MOHAN BHAGWAT IS RIGHT: India is a 'Hindu' Nation.

[scorpionx]

Is everyone who believes that Congressis are not the only people to fight against imperialist, a Hindutve fundoo?

I have posted reference regarding some famous battles where even non-congressis banded together and fought against invaders, even when they were not threatned by them. Why don't you refute that?

And don't give that crap of India being only 60 years old. Every nation is just an idea. UK is an idea which derives it's sustenance from preserving unity of a small island nation. Germany, Italy and France is idea about unity of people with same language. Poland about having a independent catholic country in the heart of orthodox christianity.

Nation-states may be a recent phenomenon but people of these nation states have a sense of nationhood against outsiders for quite a long time. English rose spontaneously against romans in bouddica rebellion and English + Scots threw off Roman yoke by waging war., Germanic tribes united under Armenius in battle of teutoburg forest to drive Romans out. Gallic tribes united against caser to maintain their independence. If you want to point out particular instances then British nationalism crystallized after their defeat in 100 year wars. Germanic and French during reign of Charlemagne , of India during Chanakyan era.

Just because our civilization was defeated 1000 years ago does not mean that things were so gloomy in past.

Listen smart dude, you have no idea where this debate started from in the beginning, all right? We all know and have read Indian history that you posted. It is not state secret after all.

 

[temp1994]

Not organized, but radical factions had been inherent of every religious factions. Before the invasion of Brits, those radical ideologies had been subconsciously embedded in the actions of feudal lords/kings.

And yet no one could bring any proof, except that of Pashumitra Sunga , of Hindus oppressing any other religion on industrial scale.

 

[arp2041]

Exactly, and we want it to keep it this way. Separation of church and state, as it was, throughout the history of Independent India. We are not fighting on that ideology.

You mean you want to SEPARATE TEMPLE & STATE

Don't try to prove your sickular credentials beyond a point..........it SUCKS!

 

[Iggy]

Dude, Secularism came into Indian Constitution only around when IG amended it in 1975, but India was ALWAYS a secular society in it's long history.............

Be it Jews, Buddhist, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc.

Tell me ONE instance where MINORITY was systematically PERSECUTED???

Mate, I am talking about the current trend.. History has been re written by this fundoos..People who fought for their own benefits suddenly become national heroes and freedom fighters.. Arent you alarmed by the sudden rise of these kind of people?? There were 100s of articles wriiten against Muslims, Christians, Bengalis, Malayalees etc etc.. What you make of it??

 

[Skull and Bones]

You mean you want to SEPARATE TEMPLE & STATE

Don't try to prove your secular credentials beyond a point..........it SUCKS!

That's a saying, i don't have any religious inclination.

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The separation of church and state is a metaphorical description for the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It may refer to creating a secular state, with or without explicit reference to such separation, or to changing an existing relationship of church involvement in a state (disestablishment).

Please don't be a bigot, you suck at that.

 

[scorpionx]

Don't try to prove your sickular credentials beyond a point..........it SUCKS!

Why don't you open threads about religious fundoos who think Dalit system came with Islam? Do you feel proud to corner your own?

 

[arp2041]

Mate, I am talking about the current trend.. History has been re written by this fundoos..People who fought for their own benefits suddenly become national heroes and freedom fighters.. Arent you alarmed by the sudden rise of these kind of people?? There were 100s of articles wriiten against Muslims, Christians, Bengalis, Malayalees etc etc.. What you make of it??

Please tell me more about it? What thing you are talking of?

 

[temp1994]

Dude, Secularism came into Indian Constitution only around when IG amended it in 1975, but India was ALWAYS a secular society in it's long history.............

Be it Jews, Buddhist, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc.

Tell me ONE instance where MINORITY was systematically PERSECUTED???

And the comical point is that Secularism was already a part of both constitution and preamble.Addition of secularism was only done for minority appeasment.

Here, Unedited preamble

​

The clause which guarantees Liberty of thought, expression, belief , faith or worship already guaranteed secularism and Individualistic freedom of religion.

Secularism was unnecessary and was brought forth as a measure of appeasement.

See @Saradiel what is wrong with secularism in India. If it meant what it's lexigraphical meaning meant, secularism would never become an issue.

 

[arp2041]

Why don't you open threads about religious fundoos who think Dalit system came with Islam? Do you feel proud to corner your own?

Dada, why me??? You (or anyone) is free to open threads on ANY topic...........

Maine kab roka hai

 

[scorpionx]

Dada, why me??? You (or anyone) is free to open threads on ANY topic...........

Maine kab roka hai

Kiyunki tumhari REAL secularism aaj kaal humari maa baap ke peeche padhe hain ,bhai

 

[Iggy]

Please tell me more about it? What thing you are talking of?

If you dont know anything about it, then I cant help you..

 

[temp1994]

Exactly, and we want it to keep it this way. Separation of church and state, as it was, throughout the history of Independent India. We are not fighting on that ideology.

It was not required. Secularism was already a part of Indian preamble and constitution. It was brought forth as an appeasment measure and is associated with state's partiality like shah bano case.

When most of Indians criticize secularism, they criticize what it had become, not what it meant. I is similar to word nigger for americans. Negro is proper description of race of people living south of Sahara , but since it got associated with slavery, it lost it's original meaning and morphed into a racial slur. Similar thing is happening with secularism in India. It is getting equated with appeassment.

 

[arp2041]

The only Pakistanis are Bengalis.

Highly Offending Madamji

Bipasha Basu is 100% Indian......I know that........

If you dont know anything about it, then I cant help you..

Bhai Sahab ab bta bhi do............

 

[Skull and Bones]

It was not required. Secularism was already a part of Indian preamble and constitution. It was brought forth as an appeasment measure and is associated with state's partiality like shah bano case.

When most of Indians criticize secularism, they criticize what it had become, not what it meant. I is similar to word nigger for americans. Negro is proper description of race of people living south of Sahara , but since it got associated with slavery, it lost it's original meaning and morphed into a racial slur. Similar thing is happening with secularism in India. It is getting equated with appeassment.

Rather than cherry picking, can you please go through the whole flow of the conversation. I never said that secularism wasn't there is the Indian society, and have already clarified my position on the separation of Church and State in practice. Constitution hasn't been discussed, but rather the assimilation and freedom of different culture within the society.

Thank You.

 

[temp1994]

Listen smart dude, you have no idea where this debate started from in the beginning, all right? We all know and have read Indian history that you posted. It is not state secret after all.

I read it. It is improper on her part to accise Bengalis but you people have properly defended yourself and i did not feel a need to comment on that part.

I commented on " Rest were shit " part because no one was defending them. Madam was busy bashing Bengalis.

Rather than cherry picking, can you please go through the whole flow of the conversation. I never said that secularism wasn't there is the Indian society, and have already clarified my position on the separation of Church and State in practice. Constitution hasn't been discussed, but rather the assimilation and freedom of different culture within the society.

Thank You.

OK