Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[Dillinger]

Well, we will always be the Republic of India even if we are tied down by a dictator. A Republic has nothing to do with democracy. The legal manner is dictated by parliament and not the courts. The constitution in itself is clear about the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary with neither to interfere unnecessarily in the others mandate. The constitutional prerogative of the courts is to determine whether the laws of parliament fall within the scope of the constitution. If parliament had to lawfully and with a clear majority suspend or abolish the constitution then the courts wouldn't be favored with that authority anymore. Hence, to return to the topic on hand, India can be renamed the Hindu Republic of India or even the Islamic Republic of India. All that is required is a clear will of the people to do so. That clear will means at least 75% of the electorate voting in a political party which is hellbent on changing the nature of the political landscape of India. Thus far however it seems that Indians unlike our neighbors don't believe in giving too much power to any individual or any sole political party and hence the coalition nature of Indian politics. Whilst this remains the status quo, Muslims and other minorities remain safe and sound in India

And that is exactly what I addressed, that no party, even if it had all the seats in the parliament can abolish the constitution in a de jure manner. The semantics here is VERY important. So no, a 75% majority and a hell bent populace cannot within the framework of the constitution do what you envision, they will have to shred it, which in itself would be tantamount to treason.

As for The Republic of India, my point that it would cease to exist has nothing to do with the single point agenda of democracy, simply put the The Republic of India as an entity itself has been composed out of the constitution, abolish it and the aforementioned ceases to exist even if we choose to continue calling it the same.

 

[INDIC]

Never going to happen.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

And that is exactly what I addressed, that no party, even if it had all the seats in the parliament can abolish the constitution in a de jure manner. The semantics here is VERY important. So no, a 75% majority and a hell bent populace cannot within the framework of the constitution do what you envision, they will have to shred it, which in itself would be tantamount to treason.

As for The Republic of India, my point that it would cease to exist has nothing to do with the single point agenda of democracy, simply put the The Republic of India as an entity itself has been composed out of the constitution, abolish it and the aforementioned ceases to exist even if we choose to continue calling it the same.

See, therein lies my problem. You seem to be a slave to the constitution in a similar manner to some of our friends here who are slaves to a certain scripture or the interpretations given to it by some council formed a thousand years ago. Why shred it? What if the clear will of the people wanted to amend or change the character of the constitution ? Does it remain your submission that the constitution is a holy cow not to be interfered with ?

 

[Dillinger]

See, therein lies my problem. You seem to be a slave to the constitution in a similar manner to some of our friends here who are slaves to a certain scripture or the interpretations given to it by some council formed a thousand years ago. Why shred it? What if the clear will of the people wanted to amend or change the character of the constitution ? Does it remain your submission that the constitution is a holy cow not to be interfered with ?

Yes, that is exactly what was addressed under the Doctrine of Basic Structure. If the majority of the populace, including any governing body, exceeds its rights and wishes to rebel against the state then they are traitors to the Republic and must be culled with extreme prejudice.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Yes, that is exactly what was addressed under the Doctrine of Basic Structure. If the majority of the populace, including any governing body, exceeds its rights and wishes to rebel against the state then they are traitors to the Republic and must be culled with extreme prejudice.

The doctrine of basic structure is not encompassed anywhere in the constitution. It is purely a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court and which has thus far found wide spread respect in India. It is the will of the people which gives legitimacy to the doctrine and not the will of the courts. That doctrine which is not enshrined in the constitution is subject to change by decree of the courts. I am certain that you will undoubtedly agree with me that the nature of the Supreme Court can be amended by a majority government by way of appointment of judges. Now, the doctrine prior to the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case held no sway in India. The courts generally held the view that the constitution could be amended by the legislature on a clear majority and that it was not for the judiciary to interfere in the mandate of the executive and vice versa (a view which I agree with). Thereafter, with the Minerva Mills judgment, certain parts of the constitution became sacrosanct with the courts decree of the doctrine. My earlier point being that a court appointed to disagree with the doctrine could end that disgusting doctrine's life. The sooner the better in my opinion

 

[Dillinger]

