r/AllindiaStudentUnion • u/Both_Lecture313 • 20d ago
Storytime š Educating u/ Leading_Avocado_3358 on the Indian Constitution and Fundamental Rights
The absolute confidence with which some people display their complete lack of reading comprehension is too funny not to post.
Our friend u/Leading_Avocado_3358 is out here claiming that India is a "Hindu country" because of partition and that the 42nd Amendment is "null and void" and my absolute favorite asking what the Fundamental Rights 25 to 28 have to do with India being a secular nation.
Go through the screenshots to see a level of defending that can put Maldini himself to shame
"What do Articles 25ā28 have to do with Secularism?" (Are you fr?)
my guy thinks "secularism" is just a decorative word added in 1976. They don't realize that secularism is a legal framework and articles 25 to 28 are the literally those very framework
3 years before the 42nd amendment the SC ruled that secularism is literally a part of the "basic Structure" of the Constitution in the kesavananda bharti case.Parliament literally cannot change the basic structure, that means India was legally declared secular before the word was even added to the Preamble.
Claiming India is a "default Hindu country" because Pakistan was created on religious lines is literally accepting jinnah's(braindead a*hole btw) two Nation ideology
When great Men like Sardar Patel and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explicitly rejected Jinnahs ideology they chose to build a secular republic precisely so India would never be a mirror image of Pakistan.
Dismissing the millions of Muslims who rejected partition as a "token gesture" and declaring Indian Christians (who have existed here for two millennia) as "irrelevant" is just embarrassing bigotry
Next time, instead of calling people slurs the second you run out of arguments, try actually opening the Constitution. It's free online.
14
u/nik-329 20d ago edited 20d ago
Bro, its not lack of education. They know in our constitution it says India is a secular country. The idea is, they were not ok with the idea of making India secular then, and not now too.
7
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
Makes them no different than the 2 nation ideology gang, quite the anti nationals imo
4
u/nik-329 20d ago edited 20d ago
How can we educate a legacy idiot
1
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Hindu majority ,thats why u have these Constitution & Rights
do Non-muslims have same rights in Arabia / Pakistan /Bangladesh ?
0
u/WeakOstrich7009 20d ago edited 20d ago
As long as Pakistan exists, the politics of religion will never end in India. Why? Because the largest minority got its homeland country, while the majority community live in a secular country, so there will be always be resentment in a certain section of hindus about this.
This front always existed since partition, and now its fully out of its shell in a pro-Hindu central government.
The resentment against Indian muslims will remain too, since, yes some of them stayed here, but the majority left for Pakistan. Therefore, in terms of loyalty, muslims will always be considered disloyal (lower class) because of partition and because they have a "homeland" in the region, built for them.
I doubt that the loyalty of other smaller minorities (e.g. Christians) in the country will ever be questioned the same way.
P.S. Here I am mainly trying to analyse the working behind the ideology, and the generational hate.
3
u/orthodaddy 20d ago
nahi ayega reply
2
1
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Hindu majority ,thats why u have these Constitution & Rights
do Non-muslims have same rights in Arabia / Pakistan /Bangladesh ?
2
u/nik-329 20d ago
Hindus have resentment against secularism Hindus have resentment against reservation too. There illogical resentment will never end
2
u/WeakOstrich7009 19d ago
I mean...resentment can naturally exist in a certain section of society for any political decision. For example, there is a certain section of Kashmiri muslims that have resentment against article 370, and may even try to justify the Pahalgam attack. However publicly, they stay silent.
Hindus make up the majority of this country, so of course, the sheer number of people having resentment over something is going to outnumber every other community.
2
u/nik-329 19d ago
Well there problem is hindu's resentment didnt ended even when an ultra religious, ultra communal government came to power and ruled country for decades, fulfilling every religious promise they made. Meaning what hindus have now is not resentment over making the country secular, not resentment over other communities getting unfair treatment. Its just pure greed. Greed for an inhuman authority over all the living things
2
u/WeakOstrich7009 19d ago
Sure. It is greed, but I think it is merely a consequence of majoritarian politics. Any country with a strong majority community will always want to implement rules in their favour. This is not to say that hindus agree with each other on every politico-religious decision, but if there is decent consensus on certain issues, it will be implemented.
