BJP moves SC for removal of term ‘secular’ from India’s Constitution’s preamble

[The Bald Eagle]

Indian Supreme Court has challenged the motives of petitioners seeking to remove the terms “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble of India’s Constitution, asking, “You don’t want India to be a secular state?”

The petitioners, including BJP leader and former MP Subramanian Swamy, argue that these terms distort India’s original democratic ideals. However, the court emphasized that secularism is a fundamental feature of the Constitution and is part of its “basic structure,” which cannot be amended according to landmark rulings such as Kesavananda Bharati and SR Bommai.

During the proceedings, Justice Sanjiv Khanna noted that secularism in India implies equal treatment of all religions, distinguishing it from Western notions that advocate a complete separation between religion and state. The inclusion of the term “secular” in the Preamble merely clarifies the inherent philosophy of the Constitution.

The case has revived discussions surrounding the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which introduced “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble to align the nation’s identity with contemporary social and political values.

Petitioner Vishnu Shankar Jain argued that the 42nd Amendment was never adequately debated in Parliament. Justice Khanna countered that the matter has been thoroughly discussed, asserting that both terms have evolved meanings and interpretations. “Socialism can also imply fair opportunity for all, and secularism has various interpretations,” he stated.

Swamy further contended that the Preamble, dated November 26, 1949, should not include these terms, suggesting a division into two parts—one with the date and another without. The court, however, asked the petitioners to provide relevant documents for further examination and set November 18 as the next hearing date, refusing to issue notices at this stage.

BJP moves SC for removal of term ‘secular’ from India’s Constitution’s preamble

www.pakistantoday.com.pk

 

[FearlessRoar]

BIG BIG move

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@cricketjoshila, @CricketCartoons, @Bhaijaan, lol Indian SC for the first time ditched BJP​

====

SC dismisses plea to remove 'socialist' & 'secular' terms from Constitution​

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the concepts of 'socialist' and 'secular' are integral to the Constitution's basic framework, a point the courts have consistently said in various rulings. This statement was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for these terms to be removed from the Constitution's Preamble. One of the petitioners is BJP leader and former MP Subramanian Swamy.
During the proceedings, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioners, argued before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar that the 42nd Amendment of 1976, which introduced these terms, was never subjected to parliamentary debate.

According to Bar and Bench, replying to this, Justice Khanna said, "Please see Jain, the words have varied interpretations. Both words have different interpretations today. Even our courts have declared them, time and again, as part of the basic structure (of the Constitution)."
He further said, "Socialism can also mean there has to be fair opportunity for all, the concept of equality. Let's not take it in the Western concept. It can have some different meaning as well. Same with the word secularism."

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, referred to the Emergency period under Indira Gandhi's government, during which the amendment was made. He was referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in 1976, which determined that an individual's right to be free from unlawful detention could be suspended for state interests. Justice HR Khanna stood out as the sole dissenting judge in the 4-1 decision by the Constitution bench. Notably, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is his nephew.

Source: Business Standard

 

[The Bald Eagle]

'You don't want India to be secular?': Supreme Court on Preamble amendment plea​

The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed that secularism has long been regarded as an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure. The top court made the statement orally while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble to the Constitution.

"You don't want India to be secular?" Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked, while hearing the plea alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar. The Supreme Court bench said that the term 'socialism' should not necessarily be interpreted in the western context and the term can also mean that there has to be an equal opportunity for all.

Source: India Today

 

[JaDed]

Yeah the man who is filing the litigation has been sidelined from BJP completely and has dislike for Modi too.
Also the SC has been against BJP many times.

 

[Champ_Pal]

India will remain secular.

However the socialist part must be erased if India wants to improve at even faster pace. Capitalism is the only way to go. Talent over race, caste, religion and color.

 

[JaDed]

In all honesty the words Socialist Secular and Integrity were added by Indira during Emergency, the irony lol

hopefully socialist gets removed!

 

[RexRex]

This is a trial balloon. The BJP wants to inch towards a hindu rashtra; so do the numerous bhakts on this forum.

 

[CricketCartoons]

@cricketjoshila, @CricketCartoons, @Bhaijaan, lol Indian SC for the first time ditched BJP​

====

SC dismisses plea to remove 'socialist' & 'secular' terms from Constitution​

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the concepts of 'socialist' and 'secular' are integral to the Constitution's basic framework, a point the courts have consistently said in various rulings. This statement was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for these terms to be removed from the Constitution's Preamble. One of the petitioners is BJP leader and former MP Subramanian Swamy.
During the proceedings, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioners, argued before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar that the 42nd Amendment of 1976, which introduced these terms, was never subjected to parliamentary debate.

