India is a Hindu nation, says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

[Biplab Bijay]

Stoking yet another controversy, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said India is a Hindu nation and Hindutva is its identity.

"Hindustan is a Hindu nation...Hindutva is the identity of our nation and it (Hinduism) can incorporate others (religions) in itself," he said.

Last week, Bhagwat had said in Cuttack, "The cultural identity of all Indians is Hindutva and the present inhabitants of the country are descendants of this great culture."

If inhabitants of England are English, Germany are Germans and USA are Americans then why all inhabitants of Hindustan are not known as Hindus, he had posed.

Bhagwat was in Mumbai on Sunday on the occasion of Krishna Janamashtami to attend the inauguration programme of the golden jubilee celebrations of the VHP, that was founded in Mumbai on August 29-30, 1964.

He said the goal of VHP in the coming five years would be to ensure equality among the Hindus of the nation.

"For the next 5 years we have to work with the aim of bringing equality among all the Hindus in the country. All Hindus should be drinking water at one place, should be praying at one place and after their death, their bodies should be burnt at the same place," he said.

VHP Chief Praveen Togadia, who was also present, told reporters when asked to comment on Ram Mandir issue, that a grand Ram Mandir will be built in Ayodhya "at any cost".

"We have decided to build a grand temple in Ayodhya at any cost. Ram Mandir will be on our agenda till we do not build the temple," he said.

Togadia said that no step taken by Pakistan should be considered a step towards peace-making till it hands over people who are wanted by the Indian authorities.

"Pakistan is violating ceasefires again and again on the border. Unless Pakistan hands over Dawood Ibrahim, Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar to India, and they are lawfully hanged by India, none of their steps should be considered as peace making steps," he said.

Read more at: India is a Hindu nation, says RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat : West, News - India Today

So ?

 

[Bang Galore]

Impossible is nothing.

The term is "socialist secular" Besides the word secularism was inserted in the preamble of the constitution in 1971, if it can be inserted, it can be removed too.

Our constitutions claims to be "socialist" too. Are we doomed to be socialist till the end of eternity ?

Not the same, the preamble can be changed if one has enough support but the secular nature of the constitution & thereby of the state cannot be touched. It (secularism)is part of the basic tenet of the constitution as defined by the Supreme court. Which means that even if every single member of the Lok Sabha & of the Rajya Sabha voted for any such amendment, it would still get automatically thrown out by the Supreme court.

 

[Biplab Bijay]

good we will use it as a propaganda tool to recruit more indian muslims as ISI operatives Thank u BJP hindu extremist terrorist party

I also want that.

 

[Donatello]

As usual, in a fake secular country. Glad Jinnah realized this, and got us a separate homeland.

 

[NairLand]

Not the same, the preamble can be changed if one has enough support but the secular nature of the constitution & thereby of the state cannot be touched. It (secularism)is part of the basic tenet of the constitution as defined by the Supreme court. Which means that even if every single member of the Lok Sabha & of the Rajya Sabha voted for any such amendment, it would still get automatically thrown out by the Supreme court.

You have too much faith in the infallibility or the intelligence of the SC. Have recent expose's taught you nothing ? Besides the parliament just passed a new law that makes the executive part of selecting the judges of the SC again. Just saying.

Of course one has no choice but to believe in something and in this case the SC serves a suitable anchor in this chaos.

The point being the SC is NEVER going to be bigger than the Parliament.

If need be, even the entire constitution can be changed. Reality is a bit more crass than theoretical debates. A violent army is much stronger than the writ of the SC. So is a violent Mob.

If the SC had any scense it would have already declared that the constitution of India is NOT SECULAR. It is NOT indifferent to religion. You know that is true. The SC has a long history of supporting political correctness over logic or rational thought.

Just look at the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict (I know it was not the SC)

 

[NKVD]

Not the same, the preamble can be changed if one has enough support but the secular nature of the constitution & thereby of the state cannot be touched. It (secularism)is part of the basic tenet of the constitution as defined by the Supreme court. Which means that even if every single member of the Lok Sabha & of the Rajya Sabha voted for any such amendment, it would still get automatically thrown out by the Supreme court.

Not in a special case the Govt of india have omnipotent power provided by constitution itself Like Article 352 (1) of the constitution even supreme Court can be disbanded by GOI if they really want so.

