What's new

Should India become a Hindu Rashtra?

The enforcement of Hindi and the push of the regional languages in India have been happening long before Modi or the BJP emerged on the scene. And this was done by the 'visionary' leaders who went before that you talk about. But English has remained as one of the official languages, and will continue to do so.

India's economic success has to do with the emphasis on and the large adoption of technical education, which would have happened even if the BJP had been in power in the 1950s. Every segment of the India society has supported this, irrespective of political alignment.

Which also has it's basis on adopting English ( the language of Bharat's conquerors ) as an official language of Bharat. Denial might make you feel a little better, but deep down you know it is true.
 
Please explain what is a Hindu Rashtra? So far nobody has been able to give a clear definition.

Hindu Republic of Bharat....just like Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What is there to explain?

However, I would want minority brothers to have all the rights, including constitutional.
 
Which also has it's basis on adopting English ( the language of Bharat's conquerors ) as an official language of Bharat. Denial might make you feel a little better, but deep down you know it is true.
It may be the language of the conquerors but is completely Indianised now. Indian English is a well established dialect.
And English is an official language in Pakistan as well. Why haven't they progressed economically?
It's all got to do with the Indian obsession for tech education.
 
Hindu Republic of Bharat....just like Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What is there to explain?

However, I would want minority brothers to have all the rights, including constitutional.
A bit too late for that.
All we can hope for is an egalitarian society where there is justice for all and appeasement of none.
 
A bit too late for that.
All we can hope for is an egalitarian society where there is justice for all and appeasement of none.
Justice isn't for all in India, hence the release and acquittal of Gujarat Muslim killers and Modi got to be PM.
Appeasement is for only Majority of Indians now, if a politician is from Saffaron brigade then exceptional appeasement, but if you are a minority of India, especially Muslim then they are forced to appease majority goons.
 
Justice isn't for all in India, hence the release and acquittal of Gujarat Muslim killers and Modi got to be PM.
Appeasement is for only Majority of Indians now, if a politician is from Saffaron brigade then exceptional appeasement, but if you are a minority of India, especially Muslim then they are forced to appease majority goons.
You have neither lived in India, nor are you aware of the realities there. You know nothing about Indian politics and who appeases whom. Like many others your posts are a heady mixture of cliched lies put out by anti-India left wing rags and fertile Pakistani imagination.
Keep it coming though. I'll get the popcorn.
 
You have neither lived in India, nor are you aware of the realities there. You know nothing about Indian politics and who appeases whom. Like many others your posts are a heady mixture of cliched lies put out by anti-India left wing rags and fertile Pakistani imagination.
Keep it coming though. I'll get the popcorn.
Is Washington Post an arm of the "fertile Pakistani imagination"?


NEW DELHI — Bilkis Bano was five-months pregnant when she was attacked by a Hindu mob in 2002 as anti-Muslim violence gripped the western Indian state of Gujarat.
Bano, then 21, was gang-raped by sword-wielding men from her neighborhood. Fourteen of her family members were killed, including her 3-year-old daughter, who was snatched from her arms and bashed against a rock.


Are you on Telegram? Subscribe to our channel for the latest updates on Russia’s war in Ukraine.

This week, 11 men serving a life sentence for the crimes were released from prison on remission by the Gujarat state government, sparking widespread outrage and an emotional appeal for justice from Bano.
In a statement issued Wednesday through her lawyer, Bano said the news left had her “numb” and “bereft.”

“I trusted the system, and I was learning slowly to live with my trauma,” she said, adding that the release had shaken her faith in the justice system. “No one enquired about my safety and well-being before taking such a big and unjust decision.”

The development comes as a shock to the country that has struggled to address widespread sexual violence against women. In recent years, authorities have made laws stricter and instituted harsher punishments, but conviction rates for rape remain low.
An 8-year-old girl’s gang rape and murder trigger new outrage over India’s rape culture
Women’s rights groups said that the release of the perpetrators on Aug. 15, an anniversary of the country’s 75 years of independence, was a blow to every rape victim.