According to Bar and Bench, replying to this, Justice Khanna said, "Please see Jain, the words have varied interpretations. Both words have different interpretations today. Even our courts have declared them, time and again, as part of the basic structure (of the Constitution)."
He further said, "Socialism can also mean there has to be fair opportunity for all, the concept of equality. Let's not take it in the Western concept. It can have some different meaning as well. Same with the word secularism."

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, referred to the Emergency period under Indira Gandhi's government, during which the amendment was made. He was referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in 1976, which determined that an individual's right to be free from unlawful detention could be suspended for state interests. Justice HR Khanna stood out as the sole dissenting judge in the 4-1 decision by the Constitution bench. Notably, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is his nephew.

Source: Business Standard

Again you are wrong ( I guess that is why you tagged me so that I can correct you).

1. Subramanian Swamy is not BJP. He openly criticises Modi. Doesn't hold any office and doesn't follow the party.
2. SC has gone against BJP many times.

I respect Swamy though. Has done a lot compared to Modi.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is a trial balloon. The BJP wants to inch towards a hindu rashtra; so do the numerous bhakts on this forum.

I want to keep the secular word in constitution.

I just want to see true secularism on the ground. Not exceptions for one particular religion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India will remain secular as long as hindus are a majority.

Added a correction.

 

[Hitman]

Added a correction.

On another note, does there exist any country in the world where Muslims are in majority and yet it’s not an Islamic country? I honestly don’t know.​

 

[Bhaijaan]

Bharat’s bigger concern is the presence of 400 million muslims in its territory despite the fact that at least two large nations were carved out of it in the basis of religion to provide greater autonomy to muslims as per their wishes. That provision failed as 500 million muslims stayed in Bharat and our country wasn’t compensated by allocating greater land area to it to accommodate such a large amount of people who will never ever be loyal to our country.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I want to keep the secular word in constitution.

I just want to see true secularism on the ground. Not exceptions for one particular religion.

A true Bharati would want the term secular removed altogether and a new constitution based on Hindi terminology to replace these western implants.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Again you are wrong ( I guess that is why you tagged me so that I can correct you).

1. Subramanian Swamy is not BJP. He openly criticises Modi. Doesn't hold any office and doesn't follow the party.
2. SC has gone against BJP many times.

I respect Swamy though. Has done a lot compared to Modi.

This Swamy guy is shady and will bash anyone who goes against his wishes. IIRC he is responsible for undermining Vajpayee government because Mr.Vajpayee did not give him FM position or something like that. He also bashes Modi as Modi sidelined him from his Government.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Tbh to say Swamy is not BJP is understatement. He is one of the most influential leader of BJP who can even put reins on Arnab Goswami in his own show. And the fact you guys respect them despite being anti modi says a lot. Also doesn't majority of PP's Hindutva ideologue want a ' Hindu' rashtra?

Again you are wrong ( I guess that is why you tagged me so that I can correct you).

1. Subramanian Swamy is not BJP. He openly criticises Modi. Doesn't hold any office and doesn't follow the party.
2. SC has gone against BJP many times.

I respect Swamy though. Has done a lot compared to Modi.

 

[JaDed]

Tbh to say Swamy is not BJP is understatement. He is one of the most influential leader of BJP who can even put reins on Arnab Goswami in his own show. And the fact you guys respect them despite being anti modi says a lot. Also doesn't majority of PP's Hindutva ideologue want a ' Hindu' rashtra?

They have just not banished him from BJP, he has not been given any post, he was also against Vajpayee.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This Swamy guy is shady and will bash anyone who goes against his wishes. IIRC he is responsible for undermining Vajpayee government because Mr.Vajpayee did not give him FM position or something like that. He also bashes Modi as Modi sidelined him from his Government.

Yes, he is selfish, but not corrupt. He bashes many politicians across the spectrum. He is a PhD in economics from Harvard, and his advisor was a nobel laureate. He is the best FM india never had.

Also single handedly pursued the national herald case, without any support from BJP.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Tbh to say Swamy is not BJP is understatement. He is one of the most influential leader of BJP who can even put reins on Arnab Goswami in his own show. And the fact you guys respect them despite being anti modi says a lot. Also doesn't majority of PP's Hindutva ideologue want a ' Hindu' rashtra?