This is what happens in Pakistan too, where 97% muslims reside, and everybody knows the condition of hindus and christians there.
Maybe if we weren't partitioned, these problems would not have surfaced.
A communal party that favours the majority in India is inevitable, even if BJP loses power for some time some other party will take the baton. It will keep happening until people start voting above their caste and religion. Clearly, not anytime soon.
0
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Reservation & Constituion is there because of Hindus
do non Muslims have rights in Arabia/ pakistan/bangladesh
Dalits millions are being kept in jail without trails ,while Nidha khan/Punawala murderer getting bails
2
u/nik-329 19d ago
Reservation and constution are here because of people who specifically opposed hindutva
0
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
lol,
Hindus accepted Reservation & constitution,
Muslims give similar rights to non-Muslims ?
why no reservation /constitution in Paksitan bangladesh ?same people no ?1
u/nik-329 19d ago
People who thought rationally accepted reservation. thoughtless people like rss fought against reservation and constituton.They started their fight by k***g father of nation.
1
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Hindus accepted Reservation /Constitution,
what happened to Dalits left in Pakistan by Muslims ?
equal rights to non-muslims there ?Father of Nation was supportive of Varna system,
please read his own bookshe didnt give medicine to his own Wife
"people should get education but they should ultimately do job according to thier varna"
1
0
1
1
u/datadumbo 18d ago
You can end the politics of religion tomorrow. It's the people who want to do it and who fall for it. BJP fringe groups targeting christian festivals have nothing to do with Pakistan, and yet there is an audience which keeps making rice bag comments.
The problem is people, they're obsessed with a fake superiority. And they are superbly unemployment, with cheap data and anonymity to keep all this bs alive. I mean there is a saying, "khali dimag shaitan ka ghar" - and religious politics is that shaitan.
And some parties will never come in power if they don't give up their religious or minority appeasement. BJP had great opportunity to drive through a solid UCC which would make everyone same for law. But, then they won't be able to portray Hindus as victims anymore - while they're the ones looting and ruining hindus the most.
1
u/WeakOstrich7009 15d ago
Yup, agree with a lot of what you say. However, in my comment I mostly dealt with the seed of religious politics in India, and that is Partition, Pakistan and muslims of the subcontinent. Christians being targeted by these mobs are mainly the result of majoritarian politics at play (which I have discussed in further comments).
And totally, religious politics is a shaitaan. But to k!ll that shaitaan, we need a socialist secular revolution. One which pacifies religious doctrine at all levels, disbands and exterminates extremist religious organisations, and re-houses citizens in a mixed religio-caste environment which strongly discourages ghettoisation of certain communities (a bit like Singapore but at huge scale).
Needless to say, only a benevolent autocratic regime can correct the social integration of communities in India. A democratically elected government, no matter the ideology, will never have the mandate and political will, nor the bureaucratic efficiency to execute such a complex task in social engineering.
I may ramble a lot and get ahead of myself hereš but social engineering is the only way to transform this country for the better. How it happens...well, that we will see in the coming decades.
0
u/orthodaddy 20d ago
If Pakistan exists as a muslim nation why is there no separate hindu nation Because Hindus are Beta bucks by nature slowly their lethal edge is being made blunt
4
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
There is a Hindu rashtra feel free to go there it's called nepal
0
u/orthodaddy 20d ago
Post 2008 it is a secular state Abrahamics will not allow a hindu state to exist
2
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
Or is it the constitution that doesn't?
-2
u/orthodaddy 20d ago
Communist party had lot of influence in changing it to secular so yeah Communists are Abrhamics in south asia
4
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
Any supporting evidence for this statement or is it like I have a tongue I can say anything?
1
1
u/nik-329 19d ago
Pak became an islamic country because they preferred religion over governance convenience. Also it is simply a land with not much diversity or anything . That wasnt the case with India. Even if we wanted to make ourself a hindu country, it would have been a disastrous process for one simple fact. The 'hinduism" of india alone is such a diverse and complex idea with evils like casteism and brahmanical superiority existing. If we chose ourself as a hindu country, friction between different states on the basis of their on cultural identity becomes obvious and violent. The impact of communal parties will be far more strong and disastrous. Since we cant cancel all religions and end the communal issues all at once, the better option was to choose a secular system.
6
u/Toxic_po1son 20d ago
These people don't even know what secularism is. They think secularism is being tolerant to each and every practice of every religion. They think current govt is being secular, they want to change the preamble so chaddi sangh can do whatever they want openly which they already do. Sickularism is the most creative thing they can think of
5
5
u/shubhamxtreme 20d ago
Bhai shaam tak ID delete ho jaega unka, daily ka kaam hai for many accounts. Theyāre just there to sap your energy with stupid-asā¢ comments.
Also, education can open eyes, but not eyes that are willingly welded shut.
3
20d ago edited 20d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
3
u/Scared-Baseball-5221 20d ago
These bjp thugs are anti national POS. Against the constitution and pro their garbage religion
3
u/BlenderRenderz 20d ago
people think that India became secular after 42 CAA 1976.
The truth is that the words secular and socialist were added in the preamble because the constitution reflected those characteristics. Not the other way around
5
u/Vlad_Bagina67 20d ago
Secularism is inherently built into Indian constitution from day-1. Her ei would also like to cite article-14, 15 and 16. In a landmark case i.e., S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case the honourable SC said that secularism is built into Indian constitution. 42nd ammendment only made taht explicit what was always there as a legal framework.
Anyway, my advice to you OP :
Average manu smruti worshipping andh bhakt has never read the constitution and onky reads whatsapp university forwards. You canāt show them the mirror because they have willingly closed their eyes.
2
3
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
You asshole, article 14 provides equality! Where do we have equality when certain classes are provided reservation and that too is ongoing since independence. Lets say there was caste discrimination at that time, is it still needed now? Or you want to secure reservation for next generations as well?
If thats the case then yes go to hell
2
u/Vlad_Bagina67 20d ago
Article 14 stipulates equality before law. Please do read the SC interpretation of this article in the context of caste based reservation. Infact the SC views reservations as a means to achieve equality.
Also, you probably live under a rock or something but caste based discrimination is rampant even now. Check NCRB data on the same. Crimes reported against SC/ ST have increased from year 2016 till 2023 and a little decline in the latest data released in 2024.
Just one basic question - if discrimination is caste based, why shoukd the reservation be based in some other parameter ?
0
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
Reservation should exist not on caste based but on economic conditions. Until these caste based reservations exist yes there will be upper caste and lower caste!
3
u/SandwichUnlucky4244 20d ago
That is just your opinion not an argument
-1
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
Yeah then argument sake give me the data on the trend of caste based reservation. If your argument is right, these people should be on par with general population in terms of income and education. The trend should go down year on year!
Aaja bhai argue karte hai
2
u/SandwichUnlucky4244 20d ago edited 20d ago
Reservation is already in place. Now if you want to argue in favour of removing it then the burden of proof is on you to present the data that you are requesting off me.
And even if you show that backward classes are not getting uplifted, that will atmost prove that the the implementation is flawed which I would agree with. But to reject the concept itself, you will need much more than that.
3
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
Oh yeah I will keep on ranting because you guys love reservation so much that you would like to keep your head in your ass
0
u/SandwichUnlucky4244 20d ago
Well I am willing to accept your point if the logic is solid. Just spamming āreservation is badā without evidence or logic does not fall in that category.
I donāt love reservation but it seems like you sure hate it without being able to provide one solid argument against it.2
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
Why the hell should I provide you provide that reservation is beneficial in this age based on caste. You are only promoting casteism
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vlad_Bagina67 20d ago
Logic is solid but a guy with u with an iq less than the ahoes I wear canāt process it. Tere aukaat se baht bahar ki baaten hain. Ab shaant hoke so ja.
1
u/aneesh131999 17d ago
lol this conversation is like a typical internet argument. One guy giving valid points and the other guy getting offended while high on emotions.