“It shames us that the day we should celebrate our freedoms and be proud of our independence, the women of India instead saw gang-rapists and mass murderers freed as an act of State largesse,” the groups said in a statement.
It was also a setback for survivors of the Gujarat riots, who have fought long and hard for justice. The riots erupted in 2002 after a train fire blamed on Muslims killed a group of Hindu pilgrims. More than 1,000 people were killed in days of vigilante violence that followed, most of them Muslims. Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat at the time, is now India’s prime minister. Under his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, hate speech and violence against Muslims has risen sharply.

The men released this week have received a hero’s welcome. In one video from outside the prison, they are given sweets. Local media said the men were later honored with garlands by members of Hindu nationalist groups affiliated with the BJP.

Sujal Mayatra, the official who led the panel in Gujarat that recommended the men’s release, said the decision was based on various factors.

“They had completed 14 years of tenure. We enquired about their conduct and parole time,” he said. “The nature of crime and victim’s safety was also taken into consideration.”
Share this articleShare
In India, life sentences are meant to last until death, but convicts are eligible to seek early release after 14 years. While the latest remission policy says those convicted of rape and murder cannot be released prematurely, the policy at the time of the Bano case did not make that distinction.

In a 2017 BBC interview, Bano said she was fleeing the violence in a group of 17 that included her mother and young siblings in March 2002 when a mob accosted them.

Besides raping Bano and killing her daughter, the men gang-raped her cousin before murdering her and her 2-day-old baby. Bano was one of only three people from the group to survive the massacre.

Human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, who has been part of efforts to reform legislation on violence against women, described the government’s decision as “grossly arbitrary and discriminatory.”
“The mask of the government being concerned about sexual violence against women has slipped. This is a majoritarian state signaling impunity for hate crimes,” she said.
Bano’s case took years to work its way through the Indian justice system, finally resulting in convictions in 2008. All the while, she was a target of death threats, forced to move frequently and live in hiding.

In 2019, India’s Supreme Court ordered the state government to pay about $62,000 in compensation to Bano, noting that she had been forced to live like a “nomad” and an “orphan.”
Now, her family feels like they are back at square one.
“The battle we fought for so many years has been wrapped up in one moment,” Yakub Rasool, Bano’s husband, told the Indian Express.
Bano, in her statement, said that her grief was not hers alone “but for every woman who is struggling for justice in courts.”
“Give me back my right to live without fear and in peace,” she said.
 
You have neither lived in India, nor are you aware of the realities there. You know nothing about Indian politics and who appeases whom. Like many others your posts are a heady mixture of cliched lies put out by anti-India left wing rags and fertile Pakistani imagination.
Keep it coming though. I'll get the popcorn.

Make sure to butter your popcorn, that is what makes it delicious.

Victims of Gujarat aren't hired actors.
Not every International and independent news outlets is lying about the treatment of minorities in India at the hands of majority.
Pakistani imagination? are the documented evidence, such as video evidence of victims AI generated?
So most Indian Muslims and some Hindus who I have interacted are making things up.

And forget all of that, when none of you are able defend bigotry and resort to "whataboutism", "what about in Pakistan", "We do not care what other things", these are you defense when the bigotry is highlighted then it is enough to affirm everything in the news coming out of India regarding Bharat's minorities. I mean, Bharat's elected politician get caught daily being bigot, even they can't hold their character for long, the mask slips off sometimes, then damage controls begin.
 
Think you are confusing here. Unlike Pakistan which got broke into 2 bcoz fair skinned Punjabis were intolerant towards dark skin bengalis, if India becomes Hindu Rastra there will not be any division in the country. Hindus by default are secular, inclusive and tolerant people. So minority brothers can live with peace and gets all constitutional rights even if India becomes hindu rastra. What will not happen though is minority appeasement and make hindus living as 2nd class citizen.
If you guys are so tolerant and secular then why declare yourself a "Hindu Rashtra" to begin with. You are describing yourselves as secular and yet you dont want India to be a secular state, rather a Hindu one?

I hope you are able to see you are making zero sense! Perhaps do a better job of trying to explain how things will be different? Will you be able to oust nationalist RW extremist Hindu parties and form a more reasonable mode of governance under a "Hindu Rashtra"? Or is it the other way around? You want a more Hindu nationalist government and party that focuses on demolishing more places of worship of non Hindus?