One of the most influential leader in BJP? LMAO

When was the last time you saw him with Modi? Which office does he hold in BJP? Is he even a state in charge? Does BJP even sent him as a spokesperson on TV debates?

Most BJP supporters hate him. I respect him doesn't mean "you guys" (whatever you mean by that) respect him as well.

 

[Stewie]

On another note, does there exist any country in the world where Muslims are in majority and yet it’s not an Islamic country? I honestly don’t know.​

How do you define "Islamic" country, I think that would be the first point we would want to clarify here.

 

[Stewie]

Bharat’s bigger concern is the presence of 400 million muslims in its territory despite the fact that at least two large nations were carved out of it in the basis of religion to provide greater autonomy to muslims as per their wishes. That provision failed as 500 million muslims stayed in Bharat and our country wasn’t compensated by allocating greater land area to it to accommodate such a large amount of people who will never ever be loyal to our country.

That's your opinion, not a fact, something you will have trouble proving and vice versa.

 

[CricketCartoons]

A true Bharati would want the term secular removed altogether and a new constitution based on Hindi terminology to replace these western implants.

Just like Indians have adapted English to create a distinct variant known as Indian English, they have also reinterpreted concepts like secularism, creating a uniquely Indian version, even superior to the original concept.

Western secularism only means that church will not interfere in the state. Yet UK has a national church, and USA has a strong Christian influence in public life and politics. Indian secularism means state will actively participate in religion and church and will try to keep all of them happy. Indian secularism goes beyond mere non-interference of the western variant.

 

[CricketCartoons]

How do you define "Islamic" country, I think that would be the first point we would want to clarify here.

A country whose laws are not completely separated from Sharia laws, is an Islamic country.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Bharat’s bigger concern is the presence of 400 million muslims in its territory despite the fact that at least two large nations were carved out of it in the basis of religion to provide greater autonomy to muslims as per their wishes. That provision failed as 500 million muslims stayed in Bharat and our country wasn’t compensated by allocating greater land area to it to accommodate such a large amount of people who will never ever be loyal to our country.

I discarded my drafts for the post on the separatism of indian muslims, because it triggers some painful memories, but think I must get done with it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Good move. I welcome it. They should be proudly Hindu. It may give us some peace online if they get their way.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Tbh to say Swamy is not BJP is understatement. He is one of the most influential leader of BJP who can even put reins on Arnab Goswami in his own show. And the fact you guys respect them despite being anti modi says a lot. Also doesn't majority of PP's Hindutva ideologue want a ' Hindu' rashtra?

Most of the Indians who post here are ex-pats who love India from a safe distance. They like the sound of Hindu rashtra, but if their voices registered a vote for it which would result in the formation of the Hindu rashtra you would see the wobbles developing in the adam's apple.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just like Indians have adapted English to create a distinct variant known as Indian English, they have also reinterpreted concepts like secularism, creating a uniquely Indian version, even superior to the original concept.

Western secularism only means that church will not interfere in the state. Yet UK has a national church, and USA has a strong Christian influence in public life and politics. Indian secularism means state will actively participate in religion and church and will try to keep all of them happy. Indian secularism goes beyond mere non-interference of the western variant.

Agree, it sounds like the khilfat system where the Muslims ruled according to Sharia. Islam is the blueprint for the Hindu rashtra, a new version of secularism is a tentative step to emulate it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

BIG BIG move

Another fake headline. Subramian Swamy, a famous Modi critic who holds no office in BJP, moved a petition to supreme court, and @The Bald Eagle made it that BJP moved SC.

While secular word was added in the preamble in 1976, the debates by the drafting committee when the constitution was being written make it clear that they wanted a secular state.

The only way it can be removed is by writing a new constitution. Secularism is not the problem, it not being applied to certain communities is the problem.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Most of the Indians who post here are ex-pats who love India from a safe distance. They like the sound of Hindu rashtra, but if their voices registered a vote for it which would result in the formation of the Hindu rashtra you would see the wobbles developing in the adam's apple.

Glad PP have changed minds of our Indian friends. Long live Secular India. Because that was the dream of their founders

 

[CricketCartoons]

Moderate Islam is the blueprint for the Hindu rashtra...

Minor but important correction.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Lol...I have provided the original link too. Don't blame me for that news. And now please don't say Swamy is nobody in BJP history. We all have been witnessing him in Indian politics for a long time now

Another fake headline. Subramian Swamy, a famous Modi critic who holds no office in BJP, moved a petition to supreme court, and @The Bald Eagle made it that BJP moved SC.