The doctrine of basic structure is not encompassed anywhere in the constitution. It is purely a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court and which has thus far found wide spread respect in India. It is the will of the people which gives legitimacy to the doctrine and not the will of the courts. That doctrine which is not enshrined in the constitution is subject to change by decree of the courts. I am certain that you will undoubtedly agree with me that the nature of the Supreme Court can be amended by a majority government by way of appointment of judges. Now, the doctrine prior to the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case held no sway in India. The courts generally held the view that the constitution could be amended by the legislature on a clear majority and that it was not for the judiciary to interfere in the mandate of the executive and vice versa (a view which I agree with). Thereafter, with the Minerva Mills judgment, certain parts of the constitution became sacrosanct with the courts decree of the doctrine. My earlier point being that a court appointed to disagree with the doctrine could end that disgusting doctrine's life. The sooner the better in my opinion

Which is also something that I addressed, that if you can get the SC to overturn its verdict then all the more power to you.

As long as that does not happen, there is no de jure procedure for countermanding said doctrine. Any person/association of persons/body/organisation seeking to do so till then have no recourse but to submit to the will of the judgement. Any attempt to change said equation through force is an act of war against the state which demands that the perpetrators be stopped and if necessary be culled, any attempt to countermand it through legislation is not legal and would be void ab initio.

For your scenario to play out all the factors that exist today must cease to exist, the ultimate consequence (within the context of the subject of this thread) of which would be that the Republic of India will cease to exist. Something else will take its place, call it whatever you will.

 

[Durrak]

That depends - devout hindus of what kind? Yes, many devout hindus will not agree. But many others, including hindu fanatics, will. Muslims and christians often take offence when they do so.

For example, LK Advani of the BJP remarked that Indian muslims are "muslim hindus" and Indian christians are "christian hindus". BJP is a hindutva party.

Savarkar, the person who started the hindu nationalist movement, and I think coined the term "hindutva", and founded the organization that became the RSS, was very much an atheist. He was arrested a few times for "militant hindu nationalist speeches".

But non hindus will mostly not agree with it, and sometimes take offence at the suggestion. Even these disagreements go to prove the point that hinduism is not one single religion, almost everybody interprets it in their own way. There may be as many hinduisms as there are hindus.

I wonder how "janani" came to mean "wife" in Punjabi, when it means "mother" in Sanskrit. If you know the word "janm", that's where it comes from - janm/janam means birth, and janani is one who gives birth. Janm means birth in Hindi as well. It's odd that janani should mean wife in Punjabi, I'd love to know how that linguistic transformation came about.


Speaking for myself, I only said that in a light hearted tone, wasn't meant to give offence.

However I believe it is true though, whether it is offensive or not.

Whether true or not it is not your duty to comment on it.

 

[janon]

Whether true or not it is not your duty to comment on it.

Not my duty, just my pleasure passtime. Commenting on PDF is not a duty for anybody, except the webby and admins.

 

[Durrak]

Not my duty, just my pleasure passtime. Commenting on PDF is not a duty for anybody, except the webby and admins.

I wasn't referring towards it, I just said it's better if you look into your problems instead of criticizing others without any reason.

 

[third eye]

what if NAMO one day declare that india is now officially Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ??? what will u do ? (after 2016)

just passed 400 posts cool !

... and you created a thread for this ?

 

[KingMamba]

Hindu Republic of India will be as shitty as Islamic Republic of Pakistan .

Speak for yourself only.

Well, the adam and eve story doesn't really withstand scientific scrutiny. Humans evolved from homo erectus.

For the second part of your post, I know it must be confusing to people who are schooled in the abrahamic faiths. Religion is a very different affair in the eastern religions. There are no single hindu rituals or customs. A hindu in Rajastan will have very different customs and rituals from a hindu in Kerala or Tamil Nadu.

It's not like there is one central book or dogma, like the quran or talmud. There is no single authority or practice. "Hinduism" was a term invented by the British, there is no "who is a hindu" and who is not. The hindu scriptures are all addressed to people in general, and you wont find the word "hindu" in any of them.

That is because like you mentioned British coined the term, before the British a Hindu meant a local of South Asia there was no real term for the religious rites of the many inhabitants who followed what we know as Hinduism today. That is why it would not be surprising for some Muslims or Christians of the time to refer to themselves as Hindu Muslim or Hindu Christian.

 

[Mike_Brando]

there is no secular republic in offical name....
official name of india is ...republic of india.....and he just asked if this could be changed to hindu republic of india...
he never asked to change the secular status as u have pre assumed.....

hmm that would be better....