Perhaps you wont be conducting assassinations on foreign lands of indian origin non Hindu leaders who pose a threat to hindu nationlists?
 
if a Hindu rashtra means you will go more secular from where you are now and depose the fascists leaders in place right now, I will definitely support youy guys bringing such a change in India. You can change the name to Bharat, Hindustan, whatever, it wont make a shred of a difference if you practice what you preach and not conduct genocide of muslims and other minorities there.
 
Hindu Republic of Bharat....just like Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What is there to explain?

However, I would want minority brothers to have all the rights, including constitutional.

Thats the name.

What does it entail, please explain in detail?
 
I think we have a genuine question. If the Hindutva supporters think secularism is destroying the country and a Hindu country would be better because it will provide equal rights to minorities, then they sound like a dog chasing its tail. They hate secularism and the solution they describe to fight secularism is …. Uhhh… Secularism? 🤔
 
I think we have a genuine question. If the Hindutva supporters think secularism is destroying the country and a Hindu country would be better because it will provide equal rights to minorities, then they sound like a dog chasing its tail. They hate secularism and the solution they describe to fight secularism is …. Uhhh… Secularism? 🤔

With respect but I am not following your line of reasoning. You are a Pakistani right? You have got a separate country for muslims right? So why can't hindus have one?

I am amazed that no one in this thread is able to answer this simple question. Everyone is already talking about consequences that if India becomes hindu rastra there will be no secularism, how minorities will be ill treated etc etc. But I am yet to hear a solid reasoning from anyone as to why muslims can have a separate country but hindus can't when this land was divided based on religion. I asked my good friend @RexRex yesterday but he ducked that question like Shreyas Iyer ducks short pitch bowling.

Anyway, as I said multiple times in this thread there are no plans of hindu rastra. BJP has never said that, Modi has never said that...infact he always talks about Sabka Saath...sabka vikas, even many right wing/BJP supporting posters here also don't want hindu rastra. Its just my personal opinion bcoz I strongly believe the demographics of sub continent is biased and build on hypocrisy.
 
Anyway, as I said multiple times in this thread there are no plans of hindu rastra. BJP has never said that, Modi has never said that...infact he always talks about Sabka Saath...sabka vikas, even many right wing/BJP supporting posters here also don't want hindu rastra.

You will get your wish soon. This happened last week. Modi is testing the waters.

 
With respect but I am not following your line of reasoning. You are a Pakistani right? You have got a separate country for muslims right? So why can't hindus have one?

I am amazed that no one in this thread is able to answer this simple question. Everyone is already talking about consequences that if India becomes hindu rastra there will be no secularism, how minorities will be ill treated etc etc. But I am yet to hear a solid reasoning from anyone as to why muslims can have a separate country but hindus can't when this land was divided based on religion. I asked my good friend @RexRex yesterday but he ducked that question like Shreyas Iyer ducks short pitch bowling.

Anyway, as I said multiple times in this thread there are no plans of hindu rastra. BJP has never said that, Modi has never said that...infact he always talks about Sabka Saath...sabka vikas, even many right wing/BJP supporting posters here also don't want hindu rastra. Its just my personal opinion bcoz I strongly believe the demographics of sub continent is biased and build on hypocrisy.
Bro if you follow my posts, I have done nothing but to support your views and your stance. I even strongly support the idea of changing India to Bharat. Feel free to go and review my posts.

But what I am asking here of you is a question and not expressing antagonism towards your goal. It’s more the reasons behind it.

It sounds to me like you support such a thing because secularism is destroying the country. Isn’t that your contention? Then you turn around and say a Hindu rashtra would be also secular. So help me understand how would that be any different? That’s all I am asking.
 
And I’ll do you one better. I’ll explain why I support your views. As a Pakistani, it’s the reaffirmation and vindication of the two nation theory. It proves once and for all that what we have is a blessing from our forefathers, a country where we can practice our faith without being citizens of a “Hindu state”

I feel no matter how hard you try, religious prefs and views in governance do raise alarm bells for the minorities. It happens in Pakistan as well.

Personally I believe religion and state should be kept separate. I would much rather it’s just Democratic Republic of Pakistan. By the way the word Islamic in the name is a joke. How can it be an Islamic state when Islamic laws are not enforced?
 
