What's new

Did Two Nation Theory Die in 1971 After Creation of Bangladesh?

@Oscar, hope you get over this soon.

I have my own set of responses ready in my mind, but it will take a little while to reach you. I have reached my destination, after 1400 + kms by train, and 200+ by car, but will need a day or two more to settle in - it's bitterly cold and my main luggage is yet to come.
 
For the sake of discussion, will an India with constitutional equality to muslim minority affect two nation theory???

Yes we all know about Indian constitutional guarantees that have no effect whatsoever ....

Irom Sharmila’s ‘attempted suicide’ enters 14th year, democracy’s murder 56th
None of her demands are even remotely anti-India, despite the fact that one cannot wish away strong anti-India sentiments in all of the North East. She is demanding what the Indian constitution guarantees to all its citizens in the first place. Equality before law is the bedrock of her non-violent protest, longest in human history. All she is asking for is an end to the culture of impunity, writes Avinash
Pandey

New Age – November 11, 2013

IROM Sharmila Chanu’s story is a bizarre, almost schizophrenic, tale of absurdities. It has a woman who has not eaten a morsel for a full 13 years. It has a state that has kept her incarcerated for most part of all these years and is force-feeding her through a tube in her nose. The fast has wasted her body from within. It has caused her to stop menstruating. Medical reports indicate severe damage to many of her internal organs.

Nothing of this, though, moves the state that claims to be the largest democracy of the world. Not even on the date when she entered fourteenth year of her fast this year. She had started her fast on November 5, 2000, after personnel of the Assam Rifles had shot dead 10 civilians waiting at a bus stop in Malom, Manipur. None of the rogues in uniform responsible for the massacre were punished. Thanks to the impunity provided to them by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958, none of them would ever get.

The act, imposed in Manipur since 1980, gives even a non-commissioned officer of the security forces a statutory right to kill with impunity on mere suspicion. The act, first enacted by the British colonialists, is an obvious negation of all that a democracy stands for and, therefore, doesn’t deserve a place even in the statues books of India. And there it is, invoked on Indian citizenry with all the horrors it entails. Needless is to say that horrors include murder of democracy as a state can only be democratic or undemocratic, nothing in between. This is why Irom, while going on the fast, wanted nothing more than the act getting repealed.
None of her demands are even remotely anti-India, despite the fact that one cannot wish away strong anti-India sentiments in all of the North East. She is demanding what the Indian constitution guarantees to all its citizens in the first place. Equality before law is the bedrock of her non-violent protest, longest in human history. All she is asking for is an end to the culture of impunity. She is asking the Indian state to respect the law of the land instead of invoking draconian colonial laws over a section of its own citizenry. Is any of that demand illegal?

She wants the cessation of mindless violence inflicted on people of the North East, Manipuris in particular. She wanted an end of the culture of impunity that lets security personnel get away with everything from extrajudicial executions, abductions, torture including custodial rape and extortions. She wants to snatch her people back from the dehumanised existence that the ruthless cycle of self-reinforcing violence has condemned them into.

The government of India, however, would have none of it even while conceding that AFSPA has got some real serious problems. The problems are so serious that Justice JS Verma Commission, formed after the brutal Delhi Gang rape that shook the conscience of the nation, would recommend taking sexual offences committed by the security personnel off the impunity provided to them by AFSPA. They would be serious enough to make Omar Abdullah, chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, demand its revocation and P Chidambaram, the then union home minister, promise to revisit it.
The moves, though, are almost always scuttled by the army. Senior army officers like Lt General BS Jaswal would assert that AFSPA is pious to ‘entire Indian Army and the government will bow down into inaction’. Unfortunately, no one would ask exactly when the secular democracy that India is did turn into a theocracy to take recourse of religious language.

So the state will not listen to Irom. It needed not as Manipur has never caught the imagination of powers that may in Delhi. It was just an outpost in the past. Now it’s even worse of, a disturbed area to be reined in by brute force. Now it’s a no brainer that military understanding of ‘controlling’ a troublesome population on the peripheries of the nation inherently involves sexual assault as a weapon. It is precisely for this reason that the state would provide the personnel of Assam Rifles with condoms as an integral part of the travel kit to be used while on patrol duty, forget reining in the sexual predators in their uniforms.

