Shivaji -- the Charles Martel of India
fanabba
Islamic Imperialism.
Editor Rupee News http://www.rupeenews.com
> Like Charles Martel, Shivaji (17th century) helped to stem the tide of
> Islamic Imperialism.
Where is the article on Hindu Chuck?
Maybe readers can enjoy this:
http://rupeenews.com/2008/06/05/secular-india-anti-muslim-shivaji-statue-to-guard-bombay-shores/
fanabba
When are Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. going to become secular?
www.faithfreedom.org
Wanderer
Why do you bother yourself with that, especially since you are
interested in seeing India go in the opposite direction?
Mirza Ghalib
>
> > When are Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. going to become secular?
>
> Why do you bother yourself with that, especially since you are
> interested in seeing India go in the opposite direction?
So you think India, as of now, is secular ?
fanabba
> On Jul 18, 4:13�pm, "Editor Rupee Newshttp://www.rupeenews.com"
fanabba
fanabba
Even Muslim historian Khafi Khan has praised Shivaji for his religious
tolerance and chivalry. Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples and imposed
Jizya tax on Hindus; he had to: Islam requires these actions. Islam
cannot be reformed.
www.faithfreedom.org
www.islamundressed.com
www.historyofjihad.org
www.prophetofdoom.net
Wanderer
My point is that people like Fannaba, Parekh, Madhu Sudhan, etc., want
to see India go in the opposite direction. India may not be ideally
secular today, but it is a far sight better than where the RSS and VHP
want to take it.
Mirza Ghalib
>
> > So you think India, as of now, is secular ?
>
> My point is that people like Fannaba, Parekh, Madhu Sudhan, etc., want
> to see India go in the opposite direction. India may not be ideally
> secular today, but it is a far sight better than where the RSS and VHP
> want to take it.
Give a cursory reading to the "constitution" of
India. Article 30 alone negates the very idea of
secularism, in that the "constitution" gives
a preference to minorities as far as their
institutions are concerned. Add to that the fact
India does not have a common personal law. The same
Muslims who timidly accept US law in toto, will
raise hell if anyone even talks about it in India.
Recently, there was a strong talk from the congress
to establish religion based quotas in civil service
and more disturbingly, in the military. For now
both were thwarted, but they are at it.
Obviously, you do not know enough about RSS and VHP.
At the very least, they will bring Hindu ethics to
the core of governance.
fanabba
If India is declared a Hindu state, other religions would still be
accepted as equally valid. That is the idea at the very core of
Hinduism. That idea is not at the core of religions like Christianity
and Islam.
fanabba
<mointasv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:56�pm, fanabba <fana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Like Charles Martel, Shivaji (17th century) helped to stem the tide of
> > Islamic Imperialism.
>
> Where is the article on Hindu Chuck?
>
> Maybe readers can enjoy this:
>
Even Muslim historian Khafi Khan has praised Shivaji for his tolerance
of other religions and his chivalry. Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples
and imposed Jizya tax on Hindus. He had to: Islam requires these
actions. Islam cannot be reformed.
www.faithfreedom.org
www.islamundressed.com
www.historyofjihad.org
Wanderer
> On Jul 18, 7:11 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote
>>> So you think India, as of now, is secular ?
>> My point is that people like Fannaba, Parekh, Madhu Sudhan, etc., want
>> to see India go in the opposite direction. India may not be ideally
>> secular today, but it is a far sight better than where the RSS and VHP
>> want to take it.
>
> Give a cursory reading to the "constitution" of
> India. Article 30 alone negates the very idea of
> secularism, in that the "constitution" gives
> a preference to minorities as far as their
> institutions are concerned.
Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions.-
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have
the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.
[(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of
any property of any educational institution established and administered
by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that
the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of
such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right
guaranteed under that clause.]
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it
is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or
language.
Why does the above "negate the very idea of secularism"?
> Add to that the fact
> India does not have a common personal law. The same
> Muslims who timidly accept US law in toto, will
> raise hell if anyone even talks about it in India.
>
> Recently, there was a strong talk from the congress
> to establish religion based quotas in civil service
> and more disturbingly, in the military. For now
> both were thwarted, but they are at it.
>
> Obviously, you do not know enough about RSS and VHP.
> At the very least, they will bring Hindu ethics to
> the core of governance.
Please expound on "hindu ethics [for] the core of governance".
Wanderer
If all religions were to be accepted as equally valid in India, what is
the need to seek to declare it a Hindu state? The RSS and VHP argue that
there is no officially Hindu state in the world, whereas there are
Christian, Muslim and Buddhist states. Firstly, Nepal is officially
Hindu. Secondly, the argument is similar to saying, ""my neighbors keep
slaves, so it's time I did too". Religion is a personal affair, and we
should strive to remove "official" religions the world over, not go in
the opposite direction. The UK is officially a Protestant Christian
nation, and yet other religions find greater accomodation than is found
in, say, Tripura or Nagaland or Gujarat. The UK is slowly but inexorably
moving toward official secularism.
fanabba
>
> - Show quoted text -
India already is officially secular and that is because the majority
is Hindu.
But it has gone too far in minority appeasement -- see the Haj
subsidies for Muslims and now the subsidies for Christians to visit
the holy lands, etc.
The demand for a Hindu state is a backlash generated by minority
appeasement. Remove the appeasement and the demand for a Hindu state
will disappear. Institute a Uniform Civil Code as there is in the west
-- not separate personal law for Muslims as it exists in India. Remove
these irritants and you will see the demand for a Hindu State
disappear..