It may be the language of the conquerors but is completely Indianised now. Indian English is a well established dialect.
And English is an official language in Pakistan as well. Why haven't they progressed economically?
It's all got to do with the Indian obsession for tech education.
Why do you blag so much?

Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, there is no official language in Pakistan.


India has no national language so has 2 official languages, English and Hindi


RSS silos tsk tsk.
 
It may be the language of the conquerors but is completely Indianised now. Indian English is a well established dialect.
And English is an official language in Pakistan as well. Why haven't they progressed economically?
It's all got to do with the Indian obsession for tech education.

If it's been Indianised, why do you get so touchy when we post an example of Indianised English like "Microsaaft Tecknalajee"? Actually there was a more pertinent point behind using Microsoft as an example, that not only was English very important in tech education, but also the Western countries innovation was the major reason they have led the world. There is no Indian version of Microsoft or Apple. Copying is not the same as invention.
 
If it's been Indianised, why do you get so touchy when we post an example of Indianised English like "Microsaaft Tecknalajee"? Actually there was a more pertinent point behind using Microsoft as an example, that not only was English very important in tech ed

What Indians in "Eye Tee" fail to mention is that the majority of the knowledge is just memorised from text books and then regurgitated. The application of this knowledge or how something works (which is intelligence) is non existent. I know from first hand experience my company hired CCIEs and god knows what certified Indians, and turned out they had no clue, and were rightly fired, because most of them were fake certs.

On top of this, the only export from India is cheap labour, just like with the Chinese. The West pay for cheap labour, which bolstered their profit margins, and this is how IT companies become rich. Not to mention, manufacturing quality is very poor in India, and there are already complaints of the new - made in India - Iphone 15 devices launched having issues with heating, and colour changes.

But more and more Western companies are moving away from India due to hacks, scams, theft, and frankly the quality of work and English. Westerners do not want to hear an English speaking Indian for this reason. Banks and services have shifted their call centres from India back to the West, and actually advertise the fact that their call centres are in the UK!

What's more, India's idea of solving a problem is throwing more resources at the problem!

This is precisely why the most vocal RSS supporters live in the West because they know the realities of India. They know that Modi is a fraud, as is the notion of a Hindu Rastra. If India was doing so great under Modi, then why leave?

Saying this, Modi will not be PM at the next GE in India. He is toast and the RSS supporters know it. This is why this Hindu Rashta stuff is being fast tracked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What Indians in "Eye Tee" fail to mention is that the majority of the knowledge is just memorised from text books and then regurgitated. The application of this knowledge or how something works (which is intelligence) is non existent. I know from first hand experience my company hired CCIEs and god knows what certified Indians, and turned out they had no clue, and were rightly fired, because most of them were fake certs.

On top of this, the only export from India is cheap labour, just like with the Chinese. The West pay for cheap labour, which bolstered their profit margins, and this is how IT companies become rich. Not to mention, manufacturing quality is very poor in India, and there are already complaints of the new - made in India - Iphone 15 devices launched having issues with heating, and colour changes.

But more and more Western companies are moving away from India due to hacks, scams, theft, and frankly the quality of work and English. Westerners do not want to hear an English speaking Indian for this reason. Banks and services have shifted their call centres from India back to the West, and actually advertise the fact that their call centres are in the UK!

What's more, India's idea of solving a problem is throwing more resources at the problem!

This is precsily why the most vocal RSS supporters live in the West because they know the realities of India. They know that Modi is a fraud, as is the notion of a Hindu Rastra. If India was doing so great under Modi, then why leave?

Saying this, Modi will not be PM at the next GE in India. He is toast and the RSS supporters know it. This is why this Hindu Rashta stuff is being fast tracked.

I don't know if they are still giving out those awards but so much truth in this one it has to be POTW contender.

And yes you are spot on, a lot of major call centres are now advertising they are UK based...and it's a massive selling point, because I myself will always pay more for someone who understands the language natively. Unfortunately what a lot of the less established companies do is use Indian call centres to field the majority of the "dumb calls" then when the confusion gets too much, the Indian personnel will hand over back to the experts in the UK who will then attempt to resolve the issue.
 