Ahem Demi,the official name of India is Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India!!The words Socialist and Secular were added later through the 42nd amendment in 1976....

 

[Dem!god]

Ahem Demi,the official name of India is Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India!!The words Socialist and Secular were added later through the 42nd amendment in 1976....

India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Republic of India
Bharat Ganrajya

FlagEmblem
Motto: "Satyameva Jayate" (Sanskrit)
"Truth Alone Triumphs"[1]
Anthem: Jana Gana Mana
"Thou Art the Ruler of the Minds of All People"[2][3]


MENU

0:00
National song:
Vande Mataram
"I Bow to Thee, Mother"[a][1][3]

Area controlled by India shown in dark green;
claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green.
CapitalNew Delhi

28°36.8′N 77°12.5′E
Largest cityMumbai
Official languages

• Hindi
• English

[show]
Recognised regional languages
8th Schedule[show]
National languageNone
DemonymIndian
GovernmentFederal parliamentary
constitutional republic[1]
- PresidentPranab Mukherjee
- Vice PresidentMohammad Hamid Ansari
- Prime MinisterManmohan Singh (INC)
- Speaker of the HouseMeira Kumar (INC)
- Chief JusticeP. Sathasivam[6]
LegislatureParliament of India
- Upper houseRajya Sabha
- Lower houseLok Sabha
Independence from the United Kingdom
- Dominion15 August 1947
- Republic26 January 1950
Area
- Total3,287,590[7] km2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-9 (7th)
1,269,346 sq mi
- Water (%)9.6
Population
- 2011 census1,210,193,422[8] (2nd)
- Density377.7/km2 (31st)
978.3/sq mi
GDP (PPP)2014 estimate
- Total$5.302 trillion[9] (3rd)
- Per capita$4,209[9] (133rd)
GDP (nominal)2014 estimate
- Total$1.842 trillion[9] (11th)
- Per capita$1,389[9] (148th)
Gini (2010)33.9[10]
medium · 79th
HDI (2012)

0.554[11][12]
medium · 136th (medium)
CurrencyIndian rupee (

) (INR)
Time zoneIST (UTC+05:30)
- Summer (DST)not observed (UTC+05:30)
Date formatdd-mm-yyyy (CE)
Drives on theleft
Calling code+91
ISO 3166 codeIN
Internet TLD.in
other TLDs[show]
India (i/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Bharat Ganrajya),[13][c] is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largestcountry by area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the south-west, and the Bay of Bengal on the south-east, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west;[d] China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one more thing......

What's the country's official name?
LUCKNOW: What's the official name of our country? The RTI query on the same has stumped the union government. And, in the best possible reaction, the query has been transferred to the national archives of India (NAI). The archives will now have to rummage through the old records and find relevant documents, if any, that gave the nation its name - 'Bharat' and 'India'.

In an interesting turn of events, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Ministry of of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Culture, among which the RTI application has been circulating since the last one month, have remained tight-lipped on the query. They have neither denied that the nation was officially named ever nor have they accepted it. The departments have rather transferred the applications among themselves.

The response of NAI is eagerly awaited now. The applicant Urvashi Sharma had sought information about the official name of the country and the process by way of which the name of the country was declared by way of an RTI application from PMO on August 25.

She also wanted to know if the government, at any point of time, thought over changing the name of the country after independence? Also, if the union government gave one or two names to the country? The government was asked to provide the certified copy of the notification by which it has given the country its name.

PMO transferred the application to MHA, which, in turn, transferred it to ministry of culture. The application has now been transferred to NAI.
What's the country's official name? - The Times of India

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And that is exactly what I addressed, that no party, even if it had all the seats in the parliament can abolish the constitution in a de jure manner. The semantics here is VERY important. So no, a 75% majority and a hell bent populace cannot within the framework of the constitution do what you envision, they will have to shred it, which in itself would be tantamount to treason.

As for The Republic of India, my point that it would cease to exist has nothing to do with the single point agenda of democracy, simply put the The Republic of India as an entity itself has been composed out of the constitution, abolish it and the aforementioned ceases to exist even if we choose to continue calling it the same.

This is interesting and pretty analogous to the story of Macbeth.
If you destroy the power center(the Constitution) to usurp power, you will never sustain it.

