If , as per your new claim Hinduism cannot be given or Taken, controlled and monitored, What exactly did you mean when YOU asked "
how much more Hinduism is needed?"
Its the equivalent of asking "how much more air is needed".
I am indeed a Hindu Bhakt . Was that suppose to be an insult ?
He called you a 'bhakt', NOT a Hindu bhakt. In certain circles, being called an unreasoning, pathological hater, of a particular community of fellow-citizens who happen to belong to a different religion, a regressive and opponent of modern scientific thought and contemporary social positions and attitudes, opposing these by a distorted understanding of one's own religious, cultural, and social position, as defined by shallow, pseudo-European schools of thought abandoned decades ago in their cultures of origin, might be considered an insult.
However, you may always ignore the possibility of insult, and inform all who are reading you that you actually represent the best elements in India. There is no physical harm in doing so.
Vigilante justice is not a mindless act. Its a deliberate act in repose to lack of police action to protect public interest.
It is a criminal act, and cannot be defended by citing a public interest. A public interest is a judiciable matter, it is not a matter of self-defence, nor is it a matter for overstepping the constitution, thrusting aside the due process of law and victimising individuals without cause, without arraignment, without trial and without the support of the law of the land.
Also judging a criminal act is NOT the function of the executive ...... its definitely the role of the judiciary.
Get an education.
Judging a criminal act is not a function of vigilantes. Do join him in his proposed education. It may not be too late.
Pathological hate is a natural response to denial of justice and in the face of repeated insult and injury.
That it would mix with vigilante justice is hardly surprising.
Which is why western nations have JURIES of their peer who get to decide their actual status, and not just on cold law.
Ignorance, in your case, seems to be bliss.
A jury decides on the guilt or innocence of an arraigned individual based on evidence presented, under the rules of evidence. If you are justifying mob attacks as being equivalent to a trial by jury, you are in a state of extreme bliss. Rather suspiciously like pharmacologically induced bliss.
That a cow smuggler was operating with such impudence under the nose of the police, was just a time bomb waiting to explode.
Did any of your heroes report the matter? Or did they simply gather in clandestine groups, exchange angry remarks about the propensity of a community to commit such blasphemy, and decide to take unilateral action.
So yes, the executive did fail us, and so did the polity when it indulged in minority vote banks.
May we take it as a thankful sign that you will not vote in this particular set of politicians guiding the executive, politicians who have proved to be incompetent bunglers and pontificating non-performers? You were the ones who chose the policy makers for this executive.
How did "Hinduism" become equal to "religion" ?
Hinduism is just ONE specific religion.
In your eagerness to demonstrate your "secularism" , you forgot to ask how much "christiantiy and how much islam was needed"
None.
Those need to be criticised for different regressive practices, and will be criticised. This criticism is of go-rakshak vigilantes. There are no Christian or Muslim perpetrators there.
Even then, your whole premise of the question is wrong.
Who is the "modern nation state" to decide the role of religion ? This can only mean that you DO BELIEVE Hindusim needs to be controlled and monitored by the nation state.
So either you deliberately LIED earlier when you said that you do not seek to control it, or you so stupid that you do not understand the significance of your question. SO which is it ?
Considering you appear to be a "secular", I would think you are just plain stupid. I would have preferred you to be a liar. At least there is hope for a liar to reform.
Ultimately, you and your type depend on abuse.
In simple terms, the 'modern nation state' ignores religion in public life; it does not decide the role of religion in private life, so long as the law of the land is not overset.
The rest of your vulgarity is only the trappings of a 'bhakt', the term that does not insult you.
People have been laying claims on Jerusulem for the last 2000 years based on historic injustice and religious grounds. I find your "surprise" Naive.
The first lynching would not have happened if the law had nipped the illegal cattle trade in the bud. If the law had arrested when a calf was illegally stolen, killed and feasted by a family in UP.
The Gujarat riots would not have happened, if mob of Muslims had not locked a train compartment and set it on fire with women and children inside.
You reap what you sow. That is the universal law of nature.
It is belated wisdom for you to realise that, since you are still sowing.
As for the lack of Jury system in India, It only demonstrates the lack of faith, people like you have on your fellow citizens. Maybe you would like to have the British back since you seem to suggest both the citizens and the polity has failed you.
Jury trial was abandoned by the British. It was they, not we, not Indians in an independent republic, who lacked faith in our capacity to deal with our fellow citizens. If you possessed the elements of an education, you might also have found out why.
How conveniently you use the word 'polity' time and again in response to my reply, are you trying to be wilfully ignorant or you are really in dark about the connotations of the two words.
What stops you from implementing the said law in my home state of Assam, or for that matter in Arunachal, Nagaland or Mizoram. Are the Hindus residing in those provinces not your own? Do the holy cows and calves there not require protection from the cattle smugglers and the beef-eaters? O savior, where art thou?
How inconvenient of you to drag in ethics and morality into a simple question of the electoral arithmetic. As if all this is due to anything more dignified than the most vulgar rabble-rousing for the sake of votes, for the coming to power, for the exercising of power, for the amassing of wealth, at last, after decades of being prevented from reaching out for the goodies that are to be plundered from the gullible citizen, as they and their types think happened all during that dreary period when they were treated with the contempt and ignominy that they richly deserved.
You mean apart from the fact that I am not the CM of Assam or Nagaland or Mizoram ?
The protection of the cows and calves in these states is the responsibility of the people of these states.
SO this is as question I should be asking haters like you. What are YOU doing about it ?
.... other than abusing the executive and somehow pretending that its MY responsibility. What a hypocrite.
It is the responsibility of the legislatures, NOT of the people of those states. The rest of your rickety structure fails with the failure of this foundation.