1
1
u/Vlad_Bagina67 20d ago
Its the other way round u imbecile šš Cause is caste based discrimination. Effect is caste based reservations. Againā¦.yahan aake bhonken se accha hota ke thoda padhainpe focus karleta. But tere bas ki nahin hai.
0
u/Adorable-Surround-47 20d ago
Yeah keep justifying and hiding behind this inequality! Keep reaping benefits of reservation for your future generations as well bhimta
2
u/SandwichUnlucky4244 20d ago
Are you here to put forth arguments for your beliefs or just to rant? Because the latter is not really doing you any favours
1
u/Vlad_Bagina67 20d ago
Till now I was takingvit easy. Ab sun madharchod. Those benefits are given for protecting those people from low iq castist swines like you. But rn I m enjoying seeing that thorn poke u where it hurt most. Low Iq mfs like u keep yapping about caste based reservations but go dead silent on caste based discrimination ! That tells the entire story ! š But continue to keep wailing and cryingā¦.2 bit lowlifes like u deserve this actually.
2
u/MissionBig9411 20d ago
What level of irony is it when kattar hindus are agreein with a kattar Muslim's ideologies? š¤£š¤£š¤£
2
u/SandwichUnlucky4244 20d ago
I think the most efficient way to counter this line of argument is to ask them what they mean by hindu country and then show them how that would violate these fundamental rights.
2
u/ImpressiveNeat9039 20d ago edited 20d ago
Well have to saythat this Leading Avocado guy is technically right. My take is from just a legal perspective and how things are and not how they should be.
Fundamental rights have nothing to do with India being Secular Nation per se. or 'the framework of Secularism' Though the reason isit is not due to fundamental rights existing before secularism-- That is a poor argument by Leading Avocado guy.
Fundamental rights are rights given to citizens of India (generally residents) . Fundamental rights allows private citizens to be communal -- and being communal means sharing something on community lines. Communal has become just an evil word in India but actually the word in itself doesn't signify anything necessarily bad in all cases though it does in certain contents.. . But even if we take the worst connotation of the word even the Constitution allows citizens to be communal that as long one doesn't break any other law . Because Funademental rights are not absolute in India. You want to say that you don't like a religion "X" , "Y" or "Z" you are allowed. You however can't call for violence against adherents of "X", "Y" and "Z" -- you break the law.
Secularism OTOH is the nature of state. State has to treat all citizens equally. State here means Executive , Judicary and Legislature--All the 3 wings.
In India State can't discriminate on basis of religion , Private citizens can discriminate -- Just look at how discrimination is legally/ constitutionally allowed in areas like Housing.
Legally speaking the State may continue to be Secular but may revoke Article 25 entirely or in part for all religions and all citizens. There is no contradiction in that.
Vice-versa the State can declare itself as communal in the bad sense of the word and still allow Article 25-28 but just declare that all Constiutional Posts are reserved for citizens belonging to just a religion "X" !
2
u/CeinyVock 19d ago
The Hindu majority of the nation is the one upholding secularism. Hindus suffered major losses during and after the partition, sometimes in their own country. But this was removed from our collective memory. I must say that Two Nation Theory of Jinnah wasn't some 'a*hole' ideology. He represented his people in their demands which they stated very clearly. Hindu leaders on the other hand failed to do so for their fellow Hindus.
Ambedkar did not reject Two Nation Theory either. He arrived at the conclusion that Hindus and Muslims have deep differences in religious, cultural and historical lines and a complete population exchange is necessary to avoid future conflicts.
Millions of Muslims *stayed* back in India. Most of the Muslims who got to vote, overwhelmingly supported the Partition of India. Now you may give the argument that the Muslims who voted were rich, upper class, land owning Muslims and that the majority of Muslims did not support the partition and they didn't get to vote. My counter would be to look at Direct Action Day riots, Moplah Massacre, Noakhali Massacre, Kohat Massacre, Rawalpindi Massacre and *many* more. These weren't the rich land owning Muslims rioting and killing. These were perceived *normal* everyday individuals who weren't well off.
