indian army chief says pakistan must be secular if they want to stay together with india

[randomradio]

I repeat what I said to you earlier.

Do not conflate Hindutva and Hinduism.

Hindutvawadis and Hindus.

In the mind of ALL non Sanghi Indians (you obviously not included), these are diametric opposites.

Culturally.

Philosophically.

Spiritually.

Racially.

Theologically.

Socially.

Patriotically.

The real bigot is you, who will try to impose an alien Abrahamic fascist world view on to his countryman, and hold the SC up as a shield.

It will not wash. You are the enemy. Not at the gates. But entrenched deep inside. Within and among us.

Cheers, Doc

I don't really think you know what "Sanghi" means either. Just like you have little knowledge about Hinduism and Hindutva.

I'm afraid I do not have the ability to become a true "Sanghi" even if I wanted to. Selfless service to the nation is not my mantra. If you are ever caught in the middle of a major disaster, you will most definitely be thanking a "Sanghi" for helping you out.

The problem is you are confusing RSS and BJP with extremist groups like the Shiv Sena and VHP. But then I also understand how ignorance breeds bigotry, which you are an obvious victim of.

And of course, you obviously do not know what the Supreme Court stands for either. Completely evident by the disrespect you have for what is easily the greatest institution in India.

 

[padamchen]

I don't really think you know what "Sanghi" means either. Just like you have little knowledge about Hinduism and Hindutva.

I'm afraid I do not have the ability to become a true "Sanghi" even if I wanted to. Selfless service to the nation is not my mantra. If you are ever caught in the middle of a major disaster, you will most definitely be thanking a "Sanghi" for helping you out.

The problem is you are confusing RSS and BJP with extremist groups like the Shiv Sena and VHP. But then I also understand how ignorance breeds bigotry, which you are an obvious victim of.

And of course, you obviously do not know what the Supreme Court stands for either. Completely evident by the disrespect you have for what is easily the greatest institution in India.

I am a Shiv Sainik. Ideologically. By descent. And by close family ties.

It's obvious you are a new age Gujju lobby Sanghi.

Who sees Shiv Sainiks as a radical group.

Cheers, Doc

 

[randomradio]

I am a Shiv Sainik. Ideologically. By descent. And by close family ties.

It's obvious you are a new age Gujju lobby Sanghi.

Who sees Shiv Sainiks as a radical group.

Cheers, Doc

Nice. Do you see how it works?

Once you get to know the organisation and how it works you realise that extremism is in the media.

Shiv Sena and VHP are among the most right wing of all the Hindutva groups in India. BJP is merely right leaning, not a true right wing. Shiv Sena is what we call a far-right extremist group. Let's not forget their participation in the 1992 Bombay riots. And the VHP kar sevaks were the ones who demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. You can easily say the entire campaign in the 90s that you are trying to vilify was orchestrated by these two parties working in cahoots with each other.

Both parties have mellowed down considerably since then, but these two parties do not stand for the same Hindutva principles that BJP and RSS stand for.

So if you are capable of holding Shiv Sena on a high pedestal, just remember that most other Hindutva groups are even better.

 

[padamchen]

Nice. Do you see how it works?

Once you get to know the organisation and how it works you realise that extremism is in the media.

Shiv Sena and VHP are among the most right wing of all the Hindutva groups in India. BJP is merely right leaning, not a true right wing. Shiv Sena is what we call a far-right extremist group. Let's not forget their participation in the 1992 Bombay riots. And the VHP kar sevaks were the ones who demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. You can easily say the entire campaign in the 90s that you are trying to vilify was orchestrated by these two parties working in cahoots with each other.

Both parties have mellowed down considerably since then, but these two parties do not stand for the same Hindutva principles that BJP and RSS stand for.

So if you are capable of holding Shiv Sena on a high pedestal, just remember that most other Hindutva groups are even better.

Nonsense.

I'm talking to a non Maharashtrian ignorant here.

Chalo. Please continue.

You guys have a Hindu India because of US. Never forget the debt you owe US.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Hellfire]

"Secular or not, our best bet is on a fascist Hindu India. That is what we need to push by encouraging their online trolls and population, using fake accounts to spread more hatred against muslims and sikhs in India."

@Arsalan

For your information and 'enlightment' (again) for undermentioned:

Indian. Checked and confirmed.

I rest my case

 

[cocomo]

This amount of bullsht doesn't come out someone's mouth unless they are desperate.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Awesome Post. @Oscar @hellfire @Joe Shearer @randomradio @anant_s
M.A Jinnah would be proud.

Frankly the posts are of such poor quality that it is painful to go through them.

