What is Status Quo in India

[Koovie]

The nation is already a failed state.

 

[Emmie]

Secularism is not a fundamental part of the constitution.

Keshvananda Bharti vs. state of Kerala..

Excerpt..

So the majority was of the opinion that the amending power under article 368 is subject to the qualification that this amending power cannot be exercised to alter the basic structure of the framework of the constitution. Such as (1) Supremacy of the constitution. (2) Republican and democratic form of govt. (3) Secular character of constitution. (4) Separation of power. (5) Federal character of constitution.

Theory of basic structure: a limitation on amending power

 

[janon]

I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe or not believe in anything.

I believe in god and hence a theists,christians believe something,muslims believe something etc etc.

so what do atheists believe in?

If i am a doctor it is something i do,i cant call myself a non doctor and say i do everything except medicine,

Well that's because the number of doctors is very small compared to the number of non doctors, so doctors have a special term, but non-doctors don't. Similarly theists are the majority and atheists are the minority, which is why "atheist" has a label. If 99% of the world were atheists, then it's theists who would have a label applied to them.

There is no such thing as a true secularism. If you want the French secularism(during the revolution) which probably is the closest to be called 'true' secularism, you would hate it. You cannot roam on the street with sindhoor in such a secular country.

Indian definition of secularism is good enough if not great. If it subsidizes Hajj like many of your friends cry about, it also subsidizes Amarnath yatra and Kumbh mela. If it allows iftar feasts as a good-hearted or some times populist gesture, it also allows 'ground-breaking and keel-laying ceremonies with pujas' for our submarines.

Frankly, subsidizing religious pilgrimages (of any religion) has to stop. Whoever wants to go on a religious pilgrimage ought to pay from her own pocket, not expect society to pay for them.

 

[rubyjackass]

Indian temples have and generate wealth worth crores of rupees,so who needs amarnath subsidy?

we can fund amarnath subsidy ourselves.

FYI that is exactly what some Muslim groups say, they don't want government to give subsidy. They would rather have the poor muslims depend on religious groups' or worse Saudi groups' aid. By the way SC already directed government to stop the program gradually, which it did on the basis that muslims should technically do hajj only if they can afford it, not on the basis that the subsidy is illegal. In fact SC has specifically called the subsidy constitutionally valid.

Regarding the temples's wealth, NDA was in power for 5 years. The removal of government interference in temples is something which even some secular parties advocate. Why could NDA not simply pass a law freeing all temples from state governments? There is probably a dirty secret here. BJP ruled states also want control over temple revenues. Apparently nowadays some states run on money from temples and liquor sales(obviously an exaggeration, in case you did not get the hint but you should get my point). And there is actually a genuine concern that temples' wealth will not be spent in saving dilapidated structures but will be spent on patronising the particular temple's 'branches'. For example all small tribal temples will get no funds if left for themselves. You can see that happening with your village temples. The general trend is that the tribal goddesses get replaced by durga mata. The heritage structures get neglected while populist gods like Tirupati get cash-rich.

I would vote for getting them away from government. We will notice another case of how government was trying(very bad at it of course) to protect Hinduism from Hindus.

Iftaar feasts are non issues,bhoomi pooja/coconut breaking is the faith of those naval officers not a government thing.

Baah! I can google pics of MMS's wife doing the same in such ceremonies. Please don't believe in a lie to satisfy your ego. It happens because government allows it.

Frankly, subsidizing religious pilgrimages (of any religion) has to stop. Whoever wants to go on a religious pilgrimage ought to pay from her own pocket, not expect society to pay for them.

I totally agree on decisions like that when taken across the board for all religions. But in this case, the saffron brigade is beating a dead horse. SC already set a timeline for removing Haj subsidies despite declaring them constitutional.

 

[janon]

I totally agree on decisions like that when taken across the board for all religions. But in this case, the saffron brigade is beating a dead horse. SC already set a timeline for removing Haj subsidies despite declaring them constitutional.

Constitutional doesn't necessarily mean legal, and legal doesn't necessarily mean right. I mean, even if there is nothing in the constitution to prohibit something, there can still be a law against it which makes it illegal. But if something is unconstitutional, then it also means it is illegal, since no law can be made that is unconstitutional. I am just pointing that out in general terms, not to this issue in particular. (BTW in the USA, it would be unconstitutional.) I'm sure it is constitutional as well as legal in India to allow haj subsidies. But should the country do it?

I agree that it should apply to all religions and not just for haj, that subsidies for all of them should be stopped.

 

[SrNair]

why should indian state tolerate unjustified attacks on hindu religion by abrahamic religions?

Indian state may be a secular state but the majority of voters are hindu.

If the indian govt controls the hindu temples,then what right do they have to stay neutral?



not exactly.



whats there to believe in earth and air?

it is a fact.

so when everyone else is defined by what they believe in,why are atheists defined by what they dont believe in?

isn't that a very cynical negative position to be in?