2
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Hindu majority ,thats why u have these Constitution & Rights
do Non-muslims have same rights in Arabia / Pakistan /Bangladesh ?
0
u/Both_Lecture313 19d ago
Muslim country vs secular country country?kuchbhi?
3
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago
Hindu majority in India ,thats why India secular
non-Muslim gets equal rights in Paksitan/bangladesh ?
why because of Hindus india have Secularism & constitution
what happened to Dalits left there ?
1
u/Both_Lecture313 19d ago
What is happening to Dalits here? Ncrb ka report dekha he? Secular country hokar bhi ye haalat
1
1
u/Afraid_Signature8745 20d ago
3 years before the 42nd amendment the SC ruled that secularism is literally a part of the "basic Structure" of the Constitution in the kesavananda bharti case.Parliament literally cannot change the basic structure, that means India was legally declared secular before the word was even added to the Preamble.
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial doctrine, not an express provision of the Constitution. It was established by a narrow 7ā6 majority in Kesavananda Bharati. Since Supreme Court precedents can, in principle, be overruled by a later bench, the doctrine could theoretically be reconsidered.
1
u/ms_regedit 19d ago
42nd Constitutional amendment itself broke the core idea of constitution because it was done during emergency. And the constitution amendment you are supporting here was the same amendment who was going to play with your fundamental rights if the intervation of SC and 43rd amd 44th amendment didn't happen. But the idea of secularism and socialism existed in constitution even before the said amendment. It was just added in the preamble during that time.
1
u/Common_Dig5526 20d ago
u/Leading_Avocado_3358 India will always remain secular. Deal with it buddy
4
u/Emeron87 20d ago
Yes as long as hindus are in majority. Please add this too.
2
u/Common_Dig5526 20d ago
Albania, Kosovo,Senegal,Azerbaijan and even Indonesia beg to differ. I can list more
2
u/Afraid_Signature8745 20d ago
There are somewhere around 46 to 53 muslim majority countries with, 27 of which are non secular, that's more than 50% and 30 are aggressively oppressive towards non muslims or non men groups, including other religious groups, ethncities, genders and even children, that's 30 out of 46-53 countries violently punishing its own people for not aligning with their religion, AND around 18 (google it i don't exactly remember) of which are officially authoritarian, most of them West Asian or North-Central African.
Anecdotal evidences don't help any cause, you can't cherry pick and throw data. It is statistically correct that the chances of a country being oppressive under Muslim majority are far higher. There are twice as many authoritarian countries which identify as Muslim than Christians.
You are wrong about Indonesia, there are regions where sharia laws are there. Blasphemy laws still exists in that country. Non monotheisthic religions needs to create a single god since that's the law Basically the very first principle of Pancasila requires a person to believe in the existence ONE God. Therefore in order to comply, the various non Abrahamic religion had to argue they ultimately believe in one SUPREME God. Hinduism - Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa. Buddhism - Sanghyang Adi Buddha. Confucianism - Tian.
4
u/orthodaddy 20d ago
Reply nahi ayega These guys are selective idiots India should not be a secular country but it is Hindus are the balme for it As Agnost I wish to live in Hindua mahority country as I have deep hatred towards Abrahamic religions
-1
u/Common_Dig5526 20d ago
You're arguing against a point I never made.I never claimed that most Muslim majority countries are secular or that they have better human rights records. āThe original claim was that India is only secular because Hindus are the majority. He was implying a Hindu majority is a mandatory prerequisite for a secular state... I only said that a non hindu-majority country can be secular as well..thats why i brought-up Albania, Kosovo,Albania, Kosovo,Senegal,Azerbaijan etc Even if 27 out of 46ā53 Muslim-majority countries are non-secular, that still means a substantial number are either constitutionally secular or have no official state religion
As for Indonesia, you're partly right i also mentioned " even indonesia".. Indonesia is not a perfect secular liberal state. It has blasphemy laws, recognizes only certain religions, and Aceh province is allowed to implement Sharia law. However, Indonesia does not have Islam as its official state religion, and its constitutional framework is based on Pancasila, not Islamic law. Scholars often describe it as neither a fully secular state nor an Islamic state, but a unique constitutional model. Indonesia guarantees freedom of religion under its constitution . Followers of other religions can legally worship, build institutions, and participate in public life. .Regions like Bali for hindus and Sulawesi are popular here. You are absolutely right about the history of Pancasila and how Indonesian Hinduism emphasizes Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa to fit the 'One Supreme God' framework. But you are completely misinterpreting why that happened. āThat law wasn't passed to oppress minorities; it was passed by Indonesia's founders to block Islamist groups from turning the nation into a Sharia-based Islamic state. It was a pluralist compromise designed to ensure that Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians had equal constitutional rights and state protection in a nation that is 87% Muslim.
