I am sorry if I offend you in any way. I did not intend to upset you by my posts. I thought this was a discussion forum and I learn from what others comment here.
The discussion actually started when a poster commented about constitutional equality in India. There was a gentleman who stated that it was denied to minorities in India and I agreed with him. Least did I realise that the whole Indian Hindu community would go after me. They also had close air support from the eminences and the exalted ones and the deans of this forum, as Joe Shearer called them, including some Pakistani conscientious objectors.
Again I apologize for causing any offense.
Well, you obviously haven't learnt when to figure out you are wrong. Being right and being pig-headed are two different things. The Indian Constitution,
unlike the Pakistani Constitution, repeatedly and forcefully equates all citizens, of whatsoever religious background. It is only the truly dim, who are unable to navigate some of the quasi-legal syntax used, who discover strange anomalies where none exist. @
toxic_pus put it quite succinctly and correctly, well beyond the detail that I was too lazy to cite, well beyond the common sense approach that even someone demonstrated to be wiser and more perceptive than you took.
Because they are not accepted as a separate religious group by the government of India, according the edicts of Indian constitution.
As for the latest laboured attempt to inject some rationality into your stand, it stands up prominently in public view that you think that the Indian Government denies the separate religious identity of some citizens, the Sikh, Jain and Buddhist citizens, and yet asks its agency to record the separate religions.
By your logic, the separate religious status of the Sikhs - your main concern, quite noticeably, with the other two religions playing a walk-on role - and the Government not accepting them as a separate religious group is the reason why it records them as a separate religious group.
Wonderful.
Do you sometimes read what you write? Or does it emerge as one great gush of wishful thinking and embellished prejudice?
Terrific judicial acumen on display; you'll make it as a lawyer yet, maybe even make it to the bench. I look forward to reading your judgements in future, perhaps from the High Court bench in Kandahar.
There is really nothing left to say, unless one takes a line from #314, and laughs off the entire ridiculous exchange, with one lone idiot maintaining in the face of all that he has been shown that his original idiocy was right.
What a waste of time.