You are mistaken.Unlike Islam or Christianity.Hinduism dont have any organizational structure .And casteism is another monster in Hinduism .If Indian govt dont control these temple they will definitely looted by their own people.That is why we Keralites support Devaswom Board for a certain extent.Due to them ,an autonomous institutions completely under the control of Hindus. our templees dont destroyed .Abrahamic religions has a democratic set up and rules and regulation inside of their religion.But I dont like using of temple wealth for public use.
Hinduism have its own uniqueness and powerful foundation .Hinduism dont need extremist support for sustain.We hindus defends our religion whenever we needed.But we dont like unwanted use of religion for everything .We know what happened when we see everything through a mirror of religion.

Then that is problem That proverb means if you failed in somewhere against someone then you expressed your anger to your loved ones or against someone you know .In other words you create this thread because you irritated by someone behaviour against Hinduism or your belief.

athu potte....but the very funny thing i7 that these caste/religious rivalries are all happening in their own states Tamilnad,maharastra,U.P...now they are blaming Bengal and Kerala for no reason...i think they don't like our unity and are working full day blaming Kerala and Bengal..and wants to disrupt the profile...

You are right.I dont know more about Bengal except Kerala is too better than Bengal.But what is her problem ?
I dont know she suddenely showed up with theocratic mentality and talking about Hindu country.

 

[rubyjackass]

Constitutional doesn't necessarily mean legal, and legal doesn't necessarily mean right. I mean, even if there is nothing in the constitution to prohibit something, there can still be a law against it which makes it illegal. But if something is unconstitutional, then it also means it is illegal, since no law can be made that is unconstitutional. I am just pointing that out in general terms, not to this issue in particular. (BTW in the USA, it would be unconstitutional.) I'm sure it is constitutional as well as legal in India to allow haj subsidies. But should the country do it?

I agree that it should apply to all religions and not just for haj, that subsidies for all of them should be stopped.

I understand what you are saying. But if you see the saffron literature, their main grievance or their propaganda is that India is meant to be a secular country and that so and so pseudo-seculars gave Muslims Hajj subsidizes unconstitutionally to appease them. My point is that the unconstitutional part is wrong. It might be cheap electoral appeasement. But we do take such measures for Buddhists and Hindus as well. That is my point. Many hindus will not be so communal if they understood this and the fact that some Muslim groups(some liberal and some religious) actually argued for revoking the Haj subsidy.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Atheists dont believe only in Hindu god,i hope they tell us what they believe in.

Maybe your view is restricted by the deep ideological well you're shit deep in, Atheist doesn't believe in any sort of divine creation. Don't victimize your faith with the notion that atheists emerged only from Hinduism.

 

[bronxbull]

my question is very simple,what do atheists believe in?

why dont they say what they believe in,instead of saying what they don't believe in?

FYI that is exactly what some Muslim groups say, they don't want government to give subsidy. They would rather have the poor muslims depend on religious groups' or worse Saudi groups' aid. By the way SC already directed government to stop the program gradually, which it did on the basis that muslims should technically do hajj only if they can afford it, not on the basis that the subsidy is illegal. In fact SC has specifically called the subsidy constitutionally valid.

Regarding the temples's wealth, NDA was in power for 5 years. The removal of government interference in temples is something which even some secular parties advocate. Why could NDA not simply pass a law freeing all temples from state governments? There is probably a dirty secret here. BJP ruled states also want control over temple revenues. Apparently nowadays some states run on money from temples and liquor sales(obviously an exaggeration, in case you did not get the hint but you should get my point). And there is actually a genuine concern that temples' wealth will not be spent in saving dilapidated structures but will be spent on patronising the particular temple's 'branches'. For example all small tribal temples will get no funds if left for themselves. You can see that happening with your village temples. The general trend is that the tribal goddesses get replaced by durga mata. The heritage structures get neglected while populist gods like Tirupati get cash-rich.

I would vote for getting them away from government. We will notice another case of how government was trying(very bad at it of course) to protect Hinduism from Hindus.


Baah! I can google pics of MMS's wife doing the same in such ceremonies. Please don't believe in a lie to satisfy your ego. It happens because government allows it.


I totally agree on decisions like that when taken across the board for all religions. But in this case, the saffron brigade is beating a dead horse. SC already set a timeline for removing Haj subsidies despite declaring them constitutional.

Again,it is the faith of the bureaucrats that they allow it,

Government has to allow it,because it is the faith of the majority.

let the government remove Hajj subsidy first,Muslims ll always side with their religion and saudi arabia,how much ever subsidy you give them.

Well that's because the number of doctors is very small compared to the number of non doctors, so doctors have a special term, but non-doctors don't. Similarly theists are the majority and atheists are the minority, which is why "atheist" has a label. If 99% of the world were atheists, then it's theists who would have a label applied to them.



