Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[janon]

@Ayush why relate everything with Pakistan?

It is a wise practice to learn from other people's mistakes.

 

[A Town]

So? Why do you want to do something just because others do? "All my neighbours wear pink blouses, so I should too" is not a logical necessity. What difference does it make, whether hindus have a state for themselves or not, as long as they are free to practice and profes their religion?

Also, do christians have a state solely for themselves? Atheists? Sikhs?

Christians or Catholics to be more specific have the Vatican City and a variety of other states. The whole point of Atheism is the separation of belief and state so that doesn't really count. Sikhs are a smaller religious group.
I think you are taking my post on the wrong sense, I never claimed I wanted India to be a Hindu state, in fact I claimed the opposite however I did wish there was a country where Hinduism is a important factor in everyone's day to day life.

 

[NKVD]

It's not from the vedas, it is from the Mahopanishad. The full sloka goes like this:

"ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam.
udaaracharitaanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam."

I myself have often quoted it on this forum. It is not an "essence of the vedas" or even found in the vedas at all, but nevertheless it is a sloka that I love. And it is actually a little more profound than the common trite translation of "all the world is one family."

What it really means is that the narrow/small minded person thinks "this is mine, this is not", "he is mine, he is not" etc, but to the truly large hearted perosn, the whole world is his family.

The difference from how you interpreted it is that the sloka speaks on an individual level, how individuals should look at every person as one's own, and not create artificial barriers of nationality or other things.

Anyway, quoting this sloka does not really address my question. If you say that "hindu" means native of the land, does that mean that non natives cannot be hindus? If not, let's accept the logical conclusion - "hindu" does not simply mean native of the land. That would be "desi".


And that is true of many other great nations as well. The american constitution was drafted and signed by a few very rich white men. The Magna Charta, the precursor to all modern constitutions and laws, was signed by a king almost at gunpoint (spearpoint, rather) of a few barons.

May be you right as mate Well my idea is Some how goes with Swami vivekananda For him the person who follow God in whatever form or prays to him is a Hindu.

 

[janon]

Christians or Catholics to be more specific have the Vatican City and a variety of other states. The whole point of Atheism is the separation of belief and state so that doesn't really count. Sikhs are a smaller religious group.
I think you are taking my post on the wrong sense, I never claimed I wanted India to be a Hindu state, in fact I claimed the opposite however I did wish there was a country where Hinduism is a important factor in everyone's day to day life.

The two statements in red are wrong. Secularism is the separation of religion and state. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or religions. There could (in theory) be a nation only for atheists. Sikhs are by no means a small group, they are the 5th largest organized religion in the world.

I know you didn't claim India should be a hindu state, and my respoonses to you reflect that. I was asking the larger question of why there should be a hindu state at all, whether it is in India or anywhere else. "Muslims/others have one or a few" is not a valid reason.

 

[Durrak]

It is a wise practice to learn from other people's mistakes.

If you're too interested in learning then why don't you learn from your own mistakes?

 

[janon]

If you're too interested in learning then why don't you learn from your own mistakes?

Of course, we should. But on the topic of establishing a state for one particular religion, we can only learn from our neighbours, because we never committed that mistake.

 

[A Town]

The two statements in red are wrong. Secularism is the separation of religion and state. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or religions. There could (in theory) be a nation only for atheists. Sikhs are by no means a small group, they are the 5th largest organized religion in the world.

I know you didn't claim India should be a hindu state, and my respoonses to you reflect that. I was asking the larger question of why there should be a hindu state at all, whether it is in India or anywhere else. "Muslims/others have one or a few" is not a valid reason.

Thanks for the correction for the first part, however I do believe that one of the major factors of Atheism is the separation of "church and state" as we are told in the UK.

Sikhism is the fifth largest organised religion however it's numbers aren't particularly high due to it being a relatively new faith. Only between 20 to 30 million followers. Compare that to Hinduism which has 900 Million followers, Islam which has 1.6 Billion followers and Christianity with 2 Billion followers.
My reasoning for a Hindu state is that I believe Hindus should have a place where they can live by there rules and in peace knowing that all there practices and way of life is protected. For example the closest we have to that is India but beef slaughter and all that is quite common. Even in Nepal which was a Hindu state not along ago, they are starting to become more minority appeasing like India.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Yeh sab kaun hain yaar?

Yea sab insaan hein ..the guys who eat people

 

[NKVD]

The two statements in red are wrong. Secularism is the separation of religion and state. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or religions. There could (in theory) be a nation only for atheists. Sikhs are by no means a small group, they are the 5th largest organized religion in the world.

I know you didn't claim India should be a hindu state, and my respoonses to you reflect that. I was asking the larger question of why there should be a hindu state at all, whether it is in India or anywhere else. "Muslims/others have one or a few" is not a valid reason.

Hindu State Because It Birthplace of Hinduism as culture.Secondly because Hinduism diversity and abosorbtion.From thousand years since the birth of hinduism It Absorbs many cultures in it like sythians, huns,Shaks etc.Its the only culture which absorbs other cultures as well. Whereas its some what opposite to Other cultures specialy to Muslims You will understand if you understand Islam

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

BTW that first person who is now the poster boy for islamic rage, is very mch Indian. Neither he nor any other muslims or christians in India are outsiders.

I just mentioned the definition of Hindu according to Hiduvata which is Hindu is someone who is the followers of dharmic faiths and India belong to Hindus while Indian Muslims are those who adopted the beliefs of invaders and oppressor so they are outsiders because their beliefs have non Indian origin ..sach bola yea jhoot?

 

[Koovie]

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 !

The PM of India does not have the power do that....

 

[janon]

Hindu State Because It Birthplace of Hinduism as culture.Secondly because Hinduism diversity and abosorbtion.From thousand years since the birth of hinduism It Absorbs many cultures in it like sythians, huns,Shaks etc.Its the only culture which absorbs other cultures as well. Whereas its some what opposite to Other cultures specialy to Muslims You will understand if you understand Islam

I know all that. But now you are contradicting the person I was responding to. He said that he wasn't asking for India to be a hindu state, just that there should be a state for hindus. You are saying that India ought to be a hindu state because it is the birthplace of hinduism.

However that is simply not possible, because there are hundreds of millions of non hindus living in India. With such a diversity, it is impractical to have a hindu state, even if it is tolerant to other faiths. Besides, once we declare it to be a hindu state, the next question will be what is hindu, what is tru hinduism, what are true hindu laws, and so on. Then we will go down the ignoble road of our neighbours, with some accusing others of not being "real" hindus and so on.

The best practice is for the state to be religion-agnostic, and leave religious beliefs to the personal sphere.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Bro, Hindus are 80%. There's not much difference between 80% and 90%.

Really?

I mean did you included Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainism as well?

Can you give percentage of each religion in India?

 

[janon]

I just mentioned the definition of Hindu according to Hiduvata which is Hindu is someone who is the followers of dharmic faiths and India belong to Hindus while Indian Muslims are those who adopted the beliefs of invaders and oppressor so they are outsiders because their beliefs have non Indian origin ..sach bola yea jhoot?

Jhoot. Hindutva does not say that Indian muslims are outsiders or any less Indian. In fact, many hindutva people say that even muslims and christians in India are hindus in a way. Anyway it is irrelevant, because India is a secular country where everybody is as Indian as the other, irrespective of their faith.

Really?

I mean did you included Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainism as well?

Can you give percentage of each religion in India?

Hindu - 80
Muslim - 13
Christian - 3
Sikh - 2
And others.

Religion in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A Town]

Really?

I mean did you included Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainism as well?

Can you give percentage of each religion in India?

Yeah, sure man: