Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[Dillinger]

Yup something you were feeling joyous about not being enforced just some time ago.

You seem to be conflating two VERY different issues..an uniform civil code is pretty much my dream..something which I have called for on PDF and in real life for years now.

 

[Hermione]

They also actively promote not bringing religion into the public sphere and boas the largest absolute number of atheists..see any contradiction whatsoever?

That they promote atheism or Buddhism is in itself a refutation of being secular. All that not caring for religion is nonsense, when it reserves special treatment for people in Uruqumi.

You seem to be conflating two VERY different issues..an uniform civil code is pretty much my dream..something which I have called for on PDF and in real life for years now.

Nope not at all. You said it was not a matter of lacuna that the laws were not implement true to the essence of the constitution. Uniform civil code being one and banning beef another.

 

[Dillinger]

That they promote atheism or Buddhism is in itself a refutation of being secular. All that not caring for religion is nonsense, when it reserves special treatment for people in Uruqumi.

Promoting atheism is very much secular. Secular- to be separate and devoid of religion NOT to treat all religions equally and with respect. As I said, and I repeat ad verbatim and ad infinatum- semantics is a VERY important thing.

 

[Roybot]

Ever point in above table is debatable but lets concentrate on CM/PM thing.

1.) There was no cm of Delhi and in realty there was not a post called Chief Minister of Delhi in 1984. So there is no logic of its involvement or getting cleared by the court etc.

2.) The riots happened before there was anyone called PM of India as the one who was PM, was killed.

3.) The local police in Delhi even in 1984 was not under the direct command of India's Prime Minister.

lmao worst cop out ever. So the PM was dead, was the home minister dead too?

 

[Dillinger]

That they promote atheism or Buddhism is in itself a refutation of being secular. All that not caring for religion is nonsense, when it reserves special treatment for people in Uruqumi.



Nope not at all. You said it was not a matter of lacuna that the laws were not implement true to the essence of the constitution. Uniform civil code being one and banning beef another.

The uniform civil code is not being implemented due to sheer politics and the immaturity of our populace..ergo most definitely no lacuna left in how the demand for it was worded out. As I said you are conflating vastly different issues which tends to happen when one is dealing with a multitude of topics across varied fields from the history of our union to anthropological categorization.

 

[Hermione]

Promoting atheism is very much secular. Secular- to be separate and devoid of religion NOT to treat all religions equally and with respect. As I said, and I repeat ad verbatim and ad infinatum- semantics is a VERY important thing.

Rubbish. What a persons belief is, is no matter of the state as per "secularism." The state can have no religion, but it has no business promoting any ideology or lack of it.

 

[Dillinger]

lmao worst cop out ever. So the PM was dead, was the home minister dead too?

Sush..they were Sikhs and the free media didn't exist..who cares. Go back to sleep.

Rubbish. What a persons belief is, is no matter of the state as per "secularism." The state can have no religion, but it has no business promoting any ideology or lack of it.

Oh but it can in the public sphere..why else do you think the law delineates matters of the person and matters in interest of the state and public? You see all authority for the lack of a better word (forgive my crassness) is a bitch..it ensconces for itself the maximum quantum of power...one of which is to dictate the RoE so to say in the public sphere- ergo France banning the Burqa..

 

[Hermione]

The uniform civil code is not being implemented due to sheer politics and the immaturity of our populace..ergo most definitely no lacuna left in how the demand for it was worded out. As I said you are conflating vastly different issues which tends to happen when one is dealing a multitude of topics across varied fields from the history of our union to anthropological categorization.

Our constitution deals with all of it and we were discussing the identity of our nation and the laws thereof. So all these do fall within its purview. UCC was not implemented so was absolute ban on beef either. Both matters of constitution and both in keeping with our identity as one people. You know "subsume" for greater good.

 

[doublemaster]

You seem to be conflating two VERY different issues..an uniform civil code is pretty much my dream..something which I have called for on PDF and in real life for years now.

Better need to start that from Gujarat....

Why Gujarat has special status? "Maitri Karar" which allows having more women to keep "wife" like...!

 

[Dillinger]

Our constitution deals with all of it and we were discussing the identity of our nation and the laws thereof. So all these do fall within its purview. UCC was not implemented so was absolute ban on beef either. Both matters of constitution and both in keeping with our identity as one people. You know "subsume" for greater good.

Again..you need to go back and find out EXACTLY which part of the constitution lists the need for a UCC and under what premise. Is it a guiding principle, part of the preamble itself, a definitive law or an objective principle? A law constraining the consumption of a particular form of meat on the other hand is far removed from constitutional law ergo the false conflation.

 

[Hermione]

Oh but it can in the public sphere..why else do you think the law delineates matters of the person and matters in interest of the state and public? You see all authority for the lack of a better word (forgive my crassness) is a bitch..it ensconces for itself the maximum quantum of power...one of which is to dictate the RoE so to say in the public sphere- ergo France banning the Burqa..

That is pseudo secularism then and you lose your leg to stand on when you vouch that as an example of secularism. Most Chinese holidays are religious too.

 

[Dillinger]

Better need to start that from Gujarat....

Why Gujarat has special status? "Maitri Karar" which allows having more women to keep "wife" like...!

You do NOT START from any particular place FIRST..the UCC is to be uniformly implemented across the nation. Why is it that everyone must try to fit such noble aspirations to their petty agendas?

That is pseudo secularism then and you lose your leg to stand on when you vouch that as an example of secularism. Most Chinese holidays are religious too.

Did I not just define secularism for you. There is nothing called "pseudo secularism"..you either are or are not. Simply put France has taken the notion of an UCC to its logical extreme..that the public sphere will be religion neutral..so Sikhs can't wear turbans to school (oh yeah)..my air hostess on Air France- a devout Catholic couldn't stop cribbing about the crosses underneath the blouse thing..so on and so forth..after all the point of secularism is to move towards a religion neutral political and public space.

Obviously one can always aspire to be as good as the USSR in those terms.

 

[Roybot]

Congress and Rahul Gandhi Handicapped the Rural People of India

​

 

[Hermione]

Again..you need to go back and find out EXACTLY which part of the constitution lists the need for a UCC and under what premise. Is it a guiding principle, part of the preamble itself, a definitive law or an objective principle? A law constraining the consumption of a particular form of meat on the other hand is far removed from constitutional law ergo the false conflation.

It is a directive principle and one that will be made a definitive law.

 

[Dillinger]

It is a directive principle and one that will be made a definitive law.

That is a good start..find any lacuna in the wording that has led to it not being implemented? There is none whatsoever at all...its quite explicit and thus my assertion that it is our politics that has led to us willfully ignoring it..were we to institute an UCC parallel to the sort in France I would probably burst with joy..it is MY DREAM!