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

[doppelganger]

And what did people practice before the Dharmic aspect came to fore.

We have always been Dharmic. This is the cradle of the Dharmic way of life that spread over most of Asia.

Like I said - change your constitution.

We will. When all of us are ready. That's what a democracy does. Evolves by consensus.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This reply of yours is a thoroughly wrong reply, because it doesn't point out the central purpose and objective of Article 25. Pointing that out would show up the ridiculous and utterly ignorant outlook of the person who thought it gave him a handle to abuse India, Indians and the Indian constitution.

Article 25 stipulates that temples should not be barred to worshippers. This is the purpose of that Article, and not what is stated by various vain nincompoops with a hunger for publicity that overcomes the inhibitions due to ignorance.

What has excited him, wrongly, is the reference to the article referring to certain religions being included in the act's reference to Hindus.

The references were to Hindu worshippers and to Hindu temples. In order to ensure that other places of worship were not insulated by wicked old custom, an explanation was added on, that the reference to Hindus included a reference to other religions other than the Abrahamic ones. The reference included a clear reference to the Sikh religion, insofar as their practice of carrying kirpans is concerned, but our budding genius overlooks this minor detail.

Quite typical of him. Ignore his misguided attempts at profundity and stick to the posts of eminences like Oscar and Niaz.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And what did people practice before the Dharmic aspect came to fore. 


You may instead be killed for slaughtering a cow. We all have demons hidden somewhere, don't we. 


Like I said - change your constitution.

Why should I slaughter a cow? It has not committed any offence, has it? It has also not proved his stupidity in public fora.

 

[doppelganger]

This reply of yours is a thoroughly wrong reply, because it doesn't point out the central purpose and objective of Article 25. Pointing that out would show up the ridiculous and utterly ignorant outlook of the person who thought it gave him a handle to abuse India, Indians and the Indian constitution.

Article 25 stipulates that temples should not be barred to worshippers. This is the purpose of that Article, and not what is stated by various vain nincompoops with a hunger for publicity that overcomes the inhibitions due to ignorance.

What has excited him, wrongly, is the reference to the article referring to certain religions being included in the act's reference to Hindus.

The references were to Hindu worshippers and to Hindu temples. In order to ensure that other places of worship were not insulated by wicked old custom, an explanation was added on, that the reference to Hindus included a reference to other religions other than the Abrahamic ones. The reference included a clear reference to the Sikh religion, insofar as their practice of carrying kirpans is concerned, but our budding genius overlooks this minor detail.

Quite typical of him. Ignore his misguided attempts at profundity and stick to the posts of eminences like Oscar and Niaz.

Sir by lower life forms like us engaging even lower life forms, we allow exalted ones like you and Niaz sir and Oscar to spread the light of your wisdom unencumbered.

Of course the base motivations are not overly altruistic as there is not insignificant visceral pleasure to be had in doing so. Cathartic even.

 

[Bang Galore]

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.

You should read up on the basic principles doctrine & only then argue.

 

[scorpionx]

In that case, please change the Indian constitution. 


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.

The explanation of clause 2.b says the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion also. Do you have a comprehension problem?

 

[Nassr]

This reply of yours is a thoroughly wrong reply, because it doesn't point out the central purpose and objective of Article 25. Pointing that out would show up the ridiculous and utterly ignorant outlook of the person who thought it gave him a handle to abuse India, Indians and the Indian constitution.

Article 25 stipulates that temples should not be barred to worshippers. This is the purpose of that Article, and not what is stated by various vain nincompoops with a hunger for publicity that overcomes the inhibitions due to ignorance.

What has excited him, wrongly, is the reference to the article referring to certain religions being included in the act's reference to Hindus.

The references were to Hindu worshippers and to Hindu temples. In order to ensure that other places of worship were not insulated by wicked old custom, an explanation was added on, that the reference to Hindus included a reference to other religions other than the Abrahamic ones. The reference included a clear reference to the Sikh religion, insofar as their practice of carrying kirpans is concerned, but our budding genius overlooks this minor detail.

Quite typical of him. Ignore his misguided attempts at profundity and stick to the posts of eminences like Oscar and Niaz.

Joe, here is the Article 25 of Indian constitution. Please read it in full before you mislead even your own people by resorting to selective narrations and denying the reality.

Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to 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 subsequent quotes are from Sikh web sites. And you as an Indian need to satisfy your own citizens instead of attacking me or others who are only projecting the truth as observed from within India.

Sikhism is the most simple and straightforward religion, but it is a tragedy that various vested interests have tried to misinterpret the philosophy of Sikhism. The Hindu elite have, since long, been trying to define Sikhism as an offshoot of Hinduism because, according to them, most of the Sikhs have/had their roots in Hindu families. The Indian regime too is bent upon labelling the Sikhs as a branch of Hinduism. Sikhs have not been granted independent identity in the Indian constitution.. Due to this the Sikh representatives had rejected and refused to give their assent to it.

The Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims

During British rule, Britishers recognized the independence and sovereignty of the Sikh religion. When Britishers decided to leave India they recognized three parties for transfer of power i.e. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Sikhs opposed partition. Hindus accepted partition. Sikhs sided with Hindus as they did not want further bisection of Indian sub-continent. Sikhs lost fertile lands and prosperous business. More than half million Sikhs lost their lives during the violence of partition. It is a great tragedy and treachery that after gaining power Sikhs were ill-treated by Manuvadis. Rulers forgot the gesture of Sikhs for siding with Hindus during the crucial hour of Partition and unprecedented sacrifices made by them during freedom struggle. Indian Constitution was framed in such a manner that Sikh religion lost its independence and Sikh religion was subjugated to Hinduism and Hindu laws were made applicable to the Sikhs. In a strict legal sense, there is no Sikh religion and Sikhs are a sect of Hinduism or reformed Hindus.