Not one of the posts has anything substantive; only the following points

1. India is turning parochial; why do they tell other nations what to do? {leaving the question to be begged: and what did you have for us before the current set of bigots came to power? You were mighty quiet then. Don't you feel ridiculous saying that now that India has lost its secularism, it has nothing to say?}
2. Bipin Rawat is a Hindu-favouring bigot; how can he offer an opinion, any opinion? {leaving the two questions aside of other military bigots saying what they please, but getting a free pass because of the colour of their chaddis; and also forgetting that the essence of a democracy is free speech. Even stupid free speech, if that is what this is thought to be - personally, I have no stand on the matter}
3. Bipin Rawat may or may not be a bigot separately, but he is bone stupid, and that's just as good.{leaving aside the issue that the pack of comments here is by people who have no credentials to comment on the man.}

And that's it.

PS: My mind is made up. I intend to search out Owaisi (the elder brother, not the soda water bottle shaken up, Akbaruddin) and shake his hand. Some of his speeches in Parliament were really inspiring, using relentless logic to corner an overwhelmingly strong government). I don't think much of his stand on Muslim Personal Law vis-a-vis civil law, but that's OK; there must be dozens of beliefs I have that don't impress him. I hope some day he is the first Muslim PM.

 

[padamchen]

Frankly the posts are of such poor quality that it is painful to go through them.

Not one of the posts has anything substantive; only the following points

1. India is turning parochial; why do they tell other nations what to do? {leaving the question to be begged: and what did you have for us before the current set of bigots came to power? You were mighty quiet then. Don't you feel ridiculous saying that now that India has lost its secularism, it has nothing to say?}
2. Bipin Rawat is a Hindu-favouring bigot; how can he offer an opinion, any opinion? {leaving the two questions aside of other military bigots saying what they please, but getting a free pass because of the colour of their chaddis; and also forgetting that the essence of a democracy is free speech. Even stupid free speech, if that is what this is thought to be - personally, I have no stand on the matter}
3. Bipin Rawat may or may not be a bigot separately, but he is bone stupid, and that's just as good.{leaving aside the issue that the pack of comments here is by people who have no credentials to comment on the man.}

And that's it.

PS: My mind is made up. I intend to search out Owaisi (the elder brother, not the soda water bottle shaken up, Akbaruddin) and shake his hand. Some of his speeches in Parliament were really inspiring, using relentless logic to corner an overwhelmingly strong government). I don't think much of his stand on Muslim Personal Law vis-a-vis civil law, but that's OK; there must be dozens of beliefs I have that don't impress him. I hope some day he is the first Muslim PM.

I like Owaisi a lot too.

If he represented Indians and not just Muslims, I'd even think of joining him.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

Simple really. You decided to brand every single patriotic "Hindu" a fascist. And then proceeded to insult the Supreme Court of India.

You said: Hindutva remains now what it was during the nation burning in the 90s. And what it was conceived at in its seeding and genesis by sociopathic fathers. A fascist supremacist ideology that is wholly Abrahamic in tone and tenor and completely alien to this soil.

You also said: Legal definitions from the 90s mean nothing here in 2018.

Here's the real story: 2016
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...amine-today/story-ZDU95tarD5kGnWzgfgJELL.html
Seven judges of the Supreme Court will start to re-examine on Tuesday the question – What is Hinduism: a way of life or a religion practised by some people in India?

What they ruled: 2016
https://www.livelaw.in/not-relooking-1995-hindutva-way-life-verdict-sc/
“We will not go into the larger debate as to what is Hindutva or what is its meaning. We will not re-consider the 1995 judgement and also not examine Hindutva or religion at this stage.At this stage, we will confine ourselves to the issue raised us in the reference. In the reference, there is no mention of the word ‘Hindutva’. If anybody will show that there is a reference to the word ‘Hindutva’, we will hear him. We will not go into Hindutva at this stage,” seven judge constitution bench headed by chief justice T S Thakur

Legal definition from the 90s still stays true. Why? Because the SC said so.

So what you have demonstrated here is extreme levels of bigotry towards Hindus everywhere arising from high levels of ignorance about the subject that only a bigoted mind could give birth to, as well as insulted the Supreme Court of India at the same time.

So go ahead and report me for slander. It's a great disservice to my nation if one doesn't stand up to views such as yours.

Have you heard of the term 'hiding behind someone's petticoats'? The Supreme Court being wrong, and it has been wrong on a number of occasions and has subsequently reversed its stand, does not give you the license to abandon rational thought. If I wrote what I thought of your answers to @padamchen, you would be the one pursuing an action for slander.

 

[Hellfire]

Awesome Post. @Oscar @hellfire @Joe Shearer @randomradio @anant_s
M.A Jinnah would be proud.

Please note how Idols are not allowed nor Symbols.

Someone must clarify for me, am really confused - is praising or following someone, not idolizing, thereby rendering the person specific an idol?