While secular word was added in the preamble in 1976, the debates by the drafting committee when the constitution was being written make it clear that they wanted a secular state.

The only way it can be removed is by writing a new constitution. Secularism is not the problem, it not being applied to certain communities is the problem.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Glad PP have changed minds of our Indian friends. Long live Secular India. Because that was the dream of their founders

But PP could not change the minds of our Pakistani friends, who believe in death to secularism in Pakistan, while wishing for it to live in India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Lol...I have provided the original link too. Don't blame me for that news. And now please don't say Swamy is nobody in BJP history. We all have been witnessing him in Indian politics for a long time now

Please prove Swamy is BJP.

Your thread headline says BJP moved SC.. article says Swamy moved SC.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

But PP could not change the minds of our Pakistani friends, who believe in death to secularism in Pakistan, while wishing for it to live in India.

An Islamic republic was the main goal of Pakistan unlike India. Simple

 

[CricketCartoons]

An Islamic republic was the main goal of Pakistan unlike India. Simple

Do you have any quotes from Qaid-e-Azam about the main goal of Pakistan?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

1. ISLAM – DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, INTEGRITY, FAIRPLAY

Islam and its idealism have taught democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is their for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everybody…..Let us make it (the future constitution of Pakistan), We shall make it and we shall show it to the world.

Address, Bar Association, Karachi,
25 January 1948

2. ISLAMIC ECONOMIC THEORY AND PRACTICE TO SUIT PAKISTAN

The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on the true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice.

Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the State Bank
of Pakistan, Karachi, July 1946

3.In 1946, at Islamia College Quaid-e-Azam declared:
“We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”

4.He believed that only Islam was the unifying force of the Muslim Millat. He said:

“What relationships knits the Muslims into one whole, which is the formidable rock on which the Muslim edifice has been erected, which is the sheet anchor providing base to the Muslim Millat, the relationship, the sheet anchor and the rock is Holy Quran.”

Address At Islamia College Peshawar

Do you have any quotes from Qaid-e-Azam about the main goal of Pakistan?

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. ISLAM – DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, INTEGRITY, FAIRPLAY

Islam and its idealism have taught democracy. Islam has taught equality, justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is their for anyone to fear democracy, equality, freedom on the highest standard of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everybody…..Let us make it (the future constitution of Pakistan), We shall make it and we shall show it to the world.

Address, Bar Association, Karachi,
25 January 1948

2. ISLAMIC ECONOMIC THEORY AND PRACTICE TO SUIT PAKISTAN

The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contented people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on the true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice.

Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the State Bank
of Pakistan, Karachi, July 1946

3.In 1946, at Islamia College Quaid-e-Azam declared:
“We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.”

4.He believed that only Islam was the unifying force of the Muslim Millat. He said:

“What relationships knits the Muslims into one whole, which is the formidable rock on which the Muslim edifice has been erected, which is the sheet anchor providing base to the Muslim Millat, the relationship, the sheet anchor and the rock is Holy Quran.”

Address At Islamia College Peshawar

You left out this one :

"We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.."

But this was in 1947, and anything he said later overrides it. So seems the main goal changed AFTER Pakistan became independent.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Tbh to say Swamy is not BJP is understatement. He is one of the most influential leader of BJP who can even put reins on Arnab Goswami in his own show. And the fact you guys respect them despite being anti modi says a lot. Also doesn't majority of PP's Hindutva ideologue want a ' Hindu' rashtra?

Swamy is not BJP. He holds no portfolio in Modi Government. He had his own party Janata Party and he merged it with BJP. He was a member of the BJP executive body. But he was thrown out of it. In effect he is just a BJP worker now or practically out of BJP. I don't know where you get your info from about BJP.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

You left out this one :

"We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.."

But this was in 1947, and anything he said later overrides it. So seems the main goal changed AFTER Pakistan became independent.

Don't want to derail this thread but there are statements from 1947-48 too. And the big thing is that ppl voted him and APML for above narrative

 

[CricketCartoons]

Don't want to derail this thread but there are statements from 1947-48 too. And the big thing is that ppl voted him and APML for above narrative

Yes, this will be a derailment.

I want you to shed some light that Swamy is BJP.

All you have said is that Swamy was important in BJP history, which is true only if we go back to 1980s.

