Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

Dear Alll

 

a lot of discussion is going on defining the Hindu.

 

well I think the subject matter has been dealt in great detail by our courts and also laws specially so Hindu Personal Laws.

 

Hindu is not a homogeneous social or racial group. It is also not a religion. It is the word which was given by Arabs like many other words like JATS by ARABS and RAJPUTS by British.

 

So let us not try to create something new. the beauty and strength of Hinduism is that it provides you certain key freedoms and those are:

 

1. Freedom of practising your faith? To the extent of even not believing in GOD.

 

2. Freedom to have your own sub identity.

 

3. Freedom to use your own logic or reasoning to question what you wish too.

 

I feel that Shankracharya provided a right base to bring a right balance which in fact assimilated the Jains and Budhist faiths in one platform. So let us not disturb that.

 

what we shall focus are?

 

1. Abolition of caste system. It is a shame.

 

2. Prevent the attempt of temple owners (more than 90% temples in the country are owned by a rich class of people who are now trying to become spokesperson of Hindus. This is the lobby which also owns Congress and BJP both.. This lobby has been controlling political power in the country since independence. This lobby is also opposing Modi) to monopolise it as a religion. The day you try it rigoursly, it will break.

 

Colonel Ashok K Singh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 21 April 2013 16:20, Sainik Sangh <gs@sainiksangh.org> wrote:

 Friends

Its sad we cannot enforce a single law , a single language,  a single education system  when we have a single flag. We are incomplete by everything that constitutes a nation which is why we are still fumbling seven decades after slipping into freedom. And yet all these which are essential to define a nation are imposable with the current constitution. India has to restructure , reform and reconstitute may be into United States of India ! Natural would be one Punjab and one Bengal! All  states autonomous ! Utopian but a practical solution! Religion must be ditched it has no function in a progressive society! E.g. Label Hindu  has done little good to improve the quality of those who swear by it . Islam has only helped to galvanize violence  as man is unable to understand what it stands for . Religion must be nationalized !Homogenous ethnicity can be  a driving force  for civilizational   advance. Germany Japan and China y Multiculturism  is corrupting as it pushes society towards capitalism and money centricity .Corruption is innate and essential component of practice of democracy as we do !

Regards

chauhan

 

 

 

From: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net [mailto:indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:41 AM

To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

 

Dear Ravi

Where is the "corruption" element in not having a Uniform Civil Code ?

1) the Const of India has listed UCC in the Directive Principles of State Policy (saying it is highly desirable but cannot be enforced). The courts have also said the same repeatedly.

2) It is only due to the tolerance of Mughal emperors like Jahangir (whose mother was originally a Hindu) that Hindus were allowed to have their own civil law during Muslim rule - or have you forgotten that ? The British carried on with that policy by adding Christians to the list of persons allowed their own personal law.

3) IAC's position is very clear since 1924.  If Muslims want 4 wives for their males (this is a gross over-simplification) then let them have it   How does it affect you ? Similarly nobody is forcing you to eat Kutha meat nor can you force a Muslim through law to eat Jhatka. In fact if having 4 wives is so very good for Muslims then more Hindu males will start demanding it for their own community. Let there be hearty and organic union (marriages) between Hindus and Muslims when all the good things of each community are exchanged between them.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr Deepak Verma

If you do not see corruption in not enacting a Uniform Civil Code, a sine qua non for a society truly ruled by law, then you can definitely opt out of any discussion on corruption. It is my opinion that all rules must be neutral-gender, religion, community, region etc wise. The specifics in any case will have to be considered by courts which should have judges of impeccable integrity, competent, transparent in their dealings and accountable.

regards

ravi

 

 

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in

--
Ashok Kumar Singh