toxic puss u r a loud sounding nothing what is ur point i gave u the STANCE OF UR GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION THAT U ASKED FOR....now what r u talking about u said give me a fact that the government of INDIA is discriminating... i did now what do u want....and whatever ur poster kid nonesense little puss please throwing crap at me and calling me names doesn't make u a better or higher man... i am not revising my stance i am still sticking to the FACT that stop calling INDIA SECULAR it is out right a HINDU STATE!!! simple nothing more nothing less....
No, mr hypocrite, you haven't come close to providing any evidence of discriminatory Govt. policy. You have just copy pasted someone's rant, without actually understanding what he is getting at.
1: Constitutional Discrimination
Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." Indias constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it defines followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Article 25 (2) (b) (Explanation II) states: "the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion
"
Isnt this the concern of Brahmin establishment to allow or disallow whoever they deem fit to enter a temple? Why should a secular state be concerned with the social welfare of only one religion? The motive of the constitution writers was obvious: to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.
This is by far the most twisted interpretation of Article 25(2) that I have ever come across. First lets see what is there in Article 25(2):
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
First thing that one would notice is that, Article 25(2), Explanation I specifically provides constitutional protection to their religious symbol of carrying kirpans. No other religion enjoys such protection of their symbols as the Sikhs do. The author doesnt let the reader have a clue about this. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.
Second, the author, true to his intellectual dishonesty, edits the later part of the Explanation II, so that it is easier for him to make his point. The explanation actually ends up defining Hindu religious institutions as Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religious institutions as well. The Explanation II reads:
In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and
the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
The author tried to score some very cheap points here, by suppressing the complete text of the Article and then editing it at will, and finally disingenuously interpreting it as an attempt to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables. If anything, Article 25(2), actually empowers the GoI to interfere with the religious institutes belonging to not only Hindus, but Sikhs, Jainas and Buddhists, to ensure social welfare.
In any case, Explanation II to Article 25(2)(B) is indeed, a controversial one, not for the reasons, the author has tried to portray, but because it clubs other religions within the same bracket as Hindus. A commission, Justice M N Venkatachalian Commission, has proposed to do away with the said explanation and word the Article itself as:
Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of these religions"
Pathetic attempt. Really. This Article is not a proof of deliberate Govt. policy of discrimination. Because this Article 25(2)(b) doesnt infringe on anybodys right to religious practice. If anything, it is an issue of identity.
The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to
(a) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any person domiciled in the territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.
In other words, legally there is no such thing as a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh marriage, which is another attempt to deny other religions a distinctive identity and absorb them in the Hindu fold.
Another fail. Some salient features of Hindu marriage act.
- At the time of marriage, neither party shall have any living spouse, thereby prohibiting polygamy and polyandry. Also, this protects the right of existing spouse, in case s/he is being cheated.
- Prohibits intra sapinda marriages, unless custom or usage so allows.
- It has a specified age for bride (not below 18 years of age) and groom (not below 21 yrs of age)
- Section 7 states that, A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Given that the word "Hindu" includes, Sikhs, Jains & Buddhists, this gives freedom to all such communities to hold ceremonies according to their customs.
- Compulsory registration. Needed for administrative purpose.
- Provides bases for divorces, e.g. if the spouse converts, or adultery etc.
Which part appears to you as deliberate discrimination against minorities. Oh wait. The name part. Isnt it.
Again, it is all about identity, not about restrictions on ones right to religious practice.
The Office of the Registrar General that conducts the decennial census enumerates anyone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi as Hindu, most particularly in tribal areas, in pursuance of a policy of Hindu by default to inflate the religious majority.
Lies. If you had ever bothered to look at any of Indias census report, you would have known that the population data is broken down in terms of religion and data is presented separately for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains. The accusation of the author is purely speculation.
Article 290A of the Constitution, which was added in 1956, provides for Kerala state funds to be paid for the upkeep of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories of former princely state of Tranvancore. What state but a denominational one would spend government funds to promote a particular religion?
[As an aside, a forest has been destroyed in arguing for a uniform civil code as opposed to Muslim Personal Law and the issue of Haj subsidy. But perhaps I can save those issues for a full discussion at a different time]
Careful what you wish for. Haj subsidy is something that also qualify as spending of government funds to promote a particular religion.
Although freedom of religion is granted under the constitutions Article 25 (1), a Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation during the heyday of Nehru in 1954. Since then as many as 7 state legislatures (Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tripura) have passed laws severely restricting conversion from Hinduism to other religions while facilitating conversion to Hinduism.
In 1982, when a few hundred Dalits embraced Islam in Meenakshipuram, the central government took measures to curb conversions. No less than Indira Gandhi characterized conversions as a threat to national security.
There is no anti-conversion law that prohibits voluntary conversion, because that would be un-constitutional a direct infringement of right to religious practices. All anti conversion laws are aimed at prohibiting conversion through deceit. Deceit, in any case, is a criminal offence as per CrPC.
Christian missions and churches have been under attack since decades, often with state complicity as demonstrated in August-September 2008 in Orissa and Karnataka.
Hundreds of mosques are in illegal possession nationwide including in New Delhi, where scores are occupied by the central government.
It was a Congress government that first locked up the Babari Mosque in 1949 by court order effectively converting it into a Hindu temple. What began under Nehru was successfully completed by Narasimha Rao in 1992 through the Mosques destruction under the very nose of army, paramilitary and police. It is ironic that the Indian state is ready to deploy army to flush out Sikh insurgents from Golden Temple and Muslim rebels from Charar-i Sharif, but not protect Babari Mosque from the Hindu mobs jack hammers.
The states of Gujarat and UP spent government funds to rebuild the Somanatha Temple around the same time when Babari Mosque was locked up. It was President Rajendra Prasad who inaugurated the rebuilt temple in 1951 amidst official fanfare.
Again, all these are failure of governance on the part of Central or State got.. Nothing, what so ever, to do with deliberate discriminatory policy of the government.
Nice try, but epic fail.
ok its obvious you can't follow a civilised dialogue. the simple case of people spreading abrahmic religions inside hindu temples is denial of freedom of worship to hindus is difficult for u to see 