If it's been Indianised, why do you get so touchy when we post an example of Indianised English like "Microsaaft Tecknalajee"? Actually there was a more pertinent point behind using Microsoft as an example, that not only was English very important in tech education, but also the Western countries innovation was the major reason they have led the world. There is no Indian version of Microsoft or Apple. Copying is not the same as invention.

Your posts are full of racist connotations and then get touchy when someone mentions Bradford.

Anyway, Who is CEO of Microsoft again?
 
One step closer today to become a Hindu Rastra led by the tallest leader India ever seen

1705930330659.png

1705930556655.png


Bollywood Brigade
1705930391635.png


Mukesh Ambani House
1705930674891.png


Sportsperson

1705930741978.png
 
There was once a hope of a secular future but it had to be grassroots up and not forced top down like the Congress tried to.

The perceived minority appeasement politics, affirmative action policies and everything that has offended the Hindu majority has blown up spectacularly in the face of the liberal elite in this country who simply could not engage meaningfully with the masses.

As of today, there is very little hope of a secular future. It may exist theoretically in the Constitution but substantively it does not.

While living in our own bubbles, we didn't realise that there is a huge majority that wanted some version of a Hindu rashtra or at least a saffron version of a Muslim state like Pakistan.

It's time to drop the word and facade completely and become a Dharmic state - whatever that is - and protect the rights of minorities specifically Christians and Muslims in a manner that is done for Hindus and Christians in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

There's just no going back now.
 
Secularism and Hinduism are not at odds at all. India has remained secular even when the constitution did not mention it, because of the majorities hindu way of life. So changing the label hardly changes anything. India will always be a tolerant society as long as hindus united and in majority.
 
What does 'substantively' here mean ?

Read the Preamble to the Constitution . It says "We the People give to ourselves ..... Secular " etc. I'm paraphrasing as I don't remember the full thing.


But this would suggest that secularism emerged as the will of the people. It didn't . It emerged from the will of a few educated elite - Nehru, Ambedkar etc and had little to with the will of the majority.

So, it doesn't really mean much.

Most Hindus from Northern and North Western India do not not want a secular state by any standard definition of secularism i.e. they want a majoritarian state.

And most Hindus from the southern and eastern parts of India don't care enough to fight for it . It's not a hill for them to die on.
 
Tell that to the Dalits who have suffered oppression for 2000 years.
If you want to go back to centuries, then yes every haves oppressed the have nots. But dalit empowerment started much before freedom, and today no party can be anti dalit. Not one party. This is the power of hinduism that is always open to reforms unlike some other religions who think they are perfect.
 
I don't oppose India becoming a Hindu state, but at least they should stop pretending to be a secular state.
 
Read the Preamble to the Constitution . It says "We the People give to ourselves ..... Secular " etc. I'm paraphrasing as I don't remember the full thing.


But this would suggest that secularism emerged as the will of the people. It didn't . It emerged from the will of a few educated elite - Nehru, Ambedkar etc and had little to with the will of the majority.

So, it doesn't really mean much.

Most Hindus from Northern and North Western India do not not want a secular state by any standard definition of secularism i.e. they want a majoritarian state.

And most Hindus from the southern and eastern parts of India don't care enough to fight for it . It's not a hill for them to die on.
Secular was added in 1976. But India was secular in practice even before that. So it only means that hindus are tolerant despite state telling them what to do.
 
But this would suggest that secularism emerged as the will of the people. It didn't . It emerged from the will of a few educated elite - Nehru, Ambedkar etc and had little to with the will of the majority.

That's what happened in the USA as well. A privileged elite forced a secular Constitution on a very religious majority in 1776. Last I checked, they're doing fine.


Most Hindus from Northern and North Western India do not not want a secular state by any standard definition of secularism i.e. they want a majoritarian state.

But they do have a majoritarian state in practice. The Hindu voting bloc, around 80% of the country, has got together and voted Modi into power twice in the last 10 years. What more do they/you want ?

In other words, how is the current Constitution crippling the Hindu majority here ? It's not.
 