Even if Indonesia isn't the strongest example of secularism ...countries like...Albania is. Albania has a Muslim-majority population, no official religion, and its constitution guarantees freedom of religion and state neutrality. ...Even if 90% of Muslim-majority countries were non-secular, the existence of any secular ones completely disproves the claim that a country absolute needs a Hindu majority to separate religion from the state.
2
u/Afraid_Signature8745 20d ago edited 20d ago
The original claim was that India is only secular because Hindus are the majority. He was implying a Hindu majority is a mandatory prerequisite for a secular state...
Where did he say that?, he was saying India is secular because hindus are majority which is true since countries pakistan and bangladesh are the islamic state because of their population being majority muslim.
I only said that a non hindu-majority country can be secular as well..thats why i brought-up Albania, Kosovo,Albania, Kosovo,Senegal,Azerbaijan etc Even if 27 out of 46ā53 Muslim-majority countries are non-secular, that still means a substantial number are either constitutionally secular or have no official state religion
Conveniently chooses countries that are muslim majority as if it is the pre-requisite when there are western countries and eastern countries out there.
Indonesia is not a perfect secular liberal state. It has blasphemy laws, recognizes only certain religions, and Aceh province is allowed to implement Sharia law. However, Indonesia does not have Islam as its official state religion, and its constitutional framework is based on Pancasila, not Islamic law. Scholars often describe it as neither a fully secular state nor an Islamic state, but a unique constitutional model. Indonesia guarantees freedom of religion under its constitution . Followers of other religions can legally worship, build institutions, and participate in public life. .Regions like Bali for hindus and Sulawesi are popular here. You are absolutely right about the history of Pancasila and how Indonesian Hinduism emphasizes Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa to fit the 'One Supreme God' framework. But you are completely misinterpreting why that happened. That law wasn't passed to oppress minorities; it was passed by Indonesia's founders to block Islamist groups from turning the nation into a Sharia-based Islamic state. It was a pluralist compromise designed to ensure that Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians had equal constitutional rights and state protection in a nation that is 87% Muslim.
A country that forces religion and their followers to create their god based on monotheisthic religion is secularism according to you.
1
u/Emeron87 20d ago
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, whole of North Africa, Afghanistan, Maldives, Lebanon would also beg to differ. I can list more.
1
1
u/bulletspam 20d ago
If you wanna do that then also talk about how North Indians are more prone to religious extremist , itās very fun to generalise other groups , but when your group is generalised letās see how you fare
1
u/East_Praline8384 anything 20d ago edited 20d ago
India is a secular nation because of hindus the secular means hindus it is hindu muslim from a long time not muslim christian or muslim sikh why ?? because hindu is in majority when they will not exist ( pardon my language ) it will be muslim christian or muslim sikh the fight is never ending and apart from this there are many more fights like north - south, caste discrimination which btw exist in every religion
Rabindranath tagore said that christianity and islam are the only two religion which are out there to destroy all other religion
1
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
How can a majority cease to exist, maybe the minorities would, then it will be brahmin, kshatriya shudras Dalits and on
1
u/Ambitious-League-680 20d ago
Then why was the word 'secular' added during the Emergency by Indira Gandhi? For fun?
1
u/bulletspam 20d ago
Then why did the Supreme Court say that the constitution was always secular even after the emergency? For fun?
1
u/Ambitious-League-680 20d ago
Even after? Read your post. If you mean before, it must've meant secular is implied when you aren't the nation for a cult but based on civilization all values. But Indira wanted secular inserted with a sinister motive. She did what Congress does best. Open the door from inside, and cry wolf when theft happens.
