9 Comments »

1. Manish zijoo said:
1857 is the year when Indians thought they should be free from the british rule and they laid the first stone of Independence .As everyone know that the first step is necessary for any kind of battle and indians start .
Ultimetely india got the Independence on the grounds of division in two parts India & Pakistan .This division was religion based division so every body know that what happens .,
Though they have got Pakistan our beloved Mathama gandhi Allowed them to live here and this become the biggest danger to the Hinduism .
Hinduism is the religion of peace and harmony for our younger age we are taught even not to kill an ant and be kind enough to the everyone .So we grew on this envoirnment and on the other side they have taught to kill so they grew in the way .Nothing was going wrong but the things changed when our beloved Indiaraji added a word secularism with the india .This started the wiping of Hinduism .Our so called leaders for their vested intrests used word secular to allure a particular community due to this Secularism we have seen the ethnic cleasning of Hindusa from kashmir to kanyakumari hindus has to suffer due to this Secularim.Our leaders who dont have any ground they have not worked in grass root just using this for their development .
We have seen our ignorance in kashmir this is very much disgusting that a powerful country of ASIA has its own people displaced and living life of refugee in their own country .
How can we claim that we are emerging as the 6th superpower of the world when our house is not safe this is ridiculous .
The year 2008 has come as the year of hindu kranti .We are now fighting the battle for Independence of ours hindus .
In this year we have taken oath to make our Hindus united leaving aside all casteism .hinu united year2008
Manish – A youth avenging kashmir
9 May 2008
2. Jagmohan Singh Khurmi said:
If the British had lost 1857, the thing we’d got was not independence but the damn Mughal empire ! The short-sightedness of the hindu community is frightening….
10 May 2008
3. B Shantanu said:
Jagmohan: Thanks for your comment.
If the British had lost 1857, the thing we�d got was not independence but the damn Mughal empire !
Thats an interesting thought!
I should do some research on this aspect…specifically on what was the unifying ideology that brought leaders and revolutionaries from different parts of the country together.
11 May 2008
4. Patriot said:
*** COMMENT COMBINED ***
Although I am no fan of Indira Gandhi, it is only fair to point out that she added the word “socialist” and not “secular” to the constitution. We had the word secular in the constitution right from 1950, and I am proud that we are a secular republic.
RE: Jagmohan,
Actually not ….. we would have just gone back to our feudal root of multiple kingdoms all over the place. The mughal empire just existed in name by that time, thanks to the Marathas. All that the Mughals governed was the Red Fort, and that too at the pleasure of the British. You should read the book “The Last Mughal” by William Dalrymple, which mainly deals with Delhi and the Red Fort during the 1857 battle.
Cheers
***
Also, this is something that has always puzzled me:
If India has claimed that Kashmir is an indivisible part of itself since 1947, why have we not claimed Burma as well? After all, Burma was also part of the outer ring during British India.
13 May 2008
5. B Shantanu said:
@ Patriot: You say: Although I am no fan of Indira Gandhi, it is only fair to point out that she added the word �socialist� and not �secular� to the constitution. We had the word secular in the constitution right from 1950…
I am not sure that is true. This article by Barun Mitra mentions:
In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: �We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens��
Another one, by Arvind Lavakare notes:
It is on record that ‘at least twice in the Constituent Assembly efforts were made to make a specific mention of the principle of secularism in the Constitution. For example, an amendment had sought to ensure that no law could be made which discriminates between man and man on the basis of religion, or applies to adherents of any one religion and leaves others untouched. All such amendments were summarily rejected by Dr Ambedkar. Later… he made it clear that he did not believe that our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities.’ (Subhash C Kashyap, a renowned constitutional authority, in Reforming The Constitution, UBS Publishers & Distributors, 1992).
It is a fact of history that despite Ambedkar’s erudite view above, the Indira Gandhi government’s Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, thrust the term ‘secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution without defining or explaining the significance of that term. It was, you see, the period of the Emergency, and Madam Gandhi didn’t need to explain anything to anyone.
You may also enjoy reading this post: Hinduism as a secular concept
and this: Time to dump some anachronisms?
13 May 2008
6. Patriot said:
No, I am fairly sure that Indira Gandhi only put in the word socialist. This was before she nationalised the banks and abolished the privy purses. However, let me do some more research and revert.
Cheers
13 May 2008
7. Patriot said:
My bad! Indira Gandhi introduced both “socialist” and “secular” in the 42nd amendment, where she also diluted our property rights. I have always been focussed on the socialist and property rights bits!!
Here is the official link:
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm
You can read the entire constitution and the various amendments at the above site. Thanks for the debate, one of my misconceptions cleared (I thought secular was present from 1950) and plenty of new stuff to read!
Cheers
13 May 2008
8. voiceofkashmir said:
This is not time to have a debate what Indira Gandhi Do its true she added Secular to gather the votes of muslims as she was well aware of that the Hindu votes are scattered in the name of caste so to come in power and make the fool of Hindus she added this word SECULAR .The word secular dose not mean what it has been meant by our political leaders our thiose ghola chaap leaders who dont have any public gathering have changed its defination if you check this word you will find the diffrent meaning .But in indian polity the leaders can do any thing .
You have heard one of the leader in early times when Indiara ji was the Prime minister give the slogan INDIA IS INDIRA &INDIRA IS INDIA .
In india the secularism is become a weapon to wipe out hindus ,In India chanting of RAM or KRISHAN is communal .But if one is screaming ALLHA O AKBAR this is secular .
The exodus of kashmir Pandits from Kashmir is Communal & the AFZAL GURUS atack on Parlianment is Secular .
What a defination of Secularism is this we should be proud of this .
Why kashmiri terrorist is provided PASSPORT to roam whole world and decry India
Please dont waste the scarafice of our brave men of armed forces due to the poltical impotency
Manish – a youth avenging kashmir
9 June 2008
9. B Shantanu said:
I have been reading up a bit on 1857 since last few months…And I am no longer sure if 1857 was a Revolt? a Mutiny? a War of Independence? or Jihad? http://bit.ly/k3iRVg
..or indeed all the above…
10 May 2011

Share your thoughts below.

 Subscribe Link     

Subscribe to the Weekly Newsletter

Join the Community

Recent Comments

Categories

Do Not Copy