Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[DesiGuy]

Don't go by forum responses. India is a very religious country. Even GOI most of the time will conduct puja in all ground breaking ceremonies, follow Vaastu in constructions or placing machinery etc. It may not be in metros, the government employees in towns and village levels have Gods pics in their work places and do prayers before they start their day. Even ISRO chairman visits Tirupati before every major event.

I am also very religious if we go by that logic. I do puja, go to temple and follow vaastu thing....but i do that all cuz of my parents. I don't accept full authority of vedas. This similar stance was taken by buddha, Sikh gurus and other known sages.

 

[janon]

It don't make any difference because they are still Hindu(the way you guys interpreted it) even if they are atheist/agnostic or even if they deny the existence of an omnipotent deity and karma ,reincarnation, Hindu Gods/Goddess etc

Well, that's how some hindus interpret it. There are many atheistic schools of philosophy within hinduism, both orthodox and heteredox.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, non hindus and even some hindus will not agree with that. There are some atheists who consider themselves to be hindus, but many atheists do not. So the statement that everybody is a hindu is only accepted by a certain group of hindus.

haha sorry it was for janon..

janon mean wife aka janani/zanani in pothwari lanaguge

Wikipedia tells me this:

The Janon is a small river that rises in Mont Pilat in the Massif Central of France near to Saint Étienne. It runs for 13.9 kilometres (8.6 mi) through mostly built-up country to join the Gier at Saint-Chamond.

BTW, janani means "mother" in Sanskrit.

 

[Durrak]

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.

Yeah right,that's why sub-continent has divided.

 

[janon]

Yeah right,that's why sub-continent has divided.

It was divided when one part wanted to become a muslim country, and the rest wanted to become a secular republic. The part that became India never became a hindu republic, or any other religious republic. It is staunchly secular, and frankly there is no way it can be anything else. This thread has no reason to exist.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Well, that's how some hindus interpret it. There are many atheistic schools of philosophy within hinduism, both orthodox and heteredox.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, non hindus and even some hindus will not agree with that. There are some atheists who consider themselves to be hindus, but many atheists do not. So the statement that everybody is a hindu is only accepted by a certain group of hindus.


Wikipedia tells me this:


BTW, janani means "mother" in Sanskrit.

janani mean wife in punjabi

I know most devout Hindus will not agree with how you or any atheist Hindu perceive Hinduism or word Hindu or fellow indians of non dharmic faiths and my post which you quoted and refuted was actually presenting their views about Indians of Abraham religions

 

[Ayush]

@Ayush why relate everything with Pakistan?


The whole system work in a particular manner he alone can't change that.

was giving an apt example,no offense.

 

[Durrak]

was giving an apt example,no offense.

It was offensive. I can feel the sarcasm.

 

[Ayush]

It was offensive. I can feel the sarcasm.

ok

 

[janon]

janani mean wife in punjabi

I know most devout Hindus will not agree with how you or any atheist Hindu perceive Hinduism or word Hindu or fellow indians of non dharmic faiths and my post which you quoted and refuted was actually presenting their views about Indians of Abraham religions

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.

It was offensive. I can feel the sarcasm.

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.

 

[Dillinger]

@Nexus @janon

Children (not you Janon), you need to learn constitutional law.

An amendment to the constitution itself is not as easy as people make it out to be. On top of that the Supreme Court of this nation has a standing ruling, which clearly states that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered under any circumstance.

Now there may be posters here who think that these are trivial issues in the face of an alleged popular demand for a Hindu theocratic state. No they are not trivial, in fact even if a vast horde of people "disagreed" with the principles of the constitution it would still make no difference, its nature in word and spirit are preserved under the SC's ruling and none of us have the right to countermand the SC's authority on this short of trying to get the SC to overturn its ruling- best of luck with that.

Let this be clear, you can ONLY be a loyal Indian if you follow the constitution in word and spirit. Your morality, your religiosity and your alleged saintly nature are irrelevant. Which imaginary friend up in the clouds tickles your fancy is irrelevant and so is your adherence to any and all norms of society banal or otherwise. What is relevant is that a nation at its core is NOT just "the people", it is defined by the institutions that it devolves unto the people and the document that guides all its actions- the constitution. The constitution in its nature and spirit, in the basic principles enshrined in it, is a promise to the people, said promise cannot be altered. Moreover the Constitution itself confers unto the Parliament a limited power of amendment.

Now if you insist, contact a lawyer, the Basic Structure Doctrine is extremely clear- the basic structure of the constitution CANNOT be amended EVEN by an amendment or any action of the parliament. The twenty features defined as basic include "secularism".

In fact in response to the 24th Parliamentary amendment of 71 the SC bench in 73 made it even more clearer as to what the Parliament could do and could not. This is based on the simple and succinct principle that the power to amend does not equate to the right to destroy. Ergo while the Parliament decided to confer upon itself the power (under the 24th amendment, back then) to even "alter" fundamental rights conferred upon the citizens yet the Parliament would be compelled to stop short of attempting to alter the very nature of the constitution itself. Perhaps I will elaborate upon the events that transpired after 73 such as the 39th and 42nd amendment, the emergency or the Minerva Mills V. Union of India case etc. later. Till then, if anyone is interested in further elucidation, please contact @Indischer or @SarthakGanguly and arrange for the necessary fees to be paid for availing said service, I'm not going to trace the history of this matter and list out the details of each ruling, case and following amendment for free.