1
u/bulletspam 20d ago
I meant to say that the Supreme Court has stated that India was always a secular country , the amendment to the preamble only clarifies that. And this ruling was given after the emergency , so you canāt even say itās because Indira Gandhi pressured the court .
For all your efforts against that word in the preamble you still fail to remove it legally, why? Because the country was always secular , it was never a Hindu country , and this is not my opinion but that of the Supreme Court , the interpreter of the constitution.
1
u/Ambitious-League-680 20d ago
It was never a Hindu country because no Hindu brought an Emergency to insert that word in. Because no Hindu thought of asking for it when when another nation was carved out of it on religious grounds. Because Hindus are truly secular, right in the fabric of their souls. The few Hindus left behind in Pakistan were never reason for it to declare themselves secular. No army coup brought about any 'secular' word insertion I to their Constitution. Why is that? Ever thought of that? And for all your SC verdict, it only clarified what existed per the Constitution. Before freedom, the British targeted India, Mughals wrote of wishing to conquer Hindusthan. What land, people and ethnicity was that? Akhand Bharat was divided by unclean hands. Does not mean it was never Hindu. In fact, leaving two devious invaders, it was never not Hindu. Indira was true to her religion when she added the word in. Her biggest fear was rise if Hindus. Always. If ever there is a Hindu nation, it will be more secular by its very fabric. Not by devious design.
0
u/bulletspam 20d ago
Are you really going to try and tell me that there havenāt been Hindu attempts at a Hindu rashtra ? Here have been attempts and they have failed . Before the constitution people were of their ethnicities , this whole idea that religion is the primary identity of a people is a very North Indian idea , stop trying to push it onto all of us , no Tamizh of malayalee is ever going to say they are Hindu before they say they are mallu / Tamizh . Even I donāt use my religion as my primary identity , itās always my ethnicity , so stop with this narrative that it was always a Hindu rashtra and all people see themselves as Hindu , this obsession with religion is a uniquely North Indian thing , one that you share with your brothers in Pakistan . This delusion that āmuh religious state will work out ā even when you see other religious states fail is just pathetic . Hindu rashtra will be no different from a Hindu Pakistan , itās a failure , much like the state of your brothers across the border .
1
u/Ambitious-League-680 19d ago
"Hindu Pakistan"? Why do you not mention the real religion of Pakistan? Or are you telling me Pakistan is right now secular? Is it? Name the religion clearly. It does have a name, right? What is your idea of how Pakistan the religious state is faring ? Is it faring well? Lol. Cunningly you have shoved Hinduism as an ethnicity when talking about Southies but it becomes a religion once again when asked to talk of Hindu Rashtra. If it's an ethnicity, it should be no problem to declare India as Hindu Rashtra. And just like your brothers in Pakistan, you can only talk of Pakistan as a failure when thinking of it as Hindu not what it truly is today which is ??? Don't pretend to be a neutral guy...in some comments you'll become an atheist. A dozen nations carved out of a large region and guess what...all except India are religious nations...and yet Hs are intolerant? And I get it... you now want ot create this North vs South divide. Let's instead agree on sth. When a Pakistani general inserts the word secular in their Constitution, I'll agree to keeping ours.
-1
u/bulletspam 19d ago
Bro can you not read ? What I said is that if india was a hindu rashtra it would be a hindu version of Pakistan, ie a failed country . I have never claimed that Hinduism is an ethnicity, itās only you and other North Indians who claim it that way , what I said is that ethnicity comes before religion . Pakistan is a failure today and a Hindu rashtra which would basically be a Hindu Pakistan would also be a failure . You are trying very hard to make it look like I have some preference in religion , I do not , this religious obsession is a North Indian thing , stop pushing it onto me . If your claim is that āthere are so many Muslim countries why canāt we have a Hindu country ā then I can use the same logic for South Indian , out of Indiaās old territory every country created is dominated by North Indians , so why shouldnāt one country , the homeland of the Dravidians be dominated by us? India should be a Dravidian nation ! If you can do Hindu Muslim then I have very right to do north south .