Or is not considering a visit to a structure a 'religious duty' thereby, the act itself, rendering the said structure a symbol, again against the religious tenets?

I am now really confused, if a Prophet of any religion is an ideal for the religious faithful to follow (as the Prophet of the said religion is basing the teachings on guidance from the almighty and is practicing the same his/her self), does the Prophet not become an Idol?

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Arsalan @aziqbal

@aziqbal specifically for you. Can you describe to me the reasons for the use of a moon and a star as under:

As @RiazHaq loves to quote Pew, an interesting link:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ve-religious-symbols-on-their-national-flags/

 

[lastofthepatriots]

Star and Crescent is a Turkic symbol, not an Islamic one.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Some things are a little hard to Handel for some folks amirite?

BTW friend, good to see you back.

Spoiler

Some sorrow, love, and passion to start your December with?

On topic, I do not think there is any historical precedent - or for that matter, anything in the Hindu doctrine on which to predicate the merger of Chuch and State. This unholy alliance, unfortunately, can only gain any significant legitimacy in the Islamic culture.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Nilgiri]

Please note how Idols are not allowed nor Symbols.

Someone must clarify for me, am really confused - is praising or following someone, not idolizing, thereby rendering the person specific an idol?

Or is not considering a visit to a structure a 'religious duty' thereby, the act itself, rendering the said structure a symbol, again against the religious tenets?

I am now really confused, if a Prophet of any religion is an ideal for the religious faithful to follow (as the Prophet of the said religion is basing the teachings on guidance from the almighty and is practicing the same his/her self), does the Prophet not become an Idol?

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Arsalan @aziqbal

@aziqbal specifically for you. Can you describe to me the reasons for the use of a moon and a star as under:

View attachment 523798

As @RiazHaq loves to quote Pew, an interesting link:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ve-religious-symbols-on-their-national-flags/

Don't really want to get into the whole religion talk stuff (forum rules etc etc)...but I will say outside of this forum I have had some interesting conversation (with comparative mythologists and religion scholars) on what idolatry even conceptually is and could it arguably include (from the Dharmic sense of view/aesthetic) point of focus (of the godhead) with the kabbah, mecca, circumambulation there etc... Christianity needs not much introduction on the subject with the church altar, iconography etc...and with Judaism, one must actually read quite a lot in Exodus when the ark of the covenant, tabernacle and first temples were made (and why the word/concept for temple in Hebrew is very different to the meaning of "Synagogue" today).

There is much scope for debate and discussion here...but it will likely trample on lot of toes and feet that prefer a more localised perception of some concept....so exclusivity and highest unique identity can be maintained (mainly because that helps with other subjects religion invariably intersects with).

 

[randomradio]

Have you heard of the term 'hiding behind someone's petticoats'? The Supreme Court being wrong, and it has been wrong on a number of occasions and has subsequently reversed its stand, does not give you the license to abandon rational thought. If I wrote what I thought of your answers to @padamchen, you would be the one pursuing an action for slander.

You can join padmachen in misrepresenting Hinduism and Hindutva then.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Spoiler

Some sorrow, love, and passion to start your December with?

On topic, I do not think there is any historical precedent - or for that matter, anything in the Hindu doctrine on which to predicate the merger of Chuch and State. This unholy alliance, unfortunately, can only gain any significant legitimacy in the Islamic culture.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. The entire structure of a Hindu state - not a mixed state, but a classical Hindu state - is an indistinguishable merging of the religious principles that rule and the state. Religious and administrative principles cannot be separated out. To give you a small example, that is only for the purpose of illustration, a judge is addressed as Dharmavatar, avatar of Dharma. The choice of a ruler is strictly prescribed, his anointing and accession to the throne is laid down in clear principles, and so on down to the smallest detail of daily life.

There is no Church in Hindu thought, but there is religion, in copious amounts, and it is this that is mingled with the state.

I state this for your edification; for myself, I abhor the Church and religion, and object strongly to their several or collective interference with the state. I am a secularist of the French persuasion, not the Indian; ALL religions should be kept outside public life, rather than the Indian and British models of ALL religions being embraced in public life.

You can join padmachen in misrepresenting Hinduism and Hindutva then.

There is no misrepresentation of Hindutva. This is a ghastly import of purely western authoritarian thought of the fascist school, that subordinates religion to the service of the state, and subordinates the state to the service of a religion, to the exclusion of individual human rights and freedom.

Please be clear that my distaste is for the Hindutva concept. Hinduism is as good or as bad as any other religion, perhaps, due to its general tolerance and inclusion, better than most, ranking with Buddhism and the Sikh system of faith. But Hindutva is disgusting.

In passing, might I mention that you have achieved neither the moral nor the intellectual stature to certify what I may or may not do.