China takes cue from Gujarat Inc

[Agnostic_Indian]

The topic of this thread had nothing to do with Gujarat riots

then let's change the topic.

 

[Bhairava]

If you are ready for French style secularism why not try for it rather than supporting Hindu fundamentalist politics ? Or do you see it as a first stepping stone towards French style secularism ?

The first step in introducing the french style secularism is shaming and weeding out the pests that abuse the name of secularism in India for their narrow political gain and vested interests. Unfortunately those pests try their level best to browbeat and discredit anyone who questions their flagrant misuse of the word secularism by decrying the criticism as Hindutva inspired fundamentalist politics.

 

[Sashan]

It means India is NOT a Hindu state. It means each and every religion can be practiced in the state. Without persecution. OR, you can be an Atheist like me without anyone trying to take a dump in your oatmeal.

This is why we have Hindu Marriage act, Muslim marriage act (whatever they are called) etc.,

The preample of the Indian constitution defines India as secular. Secularism itself means freedom to practice whatever religion, so that word does not require explicit definition. Its like saying - India is a socialist country. Define socialism. Thats retarded, doesnt make sense.

Preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

So dont come here and spew some Hindu crap on me. I personally consider religion itself to be the banal of human society. But atleast am okay with people's beliefs, not go around like a moron with a safron turban taking down mosques and churches.

Religion should NEVER and I repeat NEVER be allowed to affect governance. This is what I am worried about when I see people like Modi.

You need to understand the background on the secularism in India. Different laws for different religions were used by Britian since 1800s as part of the divide and rule policy to rule India. Once India attained independence, India still followed that policy of different laws for different religions. While the hindu laws(under which the Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains come) has been refined several times starting with 1954 to modernize it, Christian laws were deemed modern and so were not touched but the muslim law was not changed at all as Nehru felt it is too early to reform the laws. Subsequently any attempt to modernize that law were opposed by the muslim mullahs and fundamentalists. Case to point - the Shah Bano case. Again there is an opposition to the RTE act as they feel it will be detrimental to the Madrassa education.

My question is if laws of some religions are modernized while laws of some religions are controlled by a private body(AIMPLB) where mullahs rule the roost, does it constitute secularism?

And the word secular itself was inserted into the constitution in 1976 and is just a preamble.

 

[Bhairava]

You mean women and children in Ahmedabad, in Vadodara, in the districts can be killed because they belong to the same community? Could you just confirm that this is what you mean?

Unfortunate reality of the world we live in. It sure is a cruel place. And more saddening fact is that the fanatics did not even think of the repercussion when they were toasting alive the 59 pilgrims who were mostly women and children.

Could you also confirm that killers are no longer responsible for their actions? Does this mean the convicts of Naroda Patya should have walked free?

This is the third time I'm asking you. I dare you to point just one post where I defended the convicts. Defending one who is still not convicted, on the golden principle of Innocent until proven guilty, does not mean you go defending the lawfully convicted.

You just said that someone who conducts medical work, without even preaching or converting, can be burnt alive, along with his infant sons.

Again, can you confirm that this is your position?

That is a white lie. Why would anyone kill someone who was doing just good ? Just out of the blue ? Something does not add somewhere.

And if he was not killed for conversions, then most certainly it was due to some personal enmity between Dara and Staines which again blunts the charge that it was motivated due to religious hatred and intolerance. It could be for any number of reasons not necessarily motivated by religious hatred. Checkmate.

BTW if people like those white lady continue standing inside a temple and condemning those idolators to eternal hellfire as I showed before, then sure the locals would be enraged. The solution is banning these goras from coming on religious visas except for pilgrimages to India.

 

[ironman1]

there is no justification for killing of innocents . what happened in gujrat was shameful, but that shame started with muslims burning sabarmati express , thereafter they did not allow firefighters to reach the affected spot . nobody can justify that carnage . but did anybody blaming modi , blamed those 3000 muslims who took part in sabarmati carnage ? no , none !

what i believe is that those 3000 must have been put in jail for life immediately and rest of violence would not have happened !

regret and forgiveness is a two way street . let the muslim community come in front asking for forgiveness for sabarmati massacre , trust me hindus will do the same and more !and before somebody asks "why muslims first: well sabarmati was first incident , wasn't that ." but that's not gonna happen ! so end it !

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

The first step in introducing the french style secularism is shaming and weeding out the pests that abuse the name of secularism in India for their narrow political gain and vested interests. Unfortunately those pests try their level best to browbeat and discredit anyone who questions their flagrant misuse of the word secularism by decrying the criticism as Hindutva inspired fundamentalist politics.

what makes you think weeding out mullah politics and replace it with Hindutva politics will bring' secularism ',a principle which does not suit with either of the ideology.


Why not stand for the true secularism from the beginning ? Or do you thing reclaiming demolished temples before independence(in the era of kings ), banning cow slaughter , advocating ram rajya, all this part of French style secularism ? How exactly will your Hindu politics will bring real secularism when the ideology you are using itself is against the true secularism ?

 

[mfreak]

Many such questions. Unfortunately no answers. So my question to you - what is secularism ? Is what is practised in India, secularism ?

Minorities need to be given special privileges. This has nothing to do with lack of secularism. You cannot hold Muslims to the same standard as Hindus for example. Most muslims live in really poor conditions.