To understand this we need to go back to 1949, when India was called Dominion of India. Only after the Constitution was adopted did we officially become Republic of India. Now what if we shred the Constitution? Two things -
i. Republic of India or the definition of India that we know currently will cease to exist automatically.
ii. Something will have to take its place, also the nation (not the state) can be named as Republic of India but that would just be semantics. So yes form a legal point of view - the Constitution is everything. And going against it is treason. Period.

So what if some other Constitution takes its place?
That would be a revolutionary change - a new state will be born, but the legal continuity or more appropriately the transition of the Republic of India to Islami jamhuriat or Martian republic etc will be questionable to say the least.

 

[Mike_Brando]

India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Republic of India
Bharat Ganrajya

FlagEmblem
Motto: "Satyameva Jayate" (Sanskrit)
"Truth Alone Triumphs"[1]
Anthem: Jana Gana Mana
"Thou Art the Ruler of the Minds of All People"[2][3]


MENU

0:00
National song:
Vande Mataram
"I Bow to Thee, Mother"[a][1][3]

Area controlled by India shown in dark green;
claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green.
CapitalNew Delhi

28°36.8′N 77°12.5′E
Largest cityMumbai
Official languages

• Hindi
• English

[show]
Recognised regional languages
8th Schedule[show]
National languageNone
DemonymIndian
GovernmentFederal parliamentary
constitutional republic[1]
- PresidentPranab Mukherjee
- Vice PresidentMohammad Hamid Ansari
- Prime MinisterManmohan Singh (INC)
- Speaker of the HouseMeira Kumar (INC)
- Chief JusticeP. Sathasivam[6]
LegislatureParliament of India
- Upper houseRajya Sabha
- Lower houseLok Sabha
Independence from the United Kingdom
- Dominion15 August 1947
- Republic26 January 1950
Area
- Total3,287,590[7] km2 (7th)
1,269,346 sq mi
- Water (%)9.6
Population
- 2011 census1,210,193,422[8] (2nd)
- Density377.7/km2 (31st)
978.3/sq mi
GDP (PPP)2014 estimate
- Total$5.302 trillion[9] (3rd)
- Per capita$4,209[9] (133rd)
GDP (nominal)2014 estimate
- Total$1.842 trillion[9] (11th)
- Per capita$1,389[9] (148th)
Gini (2010)33.9[10]
medium · 79th
HDI (2012)

0.554[11][12]
medium · 136th (medium)
CurrencyIndian rupee (

) (INR)
Time zoneIST (UTC+05:30)
- Summer (DST)not observed (UTC+05:30)
Date formatdd-mm-yyyy (CE)
Drives on theleft
Calling code+91
ISO 3166 codeIN
Internet TLD.in
other TLDs[show]
India (i/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Bharat Ganrajya),[13][c] is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largestcountry by area, the second-most populous country with over 1.2 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the south-west, and the Bay of Bengal on the south-east, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west;[d] China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north-east; and Burma and Bangladesh to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; in addition, India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one more thing......

What's the country's official name?
LUCKNOW: What's the official name of our country? The RTI query on the same has stumped the union government. And, in the best possible reaction, the query has been transferred to the national archives of India (NAI). The archives will now have to rummage through the old records and find relevant documents, if any, that gave the nation its name - 'Bharat' and 'India'.

In an interesting turn of events, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Ministry of of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Culture, among which the RTI application has been circulating since the last one month, have remained tight-lipped on the query. They have neither denied that the nation was officially named ever nor have they accepted it. The departments have rather transferred the applications among themselves.

The response of NAI is eagerly awaited now. The applicant Urvashi Sharma had sought information about the official name of the country and the process by way of which the name of the country was declared by way of an RTI application from PMO on August 25.

She also wanted to know if the government, at any point of time, thought over changing the name of the country after independence? Also, if the union government gave one or two names to the country? The government was asked to provide the certified copy of the notification by which it has given the country its name.

PMO transferred the application to MHA, which, in turn, transferred it to ministry of culture. The application has now been transferred to NAI.
What's the country's official name? - The Times of India

Okay then i must admit that i was wrong.I actually thought that the official name of India was the above one as it has been clearly stated in the Preamble to the Constitution but i guess i was totally wrong about it.So thanks for clarifying it