If it's been Indianised, why do you get so touchy when we post an example of Indianised English like "Microsaaft Tecknalajee"? Actually there was a more pertinent point behind using Microsoft as an example, that not only was English very important in tech education, but also the Western countries innovation was the major reason they have led the world. There is no Indian version of Microsoft or Apple. Copying is not the same as invention.
I don't think a pakistani should go around making fun of others english. You have 3rd generation brit pakistanis who still have a trouble with the language and your cricketers can't speak a sentence beyond - boys played well.
Anyway, Microsoft has an Indian CEO, so it seems like they aren't going up on how the word is pronounced.
I don't think we will have to worry about our padosis becoming CEO's anytime soon
 
This is the power of hinduism that is always open to reforms unlike some other religions who think they are perfect.

Was it really open to reform or was it forced on the population by an educated elite ? It seems the latter.

Were it not for Ambedkar/Gandhi/Nehru, I'm not sure scheduled caste reforms would have taken place .. atleast from a legal standpoint.
 
Would love for India to become a Hindu state.

But I think it can only happen with another partition.
 
I don't oppose India becoming a Hindu state, but at least they should stop pretending to be a secular state.
Naw we are secular, we were appeasers before.
I understand Pakistanis have gotten used to appeasement abroad.
 
South-North ?
Something along those lines.

This Rama Mandir thing is showing the extreme polarisation in my Hindu acquaintances.

Some are absolutely embarassed and others are viewing it as the greatest day in Indian history.

I don't think those groups can coexist in a Hindu Rashtra.
 
Something along those lines.

This Rama Mandir thing is showing the extreme polarisation in my Hindu acquaintances.

Some are absolutely embarassed and others are viewing it as the greatest day in Indian history.

I don't think those groups can coexist in a Hindu Rashtra.
Why can’t they coexist? They have coexisted for years.
Is the entire Pakistan dispora pro hagia Sophia being a mosque?
 
Was it really open to reform or was it forced on the population by an educated elite ? It seems the latter.

Were it not for Ambedkar/Gandhi/Nehru, I'm not sure scheduled caste reforms would have taken place .. atleast from a legal standpoint.
Do you think Ambedkar wanted reforms only for one religion ?
 
Was it really open to reform or was it forced on the population by an educated elite ? It seems the latter.

Were it not for Ambedkar/Gandhi/Nehru, I'm not sure scheduled caste reforms would have taken place .. atleast from a legal standpoint.
Lol at Gandhi, he harmed dalits interests. Sawarkar was against untouchability much before, and even before him there aere harichand rao and jyotirao phule. These reforms were forced upon the majority how? I am talking pre independence.
 
Why can’t they coexist? They have coexisted for years.
Is the entire Pakistan dispora pro hagia Sophia being a mosque?
Im not sure what Pakistani diaspora and Hagia Sofia has to do with this.

This is the first time I've seen a political leader or political party inaugurate a religious building in this way.

As an outsider this genuinely appears as if this is Modis inauguration as ameer ul momineen ( hindu version).

It seems like a new line in the sand has been drawn. You say the people have coexisted for years - yes they have coexisted under secularism. Will they be so willing to coexist in a Hindu rashtra with Modi at its head?
 
Why can’t they coexist? They have coexisted for years.
Is the entire Pakistan dispora pro hagia Sophia being a mosque?

A thought experiment. Create a new country with 500 secular hindus and 200 muslims. Check their status in 10 years. whether there will be uniform secularism or there will be exceptionalism.
 
Im not sure what Pakistani diaspora and Hagia Sofia has to do with this.

This is the first time I've seen a political leader or political party inaugurate a religious building in this way.

As an outsider this genuinely appears as if this is Modis inauguration as ameer ul momineen ( hindu version).

It seems like a new line in the sand has been drawn. You say the people have coexisted for years - yes they have coexisted under secularism. Will they be so willing to coexist in a Hindu rashtra with Modi at its head?
Secularism didn't come out of thin air. It was added in constitution in 1976. But they co existed even without this label. Only because it is hindu majority.
 
Im not sure what Pakistani diaspora and Hagia Sofia has to do with this.

This is the first time I've seen a political leader or political party inaugurate a religious building in this way.