Therefore yes minority privileges are needed. Because if they didnt have privileges, then they would obviously be run over by the majority.

 

[Sashan]

Modi need to come clean with the supreme court cases. No question about that. But will it shut the shrill voices of the "secular" brigade who conveniently kept/keeping quiet about Sikh Pogrom and the perps are dying a natural death without having to go through the same scrutinization that Modi is going through/will go through? And what about the justice for the 250 Hindus killed in the riots?

 

[Sashan]

Minorities need to be given special privileges. This has nothing to do with lack of secularism. You cannot hold Muslims to the same standard as Hindus for example. Most muslims live in really poor conditions.

Therefore yes minority privileges are needed. Because if they didnt have privileges, then they would obviously be run over by the majority.

How is that giving special privilege in terms of practising some law where muslim women will not be accorded equal rights or the muslim children not provided the compulsory education(not the Madrasa education) help the muslims?

 

[Bhairava]

what makes you think wedding out mullah politics and replace it with Hindutva politics will bring' secularism ',a principle which does not suit with either of the ideology.

Again, to one (not necesarily you) who thinks the current version of 'secularism' is the true secularism, views like mine would only seem like Hindutva politics.

I have not so far said one line that in a future Indian state, the Hindus must be given an exalted position, just because they are Hindus. So how come it it becomes Hindutva politics ? Opposing the blatant sucking upto the Muslims and xtians in the name of secularism does not constitute Hindutva politics

Why not stand for the true secularism from the beginning ? Or do you thing reclaiming demolished temples before independence(in the era of kings ), banning cow slaughter , advocating ram rajya, all this part of French style secularism ? How exactly will your Hindu politics will bring real secularism when the ideology you are using itself is against the true secularism ?

Certain historical mistakes have to be corrected for a long term solution. Brushing them under the carpet does not miraculously make them go away. The dirt just keeps accumulating under the carpet and one fine day explodes on your face. And they must be done with the full consent of the both the communities. Do you think Dec 6 would have happened if the Muslim leaders had agreed to peacefully handover the RJ site in return for a grand mosque elsewhere ? I myself would have contributed to the building of the mosque in whatever way it was possible. No they did not and things came to their natural conclusion. I will not be lying if I said that Hindu mind does harbor some grudge towards the past injustices committed, its most sacred places desecrated,demolished and to top it all mosques built on top and it wants them to set be right. Not by asking for a blood sacrifice, but peaceful and mutually agreed upon things that go a long way in giving a sense of closure and increases the trust between the communities.

Ram Rajya in the sense justice would be upheld even if its the King's wife who is under suspicion. Give it the name booba bear Rajya and I could not give a damn.

Let go of the words and concentrate on the ideas.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Minorities need to be given special privileges. This has nothing to do with lack of secularism. You cannot hold Muslims to the same standard as Hindus for example. Most muslims live in really poor conditions.

Therefore yes minority privileges are needed. Because if they didnt have privileges, then they would obviously be run over by the majority.

There you are wrong my friend, there is no justification for religion based reservations, quota ,special treatment. Yes in the case of SC/ST they needed it , how much did they improve today, how long they need it ? should be studied and decision should be made accordingly.

 

[Bhairava]

Minorities need to be given special privileges. This has nothing to do with lack of secularism. You cannot hold Muslims to the same standard as Hindus for example. Most muslims live in really poor conditions.

Therefore yes minority privileges are needed. Because if they didnt have privileges, then they would obviously be run over by the majority.

No I dont think so. Considering the fact the demand for special privileges on account of being a minority was the one which led to Partition. I don't want a Partition V2.0. One Indian, one vote and no special privilege for being a minority. And a 160 million population is hardly what you call a minority.

BTW so you are saying some Indians are more equal than the others, solely on account of their religion. This has EVERYTHING to do with secularism (or the lack of it).

BTW read the points i listed carefully - it has absolutely nothing to do with the upliftment of the poor Muslims.

 

[mfreak]

No I dont think so. Considering the fact the demand for special privileges on account of being a minority was the one which led to Partition. I don't want a Partition V2.0. One Indian, one vote and no special privilege for being a minority. And a 160 million population is hardly what you call a minority.

That is a simplistic view. Partition also had a lot to do with the Muslim thought process about their past history, especially about the part where they ruled India before the British. So lets not go there.

When you compare 160 million with about a Billion, then yes they are minorities. And they need to be given special privileges, cuz they are mostly poor. The problem with equality is, that not all are equal or are treated as such. Thats the problem. So some need to inevitably be given special privileges.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you feeling cheated that the Hindutvadis did not jump to defend the convicted thus depriving you of a golden opportunity to berate them and shattering your mental portrait of a Hindutvadi ? Are you feeling frustrated that they are not doing a "shower-rose-petal-act" on the convicted so that you could castigate on them ? Are you feeling duped by these Internet Hindus for their silence when all you expected was a cacophonous defensive rhetoric so that you could pounce on those unsuspecting parrots baring your 'secular' fangs ?

I suspect so. It seems you want them to react so that you can go all diwali guns blazing.

Hello! Please to note, one of your own, was jumping up and down, saying there was no way Modi was getting sent to prison.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you as usual putting words into someone's mouth. I dare you to point at one post where I defended Babu ?

<sigh>

It's not about you. Try to understand,the sun doesn't come out in the morning just to warm you up. Look at what I wrote.