Why Kalam Represents India, And Aurangzeb Does Not

[Shamain]

How does this have anything to do with the topic at hand

Why not ?
As u suggested urself :

"The only problem I have with Indian establishment is, it takes someone to die for getting their rightful place in Indian narrative."

 

[vsdoc]

May I inquire as to the meaning of this particular phrase, my dear Gaubav.

Its the concept of the equality of all religions. All religions are equal.

Its actually Sanskrit - sama bhava

Sambhava is Hindi for "possible"

How you doing buddy? Long time!

 

[gau8av]

Its the concept of the equality of all religions. All religions are equal.

Its actually Sanskrit - sama bhava

Sambhava is Hindi for "possible"

How you doing buddy? Long time!

oops, but "sambhava" might also be applicable, y'know, like :

"it's possible for all religions to peacefully co-exist"

 

[vsdoc]

oops, but "sambhava" might also be applicable, y'know, like :

"it's possible for all religions to peacefully co-exist"

And our civilization has been the shining beacon of that for the world for millennia.

Secularism was discovered by the West (the French I think first) a few hundred years ago. A novel and alien concept for militaristically evangelistic expansionist faiths and the lands they occupied and flourished in.

Not so for Dharmic cultures, which have practiced it for thousands of years.

Yet people question us on secularism, who know not the "s" of it. And try to mold our ancestral version into the narrow confines of Western definitions.

I don't find that as absurd as frankly insignificant and unworthy of response or clarification.

 

[vsdoc]

agree, and you meant that you do find that absurd and unworthy of a response or clarification, right ?

Have corrected the sentence structure now. The "and" replaced with an "as." Good catch.

 

[Gibbs]

And our civilization has been the shining beacon of that for the world for millennia.

Secularism was discovered by the West (the French I think first) a few hundred years ago. A novel and alien concept for militaristically evangelistic expansionist faiths and the lands they occupied and flourished in.

Not so for Dharmic cultures, which have practiced it for thousands of years.

Yet people question us on secularism, who know not the "s" of it. And try to mold our ancestral version into the narrow confines of Western definitions.

I don't find that as absurd as frankly insignificant and unworthy of response or clarification.

Secularism is a advent to counteract essentially the Abrahamic religious dogma.. Eastern philosophies was never wholly that fundamentalist to begin with

In effect Buddhism is more of a agnostic or even sometimes a atheist philosophy

 

[vsdoc]

Secularism is a advent to counteract essentially the Abrahamic religious dogma.. Eastern philosophies was never wholly that fundamentalist to begin with

Not just that bro.

Their very understanding of the concept and the circumstances that surround the social fabric in the nation states that practice it, is so very different to the ancient dharmic concept.

They construe secularism as an absence of faith. Largely atheistic societies, increasingly religion being peripheralized.

For us its so different. We are a HUGELY religious people. Who wear our faith on our sleeves. Yet we live together largely in peace and harmony, sharing, loving, living, fighting. Together.

And its all so largely non institutionalized. Sure its there in our Constitution. Sure the State is secular in its executive and bureaucracy and judiciary.

But the point is, the Constitution would have been little less than the paper it was written on if we as a PEOPLE were not inherently secular. It would not have lasted the first term of government if there was ANY resistance internally to the very concept.

As a famous Muslim journalist, now politician, of India once said -

India is secular, and remains and has remained secular, not because the Muslims and other minorities wanted it to be secular.

It is and has remained and will always remain secular because the Hindus want it to be secular.

Nobody would understand and appreciate that more than an Indian Parsi.

And for that any one of us would gladly die for this our land and our people.

 

[Gibbs]

Not just that bro.

Their very understanding of the concept and the circumstances that surround the social fabric in the nation states that practice it, is so very different to the ancient dharmic concept.

They construe secularism as an absence of faith. Largely atheistic societies, increasingly religion being peripheralized.

For us its so different. We are a HUGELY religious people. Who wear our faith on our sleeves. Yet we live together largely in peace and harmony, sharing, loving, living, fighting. Together.

And its all so largely non institutionalized. Sure its there in our Constitution. Sure the State is secular in its executive and bureaucracy and judiciary.

But the point is, the Constitution would have been little less than the paper it was written on if we as a PEOPLE were not inherently secular. It would not have lasted the first term of government if there was ANY resistance internally to the very concept.

As a famous Muslim journalist, now politician, of India once said -

India is secular, and remains and has remained secular, not because the Muslims and other minorities wanted it to be secular.

It is and has remained and will always remain secular because the Hindus want it to be secular.

Nobody would understand and appreciate that more than an Indian Parsi.

And for that any one of us would gladly die for this our land and our people.