As an outsider this genuinely appears as if this is Modis inauguration as ameer ul momineen ( hindu version).

It seems like a new line in the sand has been drawn. You say the people have coexisted for years - yes they have coexisted under secularism. Will they be so willing to coexist in a Hindu rashtra with Modi at its head?
I’m a little confused are you saying India should be divided but based on what? Atheists and Hindus?
 
Lol at Gandhi, he harmed dalits interests. Sawarkar was against untouchability much before, and even before him there aere harichand rao and jyotirao phule. These reforms were forced upon the majority how? I am talking pre independence.

Pre-independence reform movements were viewed then as fringe liberal movements by the larger public, it wasn't mainstream. The real reform took place when the Constitution was created in 1947 and Dalits given a legal status of protected class. This is what really integrated them into the civil fabric of the country.
 
Pre-independence reform movements were viewed then as fringe liberal movements by the larger public, it wasn't mainstream. The real reform took place when the Constitution was created in 1947 and Dalits given a legal status of protected class. This is what really integrated them into the civil fabric of the country.
Yes and then they screwed it up by making religion specific laws.
 
I am aware he had some stern views on Islam, not sure how that is relevant here though.
It’s relevant here because our founders thought why only one religion needed the reform, they clearly appeased the other creating a divide that has haunted them.

“Ambedkar recommended the adoption of a uniform civil code but he resigned after he faced severe criticism in the parliament. Nehru administration then moved to pass Hindu code bills which would ensure modern reformation of Indian society.”
 
When an anti conversion bill was brought by some states that prohibited conversion by coercion, guess who protested in India.

If such a bill is brought in Pakistan, guess who will protest? @RexRex

What does an anti-conversion bill even mean ? The concept itself sounds ridiculous to me.
 
It's a difficult situation.

Ideally, I'd love to live in a country where there is aggressive separation of church and state and strong restrictions on use of religion in the public space like say France or China.

Realistically, I recognise this is not practical without oppression where religion is still so important to people's daily lives.

I'd compromise for what we have in countries like India, USA etc. where theoretically there's a secular structure but in practice the majority religion dominates. For example, it's unimaginable for a non-majority religion practicing individual to be President in the States and in the current environment in India either. However, at least both countries have the facade of secularism that does a better job of protecting the minority voice than openly declared religious countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel etc.

In summary, fully recognising the limits of the current system, I would want a Hindu Rashtra and most of the South couldn't care less about the issue.
 
It's a difficult situation.

Ideally, I'd love to live in a country where there is aggressive separation of church and state and strong restrictions on use of religion in the public space like say France or China.

Realistically, I recognise this is not practical without oppression where religion is still so important to people's daily lives.

I'd compromise for what we have in countries like India, USA etc. where theoretically there's a secular structure but in practice the majority religion dominates. For example, it's unimaginable for a non-majority religion practicing individual to be President in the States and in the current environment in India either. However, at least both countries have the facade of secularism that does a better job of protecting the minority voice than openly declared religious countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel etc.

In summary, fully recognising the limits of the current system, I would want a Hindu Rashtra and most of the South couldn't care less about the issue.
"*wouldn't* want a Hindu Rashtra"
 
It’s relevant here because our founders thought why only one religion needed the reform, they clearly appeased the other creating a divide that has haunted them.

I agree that Hinduism is not as fundamentalist as Islam is and that's probably what the founders thought as well and that you could enact reforms more easily with the former. You could say that was a mistake on their part.

But hey the BJP is in the majority right now, they can rectify this with a uniform civil code. Why arent they doing anything ?
 
I agree that Hinduism is not as fundamentalist as Islam is and that's probably what the founders thought as well and that you could enact reforms more easily with the former.

But they the BJP is in the majority right now, they can rectify this with a uniform civil code.
It will be opposed, and then will you again say India needs another partition for uniform civil code?
 
I agree that Hinduism is not as fundamentalist as Islam is and that's probably what the founders thought as well and that you could enact reforms more easily with the former. You could say that was a mistake on their part.

But hey the BJP is in the majority right now, they can rectify this with a uniform civil code. Why arent they doing anything ?
Uniform civil code was the dream of the founders of our constitution. If any part implements this, they will be fulfilling the wishes of out founding fathers. Any constitution respecting indian should support it. Why are you worried?
 
