Secularism as defined in
1. Being a Christian/ Muslim is only considered to be secular.
2. Being secular implies talks of sedition.
3. Should openly advocate freedom from democracy and its clutches in news channels.
4. Should organize protests to free anti-nationals from prison in timely and phased manner including gathering international support via social networks/meetings/road shows.
5. Can indulge in activities like killing, planting bombs, threatening, extortion and other activities of criminal nature including training to do any other things other than the above.
- A person born of Hindu caste cannot be secular, should not be secular and will not be considered as secular.
- The above mentioned conditions should be duly filled in, upon which it will be approved by Indian National Congress/ PMO/ Communists/ regional parties, whenever and wherever possible.
Any death sentence awarded on secularists mentioned above stands “stayed” until his death is natural.
1 comment:
We, the HINDUS, in India are a precariously selfish class bothered only about their very immediate precincts and damning anything beyond. Had it been a religious dogma inculcating a practice as ruthless and severe as Islam or Christianity, HINDUS too would have been in the ambit of a religious lunacy paralleling the others.
Since that was not to be, the sublimity of HINDUISM eroded with onslaughts by Invaders, Moguls, Foreigners and now with the most dangerous amongst all, the Gandhi/Nehruvian derived vernacular - "pseudo-secularism".
Had India been at the time of Independence a Hindu Democratic Rashtra, none of the turmoils faced now would have emerged. At a time when India was going through a unification by linguistic divisions of states, minority religious predominance should have been relegated as insisted by Sardar Patel but was fiercely opposed by Gandhi & Nehru. The birth of Article 370 was thus, a stupidly concocted political ploy by the Nehruvian school. Sadly, this privilege was not demanded but bestowed upon them by the Nehruvians.
Not to co-exist and co-habit by religious doctrine is a world wide phenomena with the Muslims, but only abundantly expressed so in India because of the equality, liberty and fraternity proffered upon them through our supreme constitution.
we the Hindus have been at the receiving end for centuries and to continue with this incongruity forever would be not just wrong but a dangerous assumption on the part of others whomsoever are indulged in it, be it the minorities, pseudo-seculars, socialists, marxists or for that matter any external force. An awakening, though very late, is fiercely undertaking the HINDU community to a large extent, especially those who sees the threat glaring at them from all these sources. In this context, though acutely lacking a political forum of representation just as the Muslims and the Christians do have, there would have been nothing more binding than a HINDU unification to make it a force to reckon with. However, if a sense of dignified religious identity cascades into the majority mindset - yes - a difference will occur.
Post a Comment