This question reminds me of a query a young poster here once made, that would the army rise up to back a populist struggle and overthrow the government in order to realize the dream of a Hindu state.


I will leave you all with the following, "Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power to convert the limited power into an unlimited one." Mind you even Indira Gandhi at the height of her power did not have the balls to challenge the above.

 

[Indischer]

@Nexus @janon

Children (not you Janon), you need to learn constitutional law.

An amendment to the constitution itself is not as easy as people make it out to be. On top of that the Supreme Court of this nation has a standing ruling, which clearly states that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered under any circumstance.

Now there may be posters here who think that these are trivial issues in the face of an alleged popular demand for a Hindu theocratic state. No they are not trivial, in fact even if a vast horde of people "disagreed" with the principles of the constitution it would still make no difference, its nature in word and spirit are preserved under the SC's ruling and none of us have the right to countermand the SC's authority on this short of trying to get the SC to overturn its ruling- best of luck with that.

Let this be clear, you can ONLY be a loyal Indian if you follow the constitution in word and spirit. Your morality, your religiosity and your alleged saintly nature are irrelevant. Which imaginary friend up in the clouds tickles your fancy is irrelevant and so is your adherence to any and all norms of society banal or otherwise. What is relevant is that a nation at its core is NOT just "the people", it is defined by the institutions that it devolves unto the people and the document that guides all its actions- the constitution. The constitution in its nature and spirit, in the basic principles enshrined in it, is a promise to the people, said promise cannot be altered. Moreover the Constitution itself confers unto the Parliament a limited power of amendment.

Now if you insist, contact a lawyer, the Basic Structure Doctrine is extremely clear- the basic structure of the constitution CANNOT be amended EVEN by an amendment or any action of the parliament. The twenty features defined as basic include "secularism".

In fact in response to the 24th Parliamentary amendment of 71 the SC bench in 73 made it even more clearer as to what the Parliament could do and could not. This is based on the simple and succinct principle that the power to amend does not equate to the right to destroy. Ergo while the Parliament can (under the 24th amendment) even "alter" fundamental rights conferred upon the citizens yet the Parliament will be compelled to stop short of attempting to alter the very nature of the constitution itself. Perhaps I will elaborate upon the events that transpired after 73 such as the 39th and 42nd amendment, the emergency or the Minerva Mills V. Union of India case etc. later. Till then, if anyone is interested in further elucidation, please contact @Indischer or @SarthakGanguly and arrange for the necessary fees to be paid for availing said service, I'm not going to trace the history of this matter and list out the details of each ruling, case and following amendment for free.


This question reminds me of a query a young poster here once made, that would the army rise up to back a populist struggle and overthrow the government in order to realize the dream of a Hindu state.


I will leave you all with the following, "Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power to convert the limited power into an unlimited one." Mind you even Indira Gandhi at the height of her power did not have the balls to challenge the above.

Top notch stuff Yaara. I request anyone having similar doubts to read the post above, and read it good.

 

[Dillinger]

Top notch stuff Yaara. I request anyone having similar doubts to read the post above, and read it good.

Name another poster here who can detail the exact manufacturing processes of complex systems, comment upon social issues with deep insight and then provide a discourse on constitutional law. AND do all that while looking as good as I do. Had I not told you my age could you have guessed that I was merely 22?

 

[Indischer]

Name another poster here who can detail the exact manufacturing processes of complex systems, comment upon social issues with deep insight and then provide a discourse on constitutional law. AND do all that while looking as good as I do. Had I not told you my age could you have guessed that I was merely 22?

Haven't I guessed it just fine already?...and previous lifetime of 80 years plus 20 odd years now.

But I pity your plight yaara...having to mask your brilliance amongst us idiots just to appear sociable. Must be hard.

 

[Dillinger]

Haven't I guessed it just fine already?...and previous lifetime of 80 years plus 20 odd years now.

But I pity your plight yaara...having to mask your brilliance amongst us idiots just to appear sociable. Must be hard.

Be careful while flinging about the term idiot, you're lucky Hype or Buttsy aren't around...katal-e-aam ho jaata yahaan.

Just one gem, that's what I am, in a mine full of gems and well quite a few odd lackluster flint and stones.

Besides you, bangy, roy dada et al are more than a match.

Not to mention that Roy is the best looking out of all of us!

Besides, do you know how intimidated I was of the likes of Oscar or Abingdonboy when I first started off here a year back? Oscar landed the first bit@# slap on me!

 

[Marshmallow]

Be careful while flinging about the term idiot, you're lucky Hype or Buttsy aren't around...katal-e-aam ho jaata yahaan.

Just one gem, that's what I am, in a mine full of gems and well quite a few odd lackluster flint and stones.

Besides you, bangy, roy dada et al are more than a match.

Not to mention that Roy is the best looking out of all of us!

Besides, do you know how intimidated I was of the likes of Oscar or Abingdonboy when I first started off here a year back? Oscar landed the first bit@# slap on me!

ok stop praising each other you guys....