There were two Sikh representatives in the Constituent Assembly of India which framed Constitution. Both the Sikh members refused to sign the Draft Constitution on the plea that Article 25 is anti-Sikh, unjust and communal. Despite this democratic protest this contentious article was adopted. Constitutions are framed to prescribe parameters for law makers for safe guarding the interests of minorities and to check majoritarianism. But Indian Constitution eradicates a minority. Sikhs are opposing and protesting against this controversial piece of legislation right from 1950 when Indian Constitution was adopted.

Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh


Jains, Sikhs part of broader Hindu religion, says SC
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, August 10
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 

The explanation of clause 2.b says the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion also. Do you have a comprehension problem?

What I do not understand is why these communities could not be accepted as followers of a separate religion as all other countries of the world does, except India. These communities themselves say that they are not Hindus. Why not grant them this privilege instead of highlighting the not so insurmountable problems that are associated in doing so. It indeed is surprising. 

Sir by lower life forms like us engaging even lower life forms, we allow exalted ones like you and Niaz sir and Oscar to spread the light of your wisdom unencumbered.

Of course the base motivations are not overly altruistic as there is not insignificant visceral pleasure to be had in doing so. Cathartic even.

It will take you a lifetime before you can express yourself like Joe Shearer despite his occasional pejorative incontinence.

 

[Nassr]

We have always been Dharmic. This is the cradle of the Dharmic way of life that spread over most of Asia.



We will. When all of us are ready. That's what a democracy does. Evolves by consensus.

Please learn to evolve by consensus rather than deny by consensus through majority prerogative.

 

[Joe Shearer]

"Pejorative incontinence" apart, your assumption that I have not read my own Constitution is amusing, to say the least. And your further assumption that Article 25 declares Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists to be the same as Hindus is truly bizarre.

Please read the passage that you yourself have reproduced once again.

The Article is about entry to temples by Hindus. It was inspired by the Travancore legislation which sought to ensure entry into a place of worship by all members of the religion whose place of worship it is.

The Explanation II says simply this: that whatever applies to the Hindu religion and practitioners of that religion applies equally to followers of the Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist religions. Please note the reference to followers of the Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist religions. It clearly states that those are separate religions, so where do you get the Borg-like absorbtion that you are so delightedly alarmed at?

About the Sikh web-sites, most of those are maintained and written by a truly brain-damaged microscopic minority within the Sikh community, not by responsible people. I suggest that you study the Sikh scriptures first, and come to your conclusions about the Khalsa from those studies, rather than relying on these addled self-proclaimed experts that you seem to prefer to read. More: go to a gurdwara - take care to select one with a good singer - and listen to the beautiful songs that they sing. If you cannot get it even then, ask another person to translate those A religion that sings to Govinda clearly carries a lot of theological baggage.

 

[Nassr]

Urdu mein isko kehtay hein chiragh talay andhera. Your Supreme Court says that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are a sub sect of Hinduism as these have been part of Hinduism.

There is bill pending in your Lok Sabha since long, moved by Sikh members to declare them a separate religious entity.

Khwamkha ki baatein mat karo.

 

[niaz]

In that case, please change the Indian constitution. 


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.

It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.

Here is Article 25.

Quote

25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health

and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are

equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right

freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation

of any existing law or prevent the State from making

any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,

political or other secular activity which may be

associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the

throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a

public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans

shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the

Sikh religion.

Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the

reference to 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

Unquote.

From the explanation I understand that what applies to Hindus will also apply to Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists. You interpret as “Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists are Hindus”. You choice.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The two nation was flawed from the start and holds no water today when Muslims in India are, on the whole, prospering, BD is a separate country and the Muslims in Pakistan are at war with each other.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Hindus and Muslims lived together for a thousand years and continue to live together in India even today. Its not like the Pakistani or Bangladeshi muslims have any achievements to show that would justify that their separation from hindus gave them any real benefit, other than mental satisfaction.

Having said that, muslims, when in power were very happy to live with hindus but when they felt they would be a (slight) minority in a hindu majority state, they got the chills. Shows that two nation theory is basically some muslims having low self belief and confidence and always seeking comfort in numbers. In that sense, that theory is very much alive today.

It is strange how different people can extract different meaning out of the same text.
Here is Article 25.
Quote
25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health
and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation
of any existing law or prevent the State from making
any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be
associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans
shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the
Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the
reference to 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
Unquote.
From the explanation I understand that what applies to Hindus will also apply to Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists. You interpret as “Sikhs, Jain & Buddhists are Hindus”. You choice.

Any person with a smattering of legalese or common sense can tell that the article specifically states that all those religions are distinct religions, I've highlighted that part for the willfully blind. I mean its written there in plain English. But one can only take the horse to the water...

 

[SQ8]

Having said that, muslims, when in power were very happy to live with hindus but when they felt they would be a (slight) minority in a hindu majority state, they got the chills. Shows that two nation theory is basically some muslims having low self belief and confidence and always seeking comfort in numbers. In that sense, that theory is very much alive today..

Please go through my posts earlier. I would disagree with that contention vehemently.

 

[jaunty]

I have a simple question for the advocates of TNT. If a minority group in Pakistan today wants to apply TNT and demands for a separate nation on the basis that they can't live with the majority, would you allow them to form one? Where does one draw the line?