<!--QuoteBegin-"amit"+-->QUOTE("amit")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"Acharya"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Acharya")<!--QuoteEBegin--> A very important post and one of the best post in this thread. Indians have to understand this.
Each point is a large topic to be discussed.
I will comment on this later<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh? I thought it was the decision of the Mods to stop all posts dishing personalities?
Acharya, two points.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont want to bring in the personalities. It was the education and period which created that thought process.
From another forum
-----------
A Great article in a TELUGU news paper by some Shri Shri Shri Hebbar Nageshwar Rao garu.
{Site doesnt archive: http://andhrabhoomi.net/comment.html}
I have uploaded the image files here for any Teleugu reading members:
http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec1.gif
http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec2.gif
http://img22.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec3y.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec4.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec5.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec6.gif
All translation errors or mine:
Quote:
The events unfolding as part of current LokSabha elections highlight the need for a comprehensive review of our Constitution.
The speech attributed to Varun Gandhi snow balled into many more such intolerant speeches. But the response to these subsequent speeches by the other politicians is not attracting the attention or severe punishment that Varun Gandhi âs speech received.
Varun Gandhi allegedly said that âI am from Gandhi family, Hindu and Baratiya. I will cut the entire hand if one lifts a finger against Hindusâ. This has been flagged as intolerant speech and resulted in his arrest and cases under National Security Act.
Andhra Pradesh INC president D Srinivas did not identify himself as anything in his speech. He did not say I belong to such family, or Hindu or Bharatiya. But He allegedly said that âHe will cut the entire hand if one lifts a finger against Muslimsâ.
For any logical or reasonable mind, if what Varun said constitutes a intolerant speech, D. Srinivas speech also becomes an intolerant speech. Only a person with vested interest will see these two speeches as different.
However, the election commission did not show the same urgency and vigor acting against D Srinivas as it showed in Varun Gandhiâs case. Replacing Hindu with Muslim word caused this much difference in the constitutional bodies response.
D. Srinivas type of speeches happened in many other states. Election commission is giving notices to all these people at its own pace. By the time the reviews complete the entire election process will complete. But Varun Gandhi got stuck in Padma Vyuha. Whether he becomes Arjuna or dies as Abhimanyu to be seen.
The word âMuslimâ represents a religion. The misconception that Hindu also represents a religion is converting nationalism into religious feeling. If âHinduâ is a religious word, then the laws applied to Hindus cannot be applied to Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains. So the âHinduâ word is used to represent a GROUP of religions.
If we call this group of religions a nationality then Varun Gandhiâs use of âHinduâ word symbolizes his nationalistic view. But âMuslimâ word doesnât represent a group religions the way âHinduâ word does. It represents a specific religion only. Then D. Srinivasâs statement represents a specific religion and does not constitute hating other religions. So the section 125 doesnât apply Varun but applies to D. Srinivasâ speech.
It makes it clear the need to include this representation in the constitution. In a democratic country peoples mandate is paramount. If the peopleâs mandate implemented properly, the constitutional assembly formed in 1946 wouldnât have written the Independent Indiaâs constitution. The constitutional assembly would have formed in 1947.
Associating âHinduâ word with religion happened after British. As a result hundreds of thousands of years of nationality became a religion ï
The section 125 in IPC says that âAny action that causes intolerance between religions would result in up to 3 years of jail termâ. It is against law to cause intolerance between religions. But speeches that insult the entire nation (race) should be even bigger crime. But the section 125 in IPC does not cover the speeches against the Indian nation.
This oversight in IPC allowed MDMKâs Vaigo cannot be prosecuted by Election Commission for his hate speech against Indians in support of LTTE. He said that âIndia will not stay united if Sri Lankan government doesnât stop its action against LTTEâ. In fact Vaigo should be arrested even before he completes this sentence. But the governments run by politicians will not do that.
It is very surprising to hear the election commission say that such an intolerant and anti-national speech doesnât come under ECâs code of conduct. By submitting an affidavit to honor the Indian Constitution all the political candidates automatically fall under ECâs code of conduct. By making an anti-national statement Vaigo rejected our constitution.