Well i hope and wish well that majority of Indians will choose to keep it secular which is the essence of it's democracy

 

[vsdoc]

Well i hope and wish well that majority of Indians will choose to keep it secular which is the essence of it's democracy

Whatever India does, however it develops, and whether it changes from here or stays its course, is dependent on all of us.

But it is especially dependent on the large majority of us. Who are Hindus.

If a large chunk of 80% of a country want to be exclusivist and supremacist, then that is how it will eventually be.

But its not happened for 70 years. And I see no reason for it to happen now.

Simply put, its not in our civilizational DNA.

 

[Bang Galore]

Well i hope and wish well that majority of Indians will choose to keep it secular which is the essence of it's democracy

That's a basic tenet of the constitution. Won't change.

 

[Levina]

What do you think was meant? I find that term quite confusing.

It's off topic, and it'll derail my thread for sure.
My assumption is,since Quran was compliled 10years after PBUH's death so post Quranic Islam should mean Islam which took shape after that period.

Thousands of installations, institutions, roads & God knows what else are named after Nehru-Gandhi family. Why not rename one out of those & leave one Aurangzeb road alone?

And willl Modi government be ready to face the wrath of congress?

When you slaughter Muslims by the thousands, elect a PM who is a known terrorist, and then you have the audacity to say India is not anti-muslim!

I am tired of defending Modi. If Indian govt and Indians were anti-muslims then they would have been treated like pariahs, a treatment accorded to some nationalities here, so why do you think Modi was invited to UAE, a muslim country?

Using fancy words is not going to make you look any smarter. Just shows you are hiding your inferiority complex behind it and trying to be something you are not!

fancy words??? hahaha thats called vocabulary.
Inferiority complex? None that i know of.

 

[I.R.A]

Wrong, please edit your comment. Holy Quran was compiled after Prophet's (PBUH) departing from this world, not completed. There can never be any addition to Quran after Prophet's (PBUH) death. Your comment without you knowing it may be offensive.

 

[Levina]

Wrong, please edit your comment. Holy Quran was compiled after Prophet's (PBUH) departing from this world, not completed. There can never be any addition to Quran after Prophet's (PBUH) death. Your comment without you knowing it may be offensive.

lol
My colleague corrected me when I asked him the same thing just now.
Sorry didnt mean to offend anyone.
I agree that there can be no addition, but it was open to different interpretations is what I meant.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@levina The only problem I have with Indian establishment is, it takes someone to die for getting their rightful place in Indian narrative. Why weren't these names changed when Kalam saab was alive, why did it take for us to do this after his death.

And why now, why wasn't Aurangazeb road or aurangabad renamed after Shivaji right after Independence. After all the concept of modern Secular India, absolutely lies in Purna Swaraj laid by Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the greatest possible hero, the best underdog story that unfolded in our history.

Renaming landmarks that bear the names of scums like Aurangazeb and Murshid Quli Khan (Murshidabad), Akbar's Alhabad (originally Prayag), should have changed either to thir original names or after gem of leaders like Mulana Azad, Patel, Gandhi, Bhagat singh, and Tilak etc, long long time ago...

I am sorry brother.

I am secular.... Being secular doesn't mean being a hypocrite.

I am absolutely secular and I want
Allahabad - to either change to Prayag, or named after a contemporary personality commemorating their contribution to India.
Nizamabad back to Indur or named after a contemporary personality commemorating their contribution to India.
Aurangabad - to be renamed after Shivaji or Sambhaji, or back to Khadki (which might be a problem as there is one already in pune)

Umm, you are a certified Sanghi now. Being secular also is being Sanghi.

Right, stop in conversing in English too, stop using all European invented amenities too; what about destroying Taj Mahal and other Mughal structures through which Bharat earns millions from the tourists? why not dig up the railway lines that British laid? Why not raze to ground the Schools and Hospitals that were erected by British? somebody? Afghans, Mughals and British taught Bhartis how to live with civility otherwise what they were before? Brothers inter-marrying sisters to protect 'rajwad'; women burnt alive together with deceased husbands; humans divided into horrible caste system and forced to lived under so-called high-caste and good for nothing priests; innocent girls forced to work as daasis in temples and 'serving' priests. Bharatis are a bunch of hypocrites irrespective of whether they are Hindutvawadi terrorists or so-called seculars. They cant provide toilets to their people but hell-bent on changing the name of roads. As if all other problems of Bharat are solved, world's largest slums are gone, female feticide is controlled, AIDS epidemic is all but wiped out, dowry -related burnings are stopped...

...and then what? Follow the ideology that you do? Divide society into 73 mutually fighting sects, chop heads off in the 21st century, hands and feet in public and have the galls to abuse us for having 4 castes!

 

[Indus Falcon]

fancy words??? hahaha thats called vocabulary.
Inferiority complex? None that i know of.

Vocabulary - Right, and you use that in everyday communication as well?

Inferiority complex - har pagal yeah hee kehta hai !!