How does Swamy moving SC translate to BJP moving SC?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But PP could not change the minds of our Pakistani friends, who believe in death to secularism in Pakistan, while wishing for it to live in India.

I personally hope secularism dies a death in India. I am fascinated to see if we westerners would switch our Five Eyes gaze in the direction of India instead of Iran or Russia. Two of those eyes have already started twitching in Canada and the USA. Can the hardline hindutvas negotiate this path with the skill of the secular pro-west lobby?

 

[Stewie]

A country whose laws are not completely separated from Sharia laws, is an Islamic country.

A lot of laws in the western nations are not completely separated from Christian laws. Why don't we call them Christian countries then?

US has abortion laws now on most states. Is US a Christian nation?

 

[Stewie]

Similarly there is a cow slaughter ban in India. The law is not completely separated from Hinduism the religion, is it?

What does that make India?

 

[CricketCartoons]

A lot of laws in the western nations are not completely separated from Christian laws. Why don't we call them Christian countries then?

US has abortion laws now on most states. Is US a Christian nation?

When US lawmakers debate on abortion laws, do they talk about fetal right, or they talk about divine rule? Secular terminology or religious scriptures?

Many modern day ethics have their base in religion, but sharia laws are direct codified laws from islamic framework, and their implementation and acceptance is based on them being "divine" decree.

While it is true that UK and USA are not completely secular, they are way way far on the spectrum from the islamic nations, whose laws get mandate because of their "divinity".

 

[CricketCartoons]

Similarly there is a cow slaughter ban in India. The law is not completely separated from Hinduism the religion, is it?

What does that make India?

You tell me. What is India, is it islamic, quasi islamic, hindu rashtra, or whatever?

 

[Stewie]

It’s an everyday thing for us dealing with muslim converts in our country who do not have any love or regard for this nation. They are the most backward of Muslims anywhere on the planet. You guys from Pakistan love to defend them but majority of you have more in common with us Hindus than the our Muslims. They are cringe, backward, the most unreasonable and ridiculous persons you will ever find. Hopefully soon I will create an eye opening thread on this topic.

I am sure its an everyday thing for them to be dealing with stereotyping bigots as well.

 

[Buzzinga]

Lol...I have provided the original link too. Don't blame me for that news. And now please don't say Swamy is nobody in BJP history. We all have been witnessing him in Indian politics for a long time now

There... Highlighted the keyword from your own passage.

Swamy is history. Nobody inside BJP or outside takes him seriously for a long time now. He was sidelined from his own party, also doesn't hold any position in the Govt. or party.

I personally think age has caught upto him and he has gone nuts.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Pakistani posters think we just naturally hate all Muslims when it’s not true at all. We get along very well with middle class and well off Pakistani Muslims we meet abroad or the Arabs.

You have no idea what is it like to be subjected to the thick as custard cringe bigoted Muslims in Bharat. They’re the most terrible community you will find anywhere in the world.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Guys please refrain from any hate comment against any specific community

 

[The Bald Eagle]

There... Highlighted the keyword from your own passage.

Swamy is history. Nobody inside BJP or outside takes him seriously for a long time now. He was sidelined from his own party, also doesn't hold any position in the Govt. or party.

I personally think age has caught upto him and he has gone nuts.

Well nice, I agree with your views on him.

 

[Stewie]

Pakistani posters think we just naturally hate all Muslims when it’s not true at all. We get along very well with middle class and well off Pakistani Muslims we meet abroad or the Arabs.

You have no idea what is it like to be subjected to the thick as custard cringe bigoted Muslims in Bharat. They’re the most terrible community you will find anywhere in the world.

Does that include people like Abul Kalam, the various Muslim cricketers, the various muslim actors and actresses, etc? You have stereotyped over stereotyped over stereotyped, without much evidence of your claims therefore they remain as your personal views which I can personally label quite frankly as bigotry.

Unless you can prove me wrong or yourself right.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I am sure its an everyday thing for them to be dealing with stereotyping bigots as well.

Stereotypes are recognized patterns.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Does that include people like Abul Kalam, the various Muslim cricketers, the various muslim actors and actresses, etc? You have stereotyped over stereotyped over stereotyped, without much evidence of your claims therefore they remain as your personal views which I can personally label quite frankly as bigotry.

Unless you can prove me wrong or yourself right.

Outliers don't define the curve.

Why don't you show evidence that Indian muslims don't believe in exclusvism and like secular laws over sharia laws?

