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

[Spring Onion]

The basic idea is that state and religion should not be combined. There are various examples from the history in the middle ages through out the world.
One reason is Religion brings a mythical being called GOD and try to show him as the 'cause and effect" for the bad things happen to the society. But rational and progressive constitution makes people think in a right way to address the issue.

Religion creates a parallel power structure which often contradicts with state affairs.

So the idea of separating state and religion is a good one, faith is between GOD and human. However people are free to practice their beliefs. Majority people follow Hinduism so it is natural for Hinduism to grow along with rise of India, so the idea that religion is being oppressed is not correct.

There is a sudden rise in Bhakti movement and people are building biggest temples and are also donating to religious cause.

The biggest religious organization RSS sees people of India as culturally Hindu and they encourage muslim youth as well.

If the Hindu organizations wants to spread their faith they have to do it within the constitutional guidelines.

in a DEMOCRACY you can NOT bar a religious person or an organization from contesting election and ruling if wins.

So this separating XYZ from the state is flawed in itself.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Fulfilling dreams of quaid-e-azam....

BTW, shiv sena was the one who were beating Hindi speaking people in Maharashtra, and now Modi is promoting Hindi at national level and Shiv Sena is not saying a word. They will come to line on Secularism as well which is one of the main ingredient in our constitution. But currently it is more minority appeasement rather than secularism.

 

[doppelganger]

Fulfilling dreams of quaid-e-azam....

BTW, shiv sena was the one who were beating Hindi speaking people in Maharashtra, and now Modi is promoting Hindi at national level and Shiv Sena is not saying a word. They will come to line on Secularism as well which is one of the main ingredient in our constitution. But currently it is more minority appeasement rather than secularism.

Shiv Sena were not beating people for speaking in Hindi. But that will unnecessarily side track the discussion. Just wanted to clarify that it has nothing in common with an anti Hindi bent.

 

[Srinivas]

in a DEMOCRACY you can NOT bar a religious person or an organization from contesting election and ruling if wins.

So this separating XYZ from the state is flawed in itself.

If they get elected they will take an Oath on "India Constitution" he has to follow Constitution. It is the Indian constitution that makes him an elected representative. If he wants to amend anything he has to do it in Parliament through parliamentary process.

Democracy has that flexibility to address the flaws. Flaws appear all the time, reason why those many amendments.

 

[Spring Onion]

If they get elected they will take an Oath on "India Constitution" he has to follow Constitution. It is the Indian constitution that makes him an elected representative. If he wants to amend anything he has to do it in Parliament through parliamentary process.

Democracy has that flexibility to address the flaws. Flaws appear all the time, reason why those many amendments.

Indeed so why cant a religious elected group amend the constitution with majority vote required under the same constitution.

 

[Srinivas]

Indeed so why cant a religious elected group amend the constitution with majority vote required under the same constitution.

Because Majority have tolerance and also know that "unity in diversity" is the right way to keep the country united, which comes from the teachings they receive.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Whether the word secular remains on the preamble or not is irrelevant, India will always be a secular nation because the constitution mandates that. It is now deemed part of the basic structure of the constitution that cannot be touched.

has there been no amendment to the constitution? is it the same since the day of its inception?
would the option of the MODified Indians on the web swing if Modi gives an indication of approving what RSS or Shive Sena or whatever is demanding?

And that was on the anticipation of wide spread genocides, crimes, downslide of economy, tainted relationships with countries like US, Russia, China, chaos, political stalemates, rising of armed Hindu militants etc.

But what they saw was exact opposite..

which means nothing wrong with Shiv Sena's demands right?

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Shiv Sena were not beating people for speaking in Hindi. But that will unnecessarily side track the discussion. Just wanted to clarify that it has nothing in common with an anti Hindi bent.

ok..will have that discussion later on..dont want to troll either..

but i was also thinking for long, why shiv sena has not created anything notorious for so long..they were like back benchers out of lime light and now they got the ammunition...

Kuch nahin, 1-2 din ka halla hai....sab chup ho jayenge....

 

[Razia Sultana]

Na nau mann tel hoga, na radha nachegi.

 

[doppelganger]

ok..will have that discussion later on..dont want to troll either..

but i was also thinking for long, why shiv sena has not created anything notorious for so long..they were like back benchers out of lime light and now they got the ammunition...

Kuch nahin, 1-2 din ka halla hai....sab chup ho jayenge....

Bro Shiv Sena is now the junior partner, even in Maharashtra. You are witnessing a true saffronization of India. Wait for 2016. Better things to come.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

saffronization

shhhh...dont say that word so loud....not allowed..ssshhh..

 

[doppelganger]

has there been no amendment to the constitution? is it the same since the day of its inception?
would the option of the MODified Indians on the web swing if Modi gives an indication of approving what RSS or Shive Sena or whatever is demanding?

which means nothing wrong with Shiv Sena's demands right?

The point, explained many times before in this very thread, is that the Constitution in its original form already guaranteed the right to religion to all citizens.

There was no need to add the word Secular.

Hence nothing would really be lost by removing the word Secular either.

shhhh...dont say that word so loud....not allowed..ssshhh..

Bhagwa-ization. Better?

 

[sandesh kumar]

Then what Obama hinted, will become true(dis-integration).

Gandhi and Nehru promised special treatment to Muslims if they stayed back. That's an unfulfilled promised.

shut up man. you need mental treatment not special treatment.

 

[Bang Galore]

has there been no amendment to the constitution? is it the same since the day of its inception?
would the option of the MODified Indians on the web swing if Modi gives an indication of approving what RSS or Shive Sena or whatever is demanding?

All changes to the constitution are subject to the basic structure doctrine. Certain characteristics of the constitution are regarded as being untouchable which means no amendments will be allowed regardless of whatever majority one may produce. The preamble can be changed (as it was) if one produces a 2/3rd majority but the essence of the constitution cannot be changed regardless of majority and secularism has been explicitly pronounced as being part of the basic structure.

I can assure you that given a big enough majority (which modi's current government is near to), they can attempt to both amend the constitution and also bully the courts into accepting it. BJP has that strain, especially under modi. The most nefarious thing they can do is make the amendment and unleash a debate in the SC for 50 years (like the Ram Janma Bhumi case). By the time the final revision comes, ground realities may change.

@Bang Galore - read above post and think about the 'it is easy to convert into hindu rashtra state' I made.

Constitutional amendments need 2/3rd majority in both houses which this government cannot get but even if they did, would be still subject to basic structure doctrine. That is settled law.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

All changes to the constitution are subject to the basic structure doctrine. Certain characteristics of the constitution are regarded as being untouchable which means no amendments will be allowed regardless of whatever majority one may produce. The preamble can be changed (as it was) if one produces a 2/3rd majority but the essence of the constitution cannot be changed regardless of majority and secularism has been explicitly pronounced as being part of the basic structure.






Constitutional amendments need 2/3rd majority in both houses which this government cannot get but even if they did, would be still subject to basic structure doctrine. That is settled law.

Well one hopes they'll never manage it. It most definitely for their lack of trying though.