Frankly, subsidizing religious pilgrimages (of any religion) has to stop. Whoever wants to go on a religious pilgrimage ought to pay from her own pocket, not expect society to pay for them.

Thats a very lame reply,all the communists of Cuba/Russia never hide their cultural/ethnic heritage but Indian ones do,hence.

If Atheists dont believe in anything,they should get out of this sphere and focus on other things.

let us come to yellow and then we can talk.

FYI that is exactly what some Muslim groups say, they don't want government to give subsidy. They would rather have the poor muslims depend on religious groups' or worse Saudi groups' aid. By the way SC already directed government to stop the program gradually, which it did on the basis that muslims should technically do hajj only if they can afford it, not on the basis that the subsidy is illegal. In fact SC has specifically called the subsidy constitutionally valid.

Regarding the temples's wealth, NDA was in power for 5 years. The removal of government interference in temples is something which even some secular parties advocate. Why could NDA not simply pass a law freeing all temples from state governments? There is probably a dirty secret here. BJP ruled states also want control over temple revenues. Apparently nowadays some states run on money from temples and liquor sales(obviously an exaggeration, in case you did not get the hint but you should get my point). And there is actually a genuine concern that temples' wealth will not be spent in saving dilapidated structures but will be spent on patronising the particular temple's 'branches'. For example all small tribal temples will get no funds if left for themselves. You can see that happening with your village temples. The general trend is that the tribal goddesses get replaced by durga mata. The heritage structures get neglected while populist gods like Tirupati get cash-rich.

I would vote for getting them away from government. We will notice another case of how government was trying(very bad at it of course) to protect Hinduism from Hindus.


Baah! I can google pics of MMS's wife doing the same in such ceremonies. Please don't believe in a lie to satisfy your ego. It happens because government allows it.


I totally agree on decisions like that when taken across the board for all religions. But in this case, the saffron brigade is beating a dead horse. SC already set a timeline for removing Haj subsidies despite declaring them constitutional.

NDA had to so much so much in their 5 year mandate including foriegn sanctions/plane hijack/parliament attack and so on.

constitution is the supreme law cannot be changed even if one have 543 ,can only be amended in limits.

not everyone is a owaisi or togadia it's a small bunch of loosers ,strengthen the law and take them out.

why dont you try?

I understand what you are saying. But if you see the saffron literature, their main grievance or their propaganda is that India is meant to be a secular country and that so and so pseudo-seculars gave Muslims Hajj subsidizes unconstitutionally to appease them. My point is that the unconstitutional part is wrong. It might be cheap electoral appeasement. But we do take such measures for Buddhists and Hindus as well. That is my point. Many hindus will not be so communal if they understood this and the fact that some Muslim groups(some liberal and some religious) actually argued for revoking the Haj subsidy.

what measures are they?

Dharmic folks pay much more tax to India than others.

 

[bronxbull]

athu potte....but the very funny thing i7 that these caste/religious rivalries are all happening in their own states Tamilnad,maharastra,U.P...now they are blaming Bengal and Kerala for no reason...i think they don't like our unity and are working full day blaming Kerala and Bengal..and wants to disrupt the profile...

caste rivalries are nothing,you have religious extremism and it ll be much worse.

anyone who believes he is hero and he is ideal falls to the ground one day,hope god save the people from the marxists.

Keshvananda Bharti vs. state of Kerala..

Excerpt..

So the majority was of the opinion that the amending power under article 368 is subject to the qualification that this amending power cannot be exercised to alter the basic structure of the framework of the constitution. Such as (1) Supremacy of the constitution. (2) Republican and democratic form of govt. (3) Secular character of constitution. (4) Separation of power. (5) Federal character of constitution.

Theory of basic structure: a limitation on amending power

it can be done,no big deal.

 

[Koovie]

let us come to yellow and then we can talk.

Yeah, and that is gonna happen by turning India into the dharmic republic of bharat

 

[Arya Desa]

India was born as a Buddhist state under Ashoka and all India's ideals of ahimsa, etc are the Buddhist variant. Therefore India is a Buddhist country, not a hindu one.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nah, according to some of the Hindutva crowd here, an atheist is also a Hindu since they worship a God known as "No-God"

What about those who practice Ancestor Worship?

 

[Arya Desa]

What about those who practice Ancestor Worship?

No such concept as ancestor worship in Indian culture.

 

[ares]

Do people here even understand the meaning of word 'being Secular'??

Secularism is complete dissociation of religion and the state. Religion is private matter.
A secular state will not interfere in matters of religion, nor will let region interfere in the matters of the state.

It will treats all its subjects equally, irrespective of their religion. A secular state will seek to promote social order separate from religion, without dismissing or criticizing religious beliefs.

Secularism is not an argument against religion, but complete independence from it.

India was founded as secular republic(though it still far from becoming one), she shall always strive to be one.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949,DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
”