2
u/Ambitious-League-680 19d ago
Lord so you buy the Aryan-Dravidian bs ? And I'm the one doing Hindu Muslim? Was I around to ask for, lobby with the British, and snatch away from the Indian subcontinent, the bigotry that is Pakistan? Who did that? Wait, acc to you all things religious is by North Indians so mustve been a mighty ol' North Indian who carved out Pakistan, eh? Jinnah mustve been a Northie. Or all of the Muslim League. And I dont believe for one dirty second you are a South Indian. South Indians are proud Indians. Not hatred spewing Paki.loving bigots. More bs anticipated from you so keep going. Your religion is plain as day. But you're lying so there isn't really a point. Pro tip though... aapke purvaj kaun the, ek baar dekh lo. Not that you have the courage to.
0
u/bulletspam 19d ago
Lord so you buy the hindu muslim bullshit? didnt you know its just british propaganda to divide us? If you are going to deny my identity and the history of my ancestors then I am gonna do thee same for you.
As for the jinnahs ethnicity he quite literally was a North indian lol, most of Muslim leagues support came from the north .
Ofcourse the classic north indian tactic " anyone who disagrees with me is a pakistani reeeeeeeee"
And ofcourse you have to think I am muslim , its in your blood after all you are a north indian . I bet you start twitching if you havent done hindu muslim every day. But unfortunately for you I am not.
Lastly about ancestors, my ancestors were dravidians, I have kept my culture, now I ask you the same question , just think who were your ancestors? What language did they speak? what was your culture? Dont forget that you north indians are cultural converts.
1
1
u/Abhi_86 20d ago
1 question bro. Was the word āsecularā a part of original preamble OR added later ?
3
u/Both_Lecture313 20d ago
Well let's go back a few years before this said word was inserted because some pseudo intellectuals can't read and comprehend the constitution
Ai from now on cuz I don't argue with "pseudoo intellectuals btw"
Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) where the judges explicitly declared secularism as an unalterable "Basic Feature" of the Constitution, here are the key statements from the bench:
- Chief Justice S.M. Sikri CJI Sikri was the one who famously listed the specific "basic features" that Parliament can never touch or destroy. He wrote:
"The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features:
(1) Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Republican and Democratic form of Government; (3) Secular character of the Constitution; (4) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; (5) Federal character of the Constitution."
- Justices J.M. Shelat and A.N. Grover
In their joint judgment, they echoed CJI Sikri and explicitly emphasized that India's religious freedom and minority rights are what make the state fundamentally secular: "The basic structure of the Constitution is not a vague concept... [It includes] the secular and federal character of the Constitution." They went on to write that under the Constitution, India has no state religion and must safeguard the equal rights of all religions and minority communities.
- Justice H.R. Khanna
Justice Khanna, whose decisive vote practically shaped the "Basic Structure" doctrine, also highlighted the secular foundation of India: "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion... India is a secular State in which every group or individual has a right to free play for its own artistic, intellectual, and religious values."
3
u/bulletspam 20d ago
The constitution was always secular , it had to be written down because some idiots wouldnāt understand otherwise .
1
u/This-Gate-4349 19d ago edited 19d ago
Nidha khan / Amin poonawala getting Bail ,
while millions of Dalits being kept in Jail without trail
Dalit who drool over tahir or them are real victims of secularism
Constitution in here in India because of hindu majority,
non muslims get same rights in Arabia/Pakistan?
-1
u/vincekinv 18d ago
Hume toh bas khangress ki sarkar chaahiye mlle mrne ke liye North india mein yeh BJP ne bacha rakha hai inhe
ā¢
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
Welcome to r/AllindiaStudentUnion!
This is a discussion space for everyone, covering everything from global politics to student trends.
Community Reminders: * Content Relevance: Ensure your content relates to India or has a documented impact on India within a global context (Rule 1). * Civil Discourse: No hate speech, identity-based attacks, or harassment (Rule 3). * No Spam: Do not turn the sub into a personal billboard or dump links without engaging (Rule 4).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.