It is a historical fact that, before Britishers altered our nation and nationality all the Indians accepted Hindutva as their nationality and national entity. Nationality extends to the aspects of religions, languages, arts and sciences, commerce, agriculture, political entities. It is not one specific thing, but it is the entire thing. But Britishers made this nationality, into one specific aspect of our nationality.
Before the birth of religions itself for millions of years, our nationality existed. Religions born and disappeared. But our nations civilization and nationality stayed same. Religions from outside entered this land. Nationality doesnât change by birth of a religion or demise of a religion or an entry of an external religion. 400 years of American nationality didnât change because few external religions came to America. Then why should Indian nationality?
This nationality has been called with different names. Sanatana Nation, Bharata Nation, Hindu nation etc. It is historically proven peopleâs mandate. Two thousand years back Salivahana Monarch called this nation Sindhu Nation.
âSthapita Tena Maryadaa Mlecharyanam pridhak pridhak⦠Sindhu sthanamiti jneyam arya beejamâ¦â
Thus when the Sindhu and Hindu words represented this nationality, Islam did not even born. Christianity did not arrive in to this land. Why should Hundu nationality, Bharatiya nationality change because of these two religions? Like all other religions that existed in this Hindu nation, these new religions also must become part of this nationality. Before the advent of Islam and Christianity, this nation has Vaidika, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakteya, Ganapatya, Saura, Paasupata, Boudha, Jaina religions as part of this Hindu nation. None of these religions did not say they are different race and need separate nation.
Hindutva thus proved its plurality and national identity. Calling for the external religions to become part of this Hindu nationality similar to all Indic religions is not an intolerant speech. It is the noble call to unity among all Indians. But British left this poisonous misconception among our polity and constitution.
The constitutional bodies such as Election Commission and Supreme Court must give proper definition to this religions and nationality.
Politics is part of democracy. Religions are part of Nationality. The nationality of this country goes with different names such as Hindutva, Bharatiya, Ajanabha, Sanatana. This hasnât come with religions. Britisher did not give us this nationality. This Hindu nationality of ours is ever existing and ever lasting.
Each point is a large topic to be discussed.
I will comment on this later<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh? I thought it was the decision of the Mods to stop all posts dishing personalities?
Acharya, two points.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont want to bring in the personalities. It was the education and period which created that thought process.
From another forum
-----------
A Great article in a TELUGU news paper by some Shri Shri Shri Hebbar Nageshwar Rao garu.
{Site doesnt archive: http://andhrabhoomi.net/comment.html}
I have uploaded the image files here for any Teleugu reading members:
http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec1.gif
http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec2.gif
http://img22.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec3y.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec4.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec5.gif
http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ec6.gif
All translation errors or mine:
Quote:
The events unfolding as part of current LokSabha elections highlight the need for a comprehensive review of our Constitution.
The speech attributed to Varun Gandhi snow balled into many more such intolerant speeches. But the response to these subsequent speeches by the other politicians is not attracting the attention or severe punishment that Varun Gandhi âs speech received.
Varun Gandhi allegedly said that âI am from Gandhi family, Hindu and Baratiya. I will cut the entire hand if one lifts a finger against Hindusâ. This has been flagged as intolerant speech and resulted in his arrest and cases under National Security Act.
Andhra Pradesh INC president D Srinivas did not identify himself as anything in his speech. He did not say I belong to such family, or Hindu or Bharatiya. But He allegedly said that âHe will cut the entire hand if one lifts a finger against Muslimsâ.
For any logical or reasonable mind, if what Varun said constitutes a intolerant speech, D. Srinivas speech also becomes an intolerant speech. Only a person with vested interest will see these two speeches as different.
However, the election commission did not show the same urgency and vigor acting against D Srinivas as it showed in Varun Gandhiâs case. Replacing Hindu with Muslim word caused this much difference in the constitutional bodies response.
D. Srinivas type of speeches happened in many other states. Election commission is giving notices to all these people at its own pace. By the time the reviews complete the entire election process will complete. But Varun Gandhi got stuck in Padma Vyuha. Whether he becomes Arjuna or dies as Abhimanyu to be seen.