 

[FearlessRoar]

Do you have any quotes from Qaid-e-Azam about the main goal of Pakistan?

This is the main problem. Quaid-e-Azam didn't write a single book in his lifetime

 

[Stewie]

But PP could not change the minds of our Pakistani friends, who believe in death to secularism in Pakistan, while wishing for it to live in India.

That's because the way we view secularism is different from the way you guys view it. A country can be a non secular country but provide for good minority rights and freedoms.

 

[Champ_Pal]

This is the main problem. Quaid-e-Azam didn't write a single book in his lifetime

So who defined the main goal of creating Pakistan?

Was it for all Muslims of subcontinent or just the Muslim majority areas of subcontinent or just for Muslim elites where they can continue their merry ways which will not be possible in a Hindu majority India?

 

[CricketCartoons]

That's because the way we view secularism is different from the way you guys view it. A country can be a non secular country but provide for good minority rights and freedoms.

Agreed. When someone who takes away basic rights, and then makes a few concessions, that is seen as an act of kindness. When you give everything and then take away something, it is seen as an act oppression.

It is relativism at play, where actions are judged not in absolute terms, but relative to prior expectations, where the expectation from minorities is zero in Pakistan.

 

[CricketCartoons]

So who defined the main goal of creating Pakistan?

Was it for all Muslims of subcontinent or just the Muslim majority areas of subcontinent or just for Muslim elites where they can continue their merry ways which will not be possible in a Hindu majority India?

Qaid-e-Azam, just a few days before Pakistan was formed, said that religion will be personal affair and all citizens will be equal before the state. But post independence he did say that laws should be based on Islam. One may argue that his interpretation of Islamic laws was different from mainstream, or he finally saw the light. But a nation has to chart its own course, and not become a vanity project of its founders, who were products of their time, and present citizens should get to decide which way they want to steer.

 

[Stewie]

Agreed. When someone who takes away basic rights, and then makes a few concessions, that is seen as an act of kindness. When you give everything and then take away something, it is seen as an act oppression.

It is relativism at play, where actions are judged not in absolute terms, but relative to prior expectations, where the expectation from minorities is zero in Pakistan.

Some pretty tall claims here. What basic rights of minorities are taken away?

They have the same rights except they are not eligible to run for certain offices.


But regardless of that, I think its still important to stay on course and not get distracted by the whimsical Hindus who like to bash everything Pakistan and Pakistani. Yes... historically India has done a better job of providing its minorities those rights than Pakistan. There is no question about it. But there is growing divisiveness and violations coming from India in recent years. Pakistan is overall bad, they don't even protect the rights of their majority people so minorities are not a question at all.

Is it because of religion or Constitution or secular or non-secular, its all a hotch podge of a thing which most people here end up confusing a lot. Bottom line is a non secular country can do a good job of protecting the rights of its people including its minorities, whereas India is a good example of how a secular nation can go down the reverse path.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Some pretty tall claims here. What basic rights of minorities are taken away?

They have the same rights except they are not eligible to run for certain offices.


But regardless of that, I think its still important to stay on course and not get distracted by the whimsical Hindus who like to bash everything Pakistan and Pakistani. Yes... historically India has done a better job of providing its minorities those rights than Pakistan. There is no question about it. But there is growing divisiveness and violations coming from India in recent years. Pakistan is overall bad, they don't even protect the rights of their majority people so minorities are not a question at all.

Is it because of religion or Constitution or secular or non-secular, its all a hotch podge of a thing which most people here end up confusing a lot. Bottom line is a non secular country can do a good job of protecting the rights of its people including its minorities, whereas India is a good example of how a secular nation can go down the reverse path.

You said I made some tall claims, and followed by this: Pakistani non muslims have the SAME rights as muslims EXCEPT they are not eligible to run for CERTAIN offices. LOL.

On your last paragraph: It is true that SOMETIMES a non secular country can do better at protecting rights than a secular country, but that doesn't mean it is because of it being non secular.

Secularism gives an institutional framework, a foundation for justice and equality. It is necessary, but not sufficient. That comes from how strong the institutions are AND how effectively they enforce the rule of law.

Pakistan doesn't even have the necessary, let alone sufficient conditions for protection of non muslims. It is not just governance or law enforcement issue, but religiously discriminatory laws and policies that are deeply embedded in its legal system and society.

 

[Stewie]

You said I made some tall claims, and followed by this: Pakistani non muslims have the SAME rights as muslims EXCEPT they are not eligible to run for CERTAIN offices. LOL.