Wanderer
No, that is because that is what was written into the constitution. It
could not have been any other way, because India would otherwise have
fragmented.
> But it has gone too far in minority appeasement -- see the Haj
> subsidies for Muslims and now the subsidies for Christians to visit
> the holy lands, etc.
Would you like to see a subsidy for Hindus to visit Disneyworld, or are
you satisfied with the Amarnath pilgrimmage? I agree completely, though,
that both subsidies should be removed. It is not the business of
government to underwrite the travel costs associated with one's
religious practice.
> The demand for a Hindu state is a backlash generated by minority
> appeasement. Remove the appeasement and the demand for a Hindu state
> will disappear. Institute a Uniform Civil Code as there is in the west
> -- not separate personal law for Muslims as it exists in India. Remove
> these irritants and you will see the demand for a Hindu State
> disappear..
Did you know of, and are you willing to discuss, the existence of Hindu
civil law that provides distinct benefits to Hindus? What sort of
"Uniform Civil Code" would you actually approve of? The VHP's vision of
a UCC is Hindu civil law imposed nationwide.
Mirza Ghalib
Here is the argument against Art 30 of the Indian "constitution".
The author is well regarded scholar in these matters
Dr. Kak's Response:
The primary strength of the Indian constitution is its affirmation of
equality for all citizens. Its primary weakness is its form and size.
It is more than a thousand pages long and perhaps only high court
lawyers have seen the entire text. It is a recipe for bureaucratic
control of the state. The constitution has a lot of empty verbiage on
things like socialism, without defining such terms. It also has the
infamous Article 30 that has caused much resentment and may be the
underlying cause of religious discord in India. According to its
current interpretation by the courts, the state must financially
support schools run by minority religious groups but not those by the
majority religious groups. It is a marvel that things are quite
peaceful in India in spite of this Article 30. Imagine what would
happen in the U.S. if the federal and the state governments gave funds
to Islamic schools and not to Christian schools. I bet there would be
bloodbath.
(End of quote)
Add to the above the Hujj subsidy to Muslims. Just a few days ago
the very same Muslims who travel to Mecca on "secular" Indian
taxpayers' expense, opposed tooth and nail a grant of a few acres
of land adjoining the Amarnath Temple for a temporary shelter to
pilgrims who visit the place just for two months in a year.
Mirza Ghalib
> > accepted as equally valid. That is the idea at the very core of
> > Hinduism. That idea is not at the core of religions like Christianity
> > and Islam.
>
> If all religions were to be accepted as equally valid in India, what is
> the need to seek to declare it a Hindu state? The RSS and VHP argue that
> there is no officially Hindu state in the world, whereas there are
> Christian, Muslim and Buddhist states. Firstly, Nepal is officially
> Hindu. Secondly, the argument is similar to saying, ""my neighbors keep
> slaves, so it's time I did too". Religion is a personal affair, and we
> should strive to remove "official" religions the world over, not go in
> the opposite direction. The UK is officially a Protestant Christian
> nation, and yet other religions find greater accomodation than is found
> in, say, Tripura or Nagaland or Gujarat. The UK is slowly but inexorably
> moving toward official secularism.
You have not been reading papers. Nepal ceased to be a Hindu
state.
Wanderer
> Here is the argument against Art 30 of the Indian "constitution".
> The author is well regarded scholar in these matters
>
> Dr. Kak's Response:
> The primary strength of the Indian constitution is its affirmation of
> equality for all citizens. Its primary weakness is its form and size.
>
> It is more than a thousand pages long and perhaps only high court
> lawyers have seen the entire text. It is a recipe for bureaucratic
> control of the state. The constitution has a lot of empty verbiage on
> things like socialism, without defining such terms. It also has the
> infamous Article 30 that has caused much resentment and may be the
> underlying cause of religious discord in India. According to its
> current interpretation by the courts, the state must financially
> support schools run by minority religious groups but not those by the
> majority religious groups.
I don't care for Dr. Kak's opinion. He is, after all, an engineering
professor and not a legal expert. Why is Article 30 "infamous"? I would
have called it "key", or "crucial" or "important". "Infamous" implies
that Kak does not like what it conveys.
I gave you the word for word Article 30. Is there any room for
interpretation the way Kak claims it is?
Here it is again:
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions.- (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
_20[(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of
any property of any educational institution established and
administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall
ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the
acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate
the right guaranteed under that clause.]
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it
is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or
language.
Where is the language in this article that supports the view that the
state may not financially support schools run by the majority religious
groups?
There are wild allegations galore. One blogger claims:
"For instance, according to Article 30, minority community may reserve
up to 50 per cent of the seats for the members of its own community in
an educational institution established and administered by it even if
the institution is getting aid from the State."
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/444244.aspx
Do you see any reference to 50% reservations in Article 30? But of
course, the casual reader would take that at face value, by assuming
that the blogger has actually read Article 30.
Also, one may note that in various judicial decisions, including one by
the Supreme Court in 1968, Hindus were deemed to be minorities(and
therefore beneficiaries of Article 30, if you hold the view that only
minorities benefit) and Muslims were declared the majority community.
Wanderer
And a good thing too. It will likely be a secular state, given that all
the problems stemmed from the treatment of the undercastes in an
officially Hindu state.
http://www.ahrchk.net/pr/mainfile.php/2008mr/522/
http://www.livemint.com/2008/05/30011212/Nepal8217s-challenging-jour.html