The word âMuslimâ represents a religion. The misconception that Hindu also represents a religion is converting nationalism into religious feeling. If âHinduâ is a religious word, then the laws applied to Hindus cannot be applied to Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains. So the âHinduâ word is used to represent a GROUP of religions.
If we call this group of religions a nationality then Varun Gandhiâs use of âHinduâ word symbolizes his nationalistic view. But âMuslimâ word doesnât represent a group religions the way âHinduâ word does. It represents a specific religion only. Then D. Srinivasâs statement represents a specific religion and does not constitute hating other religions. So the section 125 doesnât apply Varun but applies to D. Srinivasâ speech.
It makes it clear the need to include this representation in the constitution. In a democratic country peoples mandate is paramount. If the peopleâs mandate implemented properly, the constitutional assembly formed in 1946 wouldnât have written the Independent Indiaâs constitution. The constitutional assembly would have formed in 1947.
Associating âHinduâ word with religion happened after British. As a result hundreds of thousands of years of nationality became a religion ï
The section 125 in IPC says that âAny action that causes intolerance between religions would result in up to 3 years of jail termâ. It is against law to cause intolerance between religions. But speeches that insult the entire nation (race) should be even bigger crime. But the section 125 in IPC does not cover the speeches against the Indian nation.
This oversight in IPC allowed MDMKâs Vaigo cannot be prosecuted by Election Commission for his hate speech against Indians in support of LTTE. He said that âIndia will not stay united if Sri Lankan government doesnât stop its action against LTTEâ. In fact Vaigo should be arrested even before he completes this sentence. But the governments run by politicians will not do that.
It is very surprising to hear the election commission say that such an intolerant and anti-national speech doesnât come under ECâs code of conduct. By submitting an affidavit to honor the Indian Constitution all the political candidates automatically fall under ECâs code of conduct. By making an anti-national statement Vaigo rejected our constitution.
It is a historical fact that, before Britishers altered our nation and nationality all the Indians accepted Hindutva as their nationality and national entity. Nationality extends to the aspects of religions, languages, arts and sciences, commerce, agriculture, political entities. It is not one specific thing, but it is the entire thing. But Britishers made this nationality, into one specific aspect of our nationality.
Before the birth of religions itself for millions of years, our nationality existed. Religions born and disappeared. But our nations civilization and nationality stayed same. Religions from outside entered this land. Nationality doesnât change by birth of a religion or demise of a religion or an entry of an external religion. 400 years of American nationality didnât change because few external religions came to America. Then why should Indian nationality?
This nationality has been called with different names. Sanatana Nation, Bharata Nation, Hindu nation etc. It is historically proven peopleâs mandate. Two thousand years back Salivahana Monarch called this nation Sindhu Nation.
âSthapita Tena Maryadaa Mlecharyanam pridhak pridhak⦠Sindhu sthanamiti jneyam arya beejamâ¦â
Thus when the Sindhu and Hindu words represented this nationality, Islam did not even born. Christianity did not arrive in to this land. Why should Hundu nationality, Bharatiya nationality change because of these two religions? Like all other religions that existed in this Hindu nation, these new religions also must become part of this nationality. Before the advent of Islam and Christianity, this nation has Vaidika, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakteya, Ganapatya, Saura, Paasupata, Boudha, Jaina religions as part of this Hindu nation. None of these religions did not say they are different race and need separate nation.
Hindutva thus proved its plurality and national identity. Calling for the external religions to become part of this Hindu nationality similar to all Indic religions is not an intolerant speech. It is the noble call to unity among all Indians. But British left this poisonous misconception among our polity and constitution.
The constitutional bodies such as Election Commission and Supreme Court must give proper definition to this religions and nationality.
Politics is part of democracy. Religions are part of Nationality. The nationality of this country goes with different names such as Hindutva, Bharatiya, Ajanabha, Sanatana. This hasnât come with religions. Britisher did not give us this nationality. This Hindu nationality of ours is ever existing and ever lasting.