The state had not bothered to listen to Irom for a full six years by the time the elderly mothers of Manipur would have had enough of the assaults and go to the headquarters of the Assam Rifles, disrobe themselves and hoist a banner reading ‘INDIAN ARMY RAPE US’ on its iron gates. State would not listen to them as well. It would let security forces kill Sanjits, Rubinas, Manorama Devis and countless others. It would not even blink at the reports of 1500 fake encounters. It would not until the Supreme Court would take up the issue and find all six randomly chosen ones for investigations to be really fake and order a probe by the National Human Rights Commission, a measure too little and too late.

The state, meanwhile, will criminalise the conscience keeper and would arrest Irom for ‘attempting suicide’, a criminal offence under the law of the land. Irom would be an unlikely offender though, one respected by even the judge who would eventually put her on trial. ‘I respect you but the law of the land does not permit you to take your life,’ is what Akash Jain, metropolitan magistrate of a Delhi court, would meekly admit while ordering to frame charges against 40-year-old Irom under section 309 (attempting to commit suicide).
She had pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charges against her. ‘I love life. I do not want to take my life but I want justice and peace’ is what she had told the court. ‘I do not want to commit suicide. Mine is only a non-violent protest. It is my demand to live as a human being,’ she had then calmly added. She assured the state that she would eat, again, if AFSPA is revoked. The court, as expected, told her that the issue of revocation of an Act is a question of a ‘political process’ whereas it was concerned only with the ‘individual case’ it was dealing with.

The fast, therefore, would continue. So would atrocities committed on hapless citizens by the Indian armed forces. What no one would think about, though, is that not listening to sane voice of peace and harmony can merely give way to an unending circle of violence. More and more actors, both state and non-state, would join the fray that gives huge, unaudited dividends to all concerned while inflicting unimaginable miseries on common people. The number of armed insurgent groups, commonly known as the underground, would proliferate with the corresponding suspicion of the state. The suspicion would lead to everything, from harassment to extrajudicial executions. The anger against the same would get new recruits to the underground.

The democracy would still not listen to Irom. It would not lend a sympathetic ear to the people it claims of being its own. It would keep Irom incarcerated while respecting her. If only it knew that Irom, perhaps, is its last chance at peace. It cannot win a war against its own people unless winning their hearts. Treating them as lesser, and unreliable, citizens is not going to let that happen. India would better save Irom, one of its worthiest daughters following in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation. India, therefore, can begin with accepting just, and absolutely legal, demand of Irom instead of defending murderers and rapists in uniforms.

The democracy would better remember that even the British colonials didn’t let Mahatma Gandhi starve to death. Period.

http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2013-11-10&nid=72415#.Un7ncvnI2So
 
Yes we all know about Indian constitutional guarantees that have no effect whatsoever ....

Irom Sharmila’s ‘attempted suicide’ enters 14th year, democracy’s murder 56th
None of her demands are even remotely anti-India, despite the fact that one cannot wish away strong anti-India sentiments in all of the N..........

I could have replied posting similar pointless instances of social injustice with pakistan unified and later, instead I will chose to discuss....
May be I jumped the gun here,
for understanding the premise of the discussion, Do you know what constitutional equality means???

Just because African americans in US are among the deprived section, doesn't mean it is facing constitutional inequality, Social equality takes generations to catch up for significant chunk of population even in developed country like US, then it is understandable that minorities in India despite the most comprehensive affirmative action program will take a sizeble amount of time, especially due to the size of population and poor HDI...

But that said it will eventually happen when there is no social
misalignment among the minorities, so are you suggesting that social equality among india's minorities negates the two nation theory??? If so isn't constitutional equality the premise for social equality


In India does a any political section denied it's constitutional rights even if wins fair majority as seen in pakistan??? does Indian constitution disallow candidature for office based on religion afflilations?? Does Indian constitution enact bindings on lawful citizens to force them to lead there lives as second class citizens?
 
Last edited:
I could have replied posting similar pointless instances of social injustice with pakistan unified and later, instead I will chose to discuss....
May be I jumped the gun here,
for understanding the premise of the discussion, Do you know what constitutional equality means???

Just because African americans in US are among the deprived section, doesn't mean it is facing constitutional inequality, Social equality takes generations to catch up for significant chunk of population even in developed country like US, then it is understandable that minorities in India despite the most comprehensive affirmative action program will take a sizeble amount of time, especially due to the size of population and poor HDI...

