The Khalistan Diaries

[Swati Shukla]

Thanx atleast i would have one vote...

yeah please.. rename it as sikh marriage act and make hinduism as a sect of sikhism or jainism or buddism. i dont have any problem. my mind is not that narrow. I Love sikhism, jainism and buddism just like hinduism. For me these are also my own religion just like hinduism.

 

[toxic_pus]

I dont know abt where the term Indic and Abrahamic religion are coined from...didnt see that in constitution

The Article 25 as below

"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, practice 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, 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."




Explanations I and II are not even remotely connected with Clause 2b. The fact is that both Explanations I and II urgently call for explanation of their own. Explanation I acknowledges the existence of the Sikh religion. Moreover, Explanation II is notoriously flawed. Its intent is obvious: the individual members of Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist religions will be referred to as Hindus, and Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism are to be considered merely sects of Hinduism. Therefore, the state can interfere with their religious institutions as it sees fit, under the guise of procuring "social reforms.

Article 25 creates this confusion because of the use of archiac legal language, which is difficult for a layman to properly interprete. This also helps the mischiefmakers.

Anyway.

Article 25(2)(b) was actually meant to provide protection to the dalits and also several sects of Hinduism etc. It empowered the Govt. to intervene where, for example, any public religious institution tried to bar the lower caste Hindus from accessing their facilities (e.g. right to worship in a temple). It also empowers a citizen of India to seek relief from Supreme Court where his religious right is defected (Article 25 as a whole does that). Initially it was restricted to Hindus because of obvious reasons. It was later deemed necessary to extend this protection to the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. Explanation II was inserted to give that effect, whereby, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists were to be considered to be 'Hindus' only for the purpose of this Article, so that what is applicable to the Hindus can now be applied to these religions as well.

If the article is read in correct manner in which it was meant to be read, it would read like this:

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law:

(a) ....
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of these religions.​

This would of course remove the need of Explanation II. In fact this was recommended by Supreme Court, as recently as 2010, in a case vs Joginder Singh Sethi.

Explanation I actually confers special rights to Sikhs allowing them to carry Kirpan, even in places where bearing of arms is prohibited, e.g. a bank. Explanation I is obviously not connected to 2(b). Neither does it claim to be, nor does it need to be. Explanation I relates to the main body of the Article which states 'free profession, practice and propagation of religion'.

Sir, all four religions have very different rituals,, atleast for Sikhs even for Jains and buddhists i can say its very different and its very well coded by the SGPC for sikhs...I dont think it if for simplicity otherwise our rules and regulations would have been very simple and our tax payers money would have been saved to a lot of extent..
sry for getting u in this debate but yeh i would have not liked to debate on a marraige law much on it either....

There is nothing in Hindu Marriage Act that prevents a Sikh from performing his/her exclusive rituals. I do agree though that this Act needs to be gone.

 

[KS]

^ Are you a lawyer ?

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Oh now the tread has become the Diaries of Khalistan

 

[indianpatriot]

Some Hindus worship Sai Baba as their supreme lord who says "Malik EK" or one god...he supports some aspects of Vedas and ignore some.
Some Hindu completely deny Vedas and practice their indigenous scriptures.
Some Hindus worship only Krishna and consider Gita above Vedas-ISKON .
Some Hindus worship Buddha as a Hindu god denying Vedas but call themselves Hindus.
Some Hindus are atheists.
Some Hindus are Arya Samajis.........so Hinduism is practically not a religion because it doesnot have a singe founder or prophet.Its actually a collection of various school of thoughts.Some have evolved so much that they are now RELIGIONS in a trues sense but still Hinduism is not a religion..its a PseudoReligion.

Hinduism is the predominant religious tradition[1] of South Asia. Hinduism is often referred to as Sanātana Dharma (a Sanskrit phrase meaning "the eternal law") by its adherents.[2][3] Generic "types" of Hinduism that attempt to accommodate a variety of complex views span folk and Vedic Hinduism to bhakti tradition, as in Vaishnavism. Hinduism also includes yogic traditions and a wide spectrum of "daily morality" based on the notion of karma and societal norms such as Hindu marriage customs.

Hinduism is formed of diverse traditions and has no single founder.[4] Among its roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, and as such Hinduism is often called the "oldest living religion"[5] or the "oldest living major religion".

