IN CHARACTER to begin with.

And that somehow means we should not insert 'secular' in preamble because?.....

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And that somehow means we should not insert 'secular' in preamble because?.....

Because it is empty showmanship and no substance. Adding two words did not make India secular or socialist. It remained a mafia/dictatorship of the Family.

 

[doppelganger]

))))))))))))))))))))))) that is highly debatable.

What is debatable?

Hindu Muslim clash deaths in India over 67 years?

Vs

Muslim Muslim clash deaths in Pakistan over 67 years (please count Bangladeshi genocide as well)?

 

[Android]

If you go by historical experience, if BJP had a free hand for 20 years, it is possible to fundamentally change it

Depends on the mandate they have. Rightnow they have majority in Lok Sabha with 283 Seats + 18 Seats of Shiv Sena. And the way BJP is winning state elections one after other they are not much far from getting majority in Rajya Sabha too which will give them complete mandate to amend constitution on their own. Dont necessarily have to wait 20 Years for such change.

 

[Spring Onion]

Yes the phrase is not related to Govt. But Hindu organizations.

Srinivas the problem is that desis while trying to appease the west are trying to deprive the religious people of their constitutional right to adopt politics.

Me and you forget that in majority of the countries these organizations are POLITICAL in nature too or one way or the other way linked to political set-up.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Secular word was added to Indian Constitution during emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. So people who wrote the original Constitution were Sanghis and hindutavadis?

I can assure you if original consitutuion were written by Sanghis, the country would have been hellfire by now . The original constitution was very good the way we wrote it, we just made it perfect by adding secular and socialist. 'During emergency' so what? Are you suggesting that we should become an unequal society? What was done was the right thing to do, therefore it's ok.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

What is debatable?

Hindu Muslim clash deaths in India over 67 years?

Vs

Muslim Muslim clash deaths in Pakistan over 67 years (please count Bangladeshi genocide as well)?

Yes, mathematically such a ratio should clear things up. Also multiply with the ratio of population of the two countries to get a proportional picture.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Because it is empty showmanship and no substance. Adding two words did not make India secular or socialist. It remained a mafia/dictatorship of the Family.

And that somehow (lamely) says we should not include secular and socialist in the constitution because?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

perfect by adding secular and socialist

And by STILL not having a Secular Penal Code, and by turning over the Shah Bano verdict, and by adopting Capitalism and....

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Depends on the mandate they have. Rightnow they have majority in Lok Sabha with 283 Seats + 18 Seats of Shiv Sena. And the way BJP is winning state elections one after other they are not much far from getting majority in Rajya Sabha too which will give them complete mandate to amend constitution on their own. Dont necessarily have to wait 20 Years for such change.

@Bang Galore - read above post and think about the 'it is easy to convert into hindu rashtra state' I made. And @Android , starting Feb 2015, BJP's acche din is going to the cleaners.