 

[TejasMk3]

Not the same, the preamble can be changed if one has enough support but the secular nature of the constitution & thereby of the state cannot be touched. It (secularism)is part of the basic tenet of the constitution as defined by the Supreme court. Which means that even if every single member of the Lok Sabha & of the Rajya Sabha voted for any such amendment, it would still get automatically thrown out by the Supreme court.

Okay, so does the constitution serve the people, or do the people serve the constitution?

 

[NairLand]

Correct me if I'm wrong but word secularism Is inserted in 1975 during emergency when basic civilian right like freedom to speech & freedom of live is stripped from citizens of india during indra gandhi rule.

...the discussion was raised in 1971 but the bill finally became law in 1977 if you want to be technical.

 

[NKVD]

You have too much faith in the infallibility or the intelligence of the SC. Have recent expose's taught you nothing ? Besides the parliament just passed a new law that makes the executive part of selecting the judges of the SC again. Just saying.

Of course one has no choice but to believe in something and in this case the SC serves a suitable anchor in this chaos.

The point being the SC is NEVER going to be bigger than the Parliament.

If need be, even the entire constitution can be changed. Reality is a bit more crass than theoretical debates. A violent army is much stronger than the writ of the SC. So is a violent Mob.

If the SC had any scense it would have already declared that the constitution of India is NOT SECULAR. It is NOT indifferent to religion. You know that is true. The SC has a long history of supporting political correctness over logic or rational thought.

Just look at the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict (I know it was not the SC)

Read article 352 of the Indian constitution itself you will know what GOI can do when time arises. Parliament have omnipresent power provided by the constitution .

 

[NairLand]

Read article 352 of the Indian constitution itself you will know what GOI can do when time arises. Parliament have omnipresent power provided by the constitution .

Indira Gandhi tired that, did she succeed ? .... did help her insert the world "secular" into the constitution though.

Nothing can stop an Idea who's time as come.

 

[NKVD]

Indira Gandhi tired that, did she succeed ? .... did help her insert the world "secular" into the constitution though.

Nothing can stop an Idea who's time as come.

At least she was tough and ruthless to impose policies which she wants, not like nowadays political establishment. GOI have huge power if they want they change the fate of country but they are engaged in vote politics now days

 

[Arya Desa]

islamic republic of pakistan telling us what we can and can't be, LOL!

 

[NairLand]

At least she was tough and ruthless to impose policies which she wants, not like nowadays political establishment. GOI have huge power if they want they change the fate of country but they are engaged in vote politics now days

...which is why the people voted Modi to power.

 

[Bang Galore]

You have too much faith in the infallibility or the intelligence of the SC. Have recent expose's taught you nothing ? Besides the parliament just passed a new law that makes the executive part of selecting the judges of the SC again. Just saying.

Of course one has no choice but to believe in something and in this case the SC serves a suitable anchor in this chaos.

The point being the SC is NEVER going to be bigger than the Parliament.

If need be, even the entire constitution can be changed. Reality is a bit more crass than theoretical debates. A violent army is much stronger than the writ of the SC. So is a violent Mob.

If the SC had any scense it would have already declared that the constitution of India is NOT SECULAR. It is NOT indifferent to religion. You know that is true. The SC has a long history of supporting political correctness over logic or rational thought.

Just look at the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict (I know it was not the SC)

We are discussing constitutional matters, are we not. Violence is always an open area. It could turn in any direction. That is a pointless debate. Infallibility of the SC or not, that is the law. It is not whether the SC is bigger than the parliament, the question asked & answered by the SC is that even the parliament is not bigger than the constitution. The rest of the argument is in the realm of fantasies so I'm leaving that bit alone.

 

[NairLand]

We are discussing constitutional matters, are we not. Violence is always an open area. It could turn in any direction. That is a pointless debate. Infallibility of the SC or not, that is the law. It is not whether the SC is bigger than the parliament, the question asked & answered by the SC is that even the parliament is not bigger than the constitution. The rest of the argument is in the realm of fantasies so I'm leaving that bit alone.

There is something called a judicial overreach.

The constitution role of the SC is to "interpret the constitution" , not play a role in making the constitution.

Just because the SC did it earlier and got away with it, does not mean it can continue the same way without any opposition. If the SC attempts to pull the same stunt it will result in a constitutional crisis and that will always be resolved by the executive and to the detriment of the SC powers.

Parliament as an institutional body IS bigger than the constitution. They wrote the constitution. They can unwrite it too.