It was only towards the end of the 18th century that the European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of Indian religions as Hindus. Eventually, it came to define a precisely religious identity that includes any person of Indian origin who neither practiced Abrahamic religions nor non-Vedic Indian religions, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or tribal (Adivasi) religions, thereby encompassing a wide range of religious beliefs and practices related to Sanātana Dharma.[18][19]

The term Hinduism was introduced into the English language in the 19th century to denote the religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions native to India.

 

[Icarus]

The OP was a response to a false flag pretending to be an Indian and spamming with Khalistan threads.

And please dont utterly deny that FC or ISI doesnt do the 'things' in B'stan. Or do you say that the Nationalist Balochis who want self rule are kidnapped and killed by BLA who themselves want Separation from Pakistan. Doesn't make sense.

Note that I'm not supporting the Balochis here, but just saying we both have skeletons in our cupboard and its does not make sense pointing India.

I'm not saying that our hands are totally clean, but guys picked up by agencies are not killed, they are held until furthur notice. Most Baloch parties wnat seperation but are still open to dialogue. BLA persecutes them, deriving two benefits out of their treatment of political activists.
1) To scare other parties into withdrawing the dialogue option.
2) To create a feeling of insecurity among the people.

 

[JayAtl]

why would anyone want a country where the 1/2 of the name means " empty" ( j/k)

 

[DesiGuy]

khalistan was pure BS.....all were killed by BALWANT SINGH.......!!!!!

 

[desioptimist]

You take a vote here and I am sure all non-Sikh Indians here would agree to the Sikh Marriage act or are at least open to a debate on it. The casual approach to Sikhism is but a trait of the very few who are ill-informed.

I think we need to work within our community. I dont remember any Sikh politician or SGPC jathedar taking out a rally in demand for the act. Lets build enough mass support around it within the Sikh community and then we can blame the constitution.

What I understand from all these discussion, the change of name is basically because of identity politics, the same reason calcutta became kolkata or bombay became mumbai.
Renaming may not bring anything substantial, but it will certainly make sikhs feel good, at least those who are demanding.
If enough sikhs demand it, I am sure separate line could be added to constitution to make it more clear. I definitely support it.

 

[desioptimist]

in other threads relating to Sikh massacre of 1984 and operation shudi karan 1984(raping sikh women to alter their genetic makeup) indians are denying something of this sort happened and here you are accepting it and calling for punishment of guilty

I dont think you can change anybody's genetic makeup by rape.
Anyway, what is your point? I am not Indian? Is my post different from my post there?

 

[53fd]

Sarmila Bose, the joke of a Bengali whose blogs have been de-bunked many times over by both Bangladeshi and Indian Bengalis alike.

You might as well quoted Zion Hamid to support your argument.

No independent UN investigation has ever been done to verify the 3 million figure. No Pakistani Army official or the Pakistani Army has been charged with war crimes in the international court of justice. If the UN reported human rights violations in Sri Lanka despite Sri Lanka not letting them into their country, why didn't the UN or any independent organization ever verify these figures?

Also, it is not possible for the Pakistani Army to kill 3 million people in 10 months with 350,000 troops against India's 500,000 troops & 100,000 Mukti Bahinis during the war. If Pakistan managed to kill 3 million people in 10 months with 350,000 troops, how many Kashmiris would have 700,000 Indian troops killed from 1947 to 2011? They would have probably wiped off the whole population, not just the Kashmiris, if you apply the same kill rate for the Indian Army that you did for the Pakistani Army in 1971.

The US has killed 1 million Iraqis since 2003. If the US managed to kill 1 million people in 8 years, how did the Pakistani Army of 350,000 troops manage to kill 3 million people, that too against 500,000 Indian troops & 100,000 Mukti Bahini? You are clearly delusional, at a point of no getting back.

 

[Roybot]

How is India killing Khalistani separatists any different from Pakistan bombing Balochi separatists

India and Pakistan is here to say. Both countries are militarily strong enough to quash any separatist movements.

/Thread.

 

[red_baron]

I agree. If there is demand, we should have separate law. Why not.

after mass killings and raping their women and altering their genetics you are offering them a separate law

 

[jayron]

after mass killings and raping their women and altering their genetics you are offering them a separate law

sorry we made them unacceptable to you by adulterating their genes with less fairer kinds. Please tightly safeguard your gene pool. Thats the only thing you got.

 

[red_baron]

sorry we made them unacceptable to you by adulterating their genes with less fairer kinds. Please tightly safeguard your gene pool. Thats the only thing you got.

u just admitted operation shudi karan 1984 took place...which your fellow indians are denying