On your last paragraph: It is true that SOMETIMES a non secular country can do better at protecting rights than a secular country, but that doesn't mean it is because of it being non secular.

Secularism gives an institutional framework, a foundation for justice and equality. It is necessary, but not sufficient. That comes from how strong the institutions are AND how effectively they enforce the rule of law.

Pakistan doesn't even have the necessary, let alone sufficient conditions for protection of non muslims. It is not just governance or law enforcement issue, but religiously discriminatory laws and policies that are deeply embedded in its legal system and society.

Agreed. When someone who takes away basic rights, and then makes a few concessions, that is seen as an act of kindness. When you give everything and then take away something, it is seen as an act oppression.

How do you define basic rights?

Do you believe the issue is with Pakistani establishment violating the rights of minorities in accordance with the law? or against the law?

You answer these two key questions, you will get your answer and see where you are going wrong.

 

[Stewie]

I think its a very tunnel vision view that "secular" laws can provide for best governance. In this day and age, its true. But it also depends on its implementation.

Once again, I am talking about "secular" as defined in the west and not the Indian definition of it, which seems to suggest all religions are to be equal, so its in away not exactly believing in the separation of church and state.

True secularism is defined as a complete separation of church and state (which within itself is a big debate)

 

[cricketjoshila]

Changing headlines because he can.

SuSu is now some big bjp leader. This is what happens when a foreigner tries to be an expert on Indian politics.

 

[Technics 1210]

It was only a matter of time before the usual self proclaimed liberated souls of india named dropped Pakistan in a thread on India.

India will never progress - as a nation, as a people, as an ideology - secular or no secular - India will never progress.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I think its a very tunnel vision view that "secular" laws can provide for best governance. In this day and age, its true. But it also depends on its implementation.

Once again, I am talking about "secular" as defined in the west and not the Indian definition of it, which seems to suggest all religions are to be equal, so its in away not exactly believing in the separation of church and state.

True secularism is defined as a complete separation of church and state (which within itself is a big debate)

There is complete separation of church and state in India and all religions are considered equal

 

[Stewie]

There is complete separation of church and state in India and all religions are considered equal

How is it considered a complete separation of church and state when you have certain religious laws in the country? Are you telling me there are no religious laws at all in India? Think long and hard before you answer.

There is no absolute separation of church and state anywhere in the world. And what you call secularism in India is faux secularism at best.

 

[Justcrazy]

This is a trial balloon. The BJP wants to inch towards a hindu rashtra; so do the numerous bhakts on this forum.

Are you surprised ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

How is it considered a complete separation of church and state when you have certain religious laws in the country? Are you telling me there are no religious laws at all in India? Think long and hard before you answer.

There is no absolute separation of church and state anywhere in the world. And what you call secularism in India is faux secularism at best.

No one religion is treated above another. Thats the point.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Changing headlines because he can.

SuSu is now some big bjp leader. This is what happens when a foreigner tries to be an expert on Indian politics.

Lol...why you guys acting so naive..first CC and now you. I have referred to OP earlier too. Below is the link for your convenience. Everyone could see who lied.

BJP moves SC for removal of term ‘secular’ from India’s Constitution’s preamble

www.pakistantoday.com.pk

 

[Stewie]

No one religion is treated above another. Thats the point.

Point taken: but that’s not secularism by definition. You have a mix of various religious laws and that can be manipulated fairly easily by a majority or even minority.

I see that all the time. Hindus bashing Muslims for taking advantage of their confessions and Muslims leveling accusations of the majority manipulating the system to have their way.

 

[rpant_gabba]

That's your opinion, not a fact, something you will have trouble proving and vice versa.

you have been around the block long enough to not engage with that clown

 

[rpant_gabba]

A lot of laws in the western nations are not completely separated from Christian laws. Why don't we call them Christian countries then?

US has abortion laws now on most states. Is US a Christian nation?

Weirdly enough, the bible actually encourages abortion in the case of infidelity

Numbers 5:21 ...here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a cursed among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." “ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”​

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol...why you guys acting so naive..first CC and now you. I have referred to OP earlier too. Below is the link for your convenience. Everyone could see who lied.

BJP moves SC for removal of term ‘secular’ from India’s Constitution’s preamble

www.pakistantoday.com.pk

Pakistantoday.pk

 

[cricketjoshila]

Point taken: but that’s not secularism by definition. You have a mix of various religious laws and that can be manipulated fairly easily by a majority or even minority.