But that said it will eventually happen when there is no social
misalignment among the minorities, so are you suggesting that social equality among india's minorities negates the two nation theory??? If so isn't constitutional equality the premise for social equality

In India does a any political section denied it's constitutional rights even if wins fair majority as seen in pakistan??? does Indian constitution disallow candidature for office based on religion afflilations?? Does Indian constitution enact bindings on lawful citizens to force them to lead there lives as second class citizens?

Constitutional equality is denied to some minorities in India to serve the purpose of constitutional majority. The fact that Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not given a separate religious status through application of Indian constitutional clause enacted through Article 25 of Indian Constitution presents ample proof in this regard.

Constitutionally, India’s Prime Minister is a Hindu and not a Sikh as Sikhs by law are considered as part of Hinduism. Not only that, even Buddhists and Jains are considered as off-shoot of Hinduism and are not accepted as followers of separate religions.

Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949, clearly states that:

“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”

Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949

The Indian Supreme Court in a ruling of 2005 also states the Sikhs and Jains form part of broad Hindu religion.

Jains, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC

New Delhi, August 10 [2005]

In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional frame work, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies, a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation

Whatever the reasoning given by Indians to justify this anomaly; the Sikhs also signed the constitution and thereby agreed to this explanation or these religious streams are part of Dharmic or Indic religions etc etc, it remains as aberration. One can quote certain other inequalities as well but this would suffice to prove the point.
 
Constitutional equality is denied to some minorities in India to serve the purpose of constitutional majority. The fact that Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not given a separate religious status through application of Indian constitutional clause enacted through Article 25 of Indian Constitution presents ample proof in this regard.

Constitutionally, India’s Prime Minister is a Hindu and not a Sikh as Sikhs by law are considered as part of Hinduism. Not only that, even Buddhists and Jains are considered as off-shoot of Hinduism and are not accepted as followers of separate religions.

Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949, clearly states that:

“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”

Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949

The Indian Supreme Court in a ruling of 2005 also states the Sikhs and Jains form part of broad Hindu religion.

Jains, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC

New Delhi, August 10 [2005]

In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional frame work, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as separate minority communities from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies, a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation

Whatever the reasoning given by Indians to justify this anomaly; the Sikhs also signed the constitution and thereby agreed to this explanation or these religious streams are part of Dharmic or Indic religions etc etc, it remains as aberration. One can quote certain other inequalities as well but this would suffice to prove the point.
Something's burning. And it certainly ain't mine. :D
Hinduism is no religion. The name is given by foreigners. It is a convenient terminology. Like calling 'Hindustan' does not mean the country 'belongs' to 'Hindus' only. In some threads we see folks from across the border shouting that we have no religion and even the name is given by them(!!!). And now we hear this - got to say, this gets hilarious at times. Make sure you stick to a particular narrative. Otherwise we hardly even feel the need to refute.
In reality it won't be bad (and incorrect) to consider all Indians as Hindus - irrespective of their faith. Faith is personal, culture is universal. Consider a garland of asymmetrical flowers - each are different, yet form a part of the whole. That's India. Difficult to grasp and believe. But it survives. :)
 
@assr

There should be no place in the Indian Constitution for any laws based on any religious affiliation, hindu or muslim, sikhs or jain or buddhist or christian. In the eyes of the law, everyone is (or should be) simply an Indian.

It is no coincidence that different level playing fields exist based on religion only because of the Muslims. Otherwise the rest of India is perfectly comfortable looking at the provisions and institution of a Common Civil Act that would be binding on and representative of all Indians.
 
@assr

There should be no place in the Indian Constitution for any laws based on any religious affiliation, hindu or muslim, sikhs or jain or buddhist or christian. In the eyes of the law, everyone is (or should be) simply an Indian.

It is no coincidence that different level playing fields exist based on religion only because of the Muslims. Otherwise the rest of India is perfectly comfortable looking at the provisions and institution of a Common Civil Act that would be binding on and representative of all Indians.


Notwithstanding that I am Pakistani, I deeply respect and admire Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar who converted to Buddhism as a protest against the caste system and was posthumously awarded India’s highest civil award ‘Bharat Ratna’

The paragraphs pertaining to Fundamental Rights and Right to Freedom of Religion in the Indian Constitution; particularly under part III articles 14 -25 are admirable indeed.

Whether these are actually put in practice or will remain part of the Constitution in their current form if BJP can manage 2/3 majority is another matter.
 