Liberal hindus, muslims, other minority groups.

Those that want a hindu rashtra.
So let me get this straight Liberal Hindus who don’t practice religion should divide a country that was already divided by Muslims on religion?

Also Jains,Amritdhari Sikhs and Buddhists would prefer living with Hindus than Sikhs.
So which minority group?

Basically another Abrahamic country in South Asia I guess.
 
Uniform civil code was the dream of the founders of our constitution. If any part implements this, they will be fulfilling the wishes of out founding fathers. Any constitution respecting indian should support it. Why are you worried?

I am not worried. I am pro-UCC lol, always have been.
 
What does an anti-conversion bill even mean ? The concept itself sounds ridiculous to me.


What is the reason for them to oppose this ?
Why does Vatican care about Indian State’s anti conversion law?
 
So let me get this straight Liberal Hindus who don’t practice religion should divide a country that was already divided by Muslims on religion?

Also Jains,Amritdhari Sikhs and Buddhists would prefer living with Hindus than Sikhs.
So which minority group?

Basically another Abrahamic country in South Asia I guess.
than Liberal Hindus*
 


What is the reason for them to oppose this ?
Why does Vatican care about Indian State’s anti conversion law?

Why do you want to criminalise somebody's right to convert to another religion ?
 
So let me get this straight Liberal Hindus who don’t practice religion should divide a country that was already divided by Muslims on religion?

Also Jains,Amritdhari Sikhs and Buddhists would prefer living with Hindus than Sikhs.
So which minority group?

Basically another Abrahamic country in South Asia I guess.
Im not saying should. Im saying it will probably happen.

These people didnt sign up for a hindu rashtra.
 
So blame the BJP for not having a spine and not going through with the farm laws.
I did blame them but i also appreciated BJP for realising they want majority of the country to agree to something like that including Sikhs who were vehemently opposed to this.

Modi has actually been amazingly pro Sikhs, people don’t see it but at times he has even appeased them.
 
They did and see what happened with farm laws.
Some economic liberalization was attempted in 1966, but there was political backlash and had to be rolled back, and finally they had to do it in 1991 when there was no choice left. Farm laws were good, but it will come when the time is right, state by state.
 
Why do you want to criminalise somebody's right to convert to another religion ?

Not criminalising please read the law, I have mentioned already in other threads that there is targeted conversion happening right now missionaries in two communities that i’m part of Tamil and Punjabis.
You can ask anyone from Punjab to Tamilians how the conversion is happening.
 
Some economic liberalization was attempted in 1966, but there was political backlash and had to be rolled back, and finally they had to do it in 1991 when there was no choice left. Farm laws were good, but it will come when the time is right, state by state.
Yeah i remember learning about that and the pain I had when I read that.
Shastri is the most ideal person we had as a PM, there was commentary by China on this as well about how India missed the bus in 1960s and they can never make it now- which is what led to actually read what “bus” India missed.
 
Not criminalising please read the law, I have mentioned already in other threads that there is targeted conversion happening right now missionaries in two communities that i’m part of Tamil and Punjabis.
You can ask anyone from Punjab to Tamilians how the conversion is happening.
Demography is destiny. Every religion understand this fact except hindus.
 
Im not saying should. Im saying it will probably happen.

These people didnt sign up for a hindu rashtra.
Yeah I didnt sign up for the income tax bracket either but happens.

Just being able to practice our religion is not bad, I was in Chennai when government took over the temple i worshipped at, i was anti-BJP to the core until then and that made me change to atleast see there is an issue.(Government cannot take over other places of worship).

Just because appeasement isn’t done doesn’t mean people will have issues.
 
Not criminalising please read the law, I have mentioned already in other threads that there is targeted conversion happening right now missionaries in two communities that i’m part of Tamil and Punjabis.
You can ask anyone from Punjab to Tamilians how the conversion is happening.

Conversion from one religion to another requires a spiritual and intellectual change of heart ..... how does one 'target' someone with this ?

If you're referring to entrapment after marriage, then maybe a law can be created for it. But otherwise a forced-conversion bill makes no sense.
 
Back
Top