I see that all the time. Hindus bashing Muslims for taking advantage of their confessions and Muslims leveling accusations of the majority manipulating the system to have their way.

This is why i support a uniform civil code. One law for everyone.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Pakistantoday.pk

The court agreed to examine the argument put forth by one of the petitioners, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, according to a Bar and Bench report. Swamy contended that the terms "secular" and "socialist" were inserted in 1976, and therefore, could not retroactively apply to the original Preamble, which was drafted in 1949.

FYI. IT WAS TAKEN FROM AN INDINA MEDIA OUTLET. TOI

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Its laughable that people with strong affinity to a particular religion and having state religions are jumping up and down about a case on Secularism. In an open society, buffonry of all types have to be allowed after all thats freedom of speech.

But the topic of Secularism in Indian Constitution has been covered time and time again.
Secularism is part of the "basic structure of the Constitution of India" the parliament with 100% Super majority cannot override the "basic structure principles". But I guess, people from countries where Constitution gets thrown out every few years won't grasp that.

Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of the features of the Constitution termed as "basic" are listed below:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Rule of law
3. The principle of separation of powers
4. The objectives specified in the preamble to the Constitution of India
5. Judicial review
6. Articles 32 and 226
7. Federalism (including financial liberty of states under Articles 282 and 293)
8. Secularism
9. The sovereign, democratic, republican structure
10. Freedom and dignity of the individual
11. Unity and integrity of the nation
12. The principle of equality, not every feature of equality, but the quintessence of equal justice;
13. The "essence" of other fundamental rights in Part III
14. The concept of social and economic justice — to build a welfare state: Part IV of the Constitution
15. The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
16. The parliamentary system of government
17. The principle of free and fair elections
18. Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368
19. Independence of the judiciary
20. Effective access to justice
21. Powers of the Supreme Court of India under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142

 

[CricketCartoons]

Point taken: but that’s not secularism by definition. You have a mix of various religious laws and that can be manipulated fairly easily by a majority or even minority.

I see that all the time. Hindus bashing Muslims for taking advantage of their confessions and Muslims leveling accusations of the majority manipulating the system to have their way.

I bet even you do not know the definition of secularism. Do you think it is just separation of state and church? That is the wrong one.

 

[Stewie]

Its laughable that people with strong affinity to a particular religion and having state religions are jumping up and down about a case on Secularism. In an open society, buffonry of all types have to be allowed after all thats freedom of speech.

But the topic of Secularism in Indian Constitution has been covered time and time again.
Secularism is part of the "basic structure of the Constitution of India" the parliament with 100% Super majority cannot override the "basic structure principles". But I guess, people from countries where Constitution gets thrown out every few years won't grasp that.

Basic structure doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of the features of the Constitution termed as "basic" are listed below:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Rule of law
3. The principle of separation of powers
4. The objectives specified in the preamble to the Constitution of India
5. Judicial review
6. Articles 32 and 226
7. Federalism (including financial liberty of states under Articles 282 and 293)
8. Secularism
9. The sovereign, democratic, republican structure
10. Freedom and dignity of the individual
11. Unity and integrity of the nation
12. The principle of equality, not every feature of equality, but the quintessence of equal justice;
13. The "essence" of other fundamental rights in Part III
14. The concept of social and economic justice — to build a welfare state: Part IV of the Constitution
15. The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
16. The parliamentary system of government
17. The principle of free and fair elections
18. Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368
19. Independence of the judiciary
20. Effective access to justice
21. Powers of the Supreme Court of India under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142

If an Indian citizen who went to Harvard, is highly educated, is an experienced politician doesn't understand that, what hope do the rest of us have?

either that or he knows something you don't.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

If an Indian citizen who went to Harvard, is highly educated, is an experienced politician doesn't understand that, what hope do the rest of us have?

either that or he knows something you don't.

Everyone has a political agenda.
and just because you don't know something, plz don't presume that others are as as limited as you!
Again, trying to pretend that you know about India and Indians more than Indians themselves!

 

[Stewie]

Everyone has a political agenda.
and just because you don't know something, plz don't presume that others are as as limited as you!
Again, trying to pretend that you know about India and Indians more than Indians themselves!

I am not sure why u always get triggered when Pakistanis quote an actual Indian on what he is trying to do without claiming something of our own. But whatever it is, I am sure as hell not going to apologize for it. If me speaking about india gives you a bad diaper rash, that's your problem, not mine.