Something's burning. And it certainly ain't mine. :D
Hinduism is no religion. The name is given by foreigners. It is a convenient terminology. Like calling 'Hindustan' does not mean the country 'belongs' to 'Hindus' only. In some threads we see folks from across the border shouting that we have no religion and even the name is given by them(!!!). And now we hear this - got to say, this gets hilarious at times. Make sure you stick to a particular narrative. Otherwise we hardly even feel the need to refute.
In reality it won't be bad (and incorrect) to consider all Indians as Hindus - irrespective of their faith. Faith is personal, culture is universal. Consider a garland of asymmetrical flowers - each are different, yet form a part of the whole. That's India. Difficult to grasp and believe. But it survives. :)

Please tell this to the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists that they are Hindus and not Sikhs, Jains or Buddhists. You may also like to inform the Buddhist predominated countries in South East Asia that they are not Buddhists but Hindus.
 
OP you should have asked me before opening this long thread

anyway its not too late and the answer is "Yes it did", now lets get back to discussing problems at hand
 
@assr

There should be no place in the Indian Constitution for any laws based on any religious affiliation, hindu or muslim, sikhs or jain or buddhist or christian. In the eyes of the law, everyone is (or should be) simply an Indian.

It is no coincidence that different level playing fields exist based on religion only because of the Muslims. Otherwise the rest of India is perfectly comfortable looking at the provisions and institution of a Common Civil Act that would be binding on and representative of all Indians.

In that case, please change the Indian constitution. 
Notwithstanding that I am Pakistani, I deeply respect and admire Dr.Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar who converted to Buddhism as a protest against the caste system and was posthumously awarded India’s highest civil award ‘Bharat Ratna’

The paragraphs pertaining to Fundamental Rights and Right to Freedom of Religion in the Indian Constitution; particularly under part III articles 14 -25 are admirable indeed.

Whether these are actually put in practice or will remain part of the Constitution in their current form if BJP can manage 2/3 majority is another matter.

It is article 25 that states that Sikhs, Jain and Buddhists are Hindus. How can this be admirable when the basic right of a human to chose a religion is denied in such a manner. You may have a re-look please.
 
Whether these are actually put in practice or will remain part of the Constitution in their current form if BJP can manage 2/3 majority is another matter.

Sir no political party is bigger than the Constitution of India.

And both the Congress as well as the BJP, not forgetting the Left and the so-called Third Front, have proven time and again that they are not an Opposition without teeth or a spine.

Last but not the least, you forget the People of India.

India is Secular and has remained secular because the People of India have wanted to be secular. Otherwise the Constitution would have gone down in history and forgotten and discarded as yet another Utopian dream written by one from an Ivory Tower (or a dalit trench as in this case).

That such was not the case should reassure you that the fundamentals of India are stronger than the misguided leanings (if at all) or individuals or institutions that make up the whole.

It is all about balances and counterbalances, and if anything, the BJP today is the lesser of the two evils in terms of dirty communal politics. Commeth the hour commeth the man.

It is for the man to seize the hour.
 
Please tell this to the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists that they are Hindus and not Sikhs, Jains or Buddhists. You may also like to inform the Buddhist predominated countries in South East Asia that they are not Buddhists but Hindus.
I am least bothered whether you call me an animist, pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain etc. It does not matter. What religion I may associate you with may be of paramount significance to you, but not to me. Since I don't give much of a fcuk, I prefer to exercise that practise wrt to others. But yes, I can go ahead and claim that they are Dharmic. Trust me, I won't be killed for blasphemy. :omghaha:
 
What's the big deal really. Before Christianity and Islam came, most of Asia was Dharmic.

No one has an issue with one's past except a certain section of people.
 
What's the big deal really. Before Christianity and Islam came, most of Asia was Dharmic.

No one has an issue with one's past except a certain section of people.

And what did people practice before the Dharmic aspect came to fore. 
I am least bothered whether you call me an animist, pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain etc. It does not matter. What religion I may associate you with may be of paramount significance to you, but not to me. Since I don't give much of a fcuk, I prefer to exercise that practise wrt to others. But yes, I can go ahead and claim that they are Dharmic. Trust me, I won't be killed for blasphemy. :omghaha:

You may instead be killed for slaughtering a cow. We all have demons hidden somewhere, don't we. 
Nope, that is not the answer. More divisions. Come on man ....

The answer is Uniform/Common Civil Code, which the Muslims are resisting.

Like I said - change your constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom