On Jul 19, 9:20 am, Wanderer <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mirza Ghalib <mghali...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 7:11 pm, Wanderer <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >>> So you think India, as of now, is secular ?
> >> My point is that people like Fannaba, Parekh, Madhu Sudhan, etc.,
want
> >> to see India go in the opposite direction. India may not be ideally
> >> secular today, but it is a far sight better than where the RSS and
VHP
> >> want to take it.
>
> > Give a cursory reading to the "constitution" of
> > India. Article 30 alone negates the very idea of
> > secularism, in that the "constitution" gives
> > a preference to minorities as far as their
> > institutions are concerned.
>
> Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
> institutions.-
>
> (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have
> the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
> choice.
> [(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of
> any property of any educational institution established and administered
> by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that
> the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of
> such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right
> guaranteed under that clause.]
>
> (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
> discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it
> is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or
> language.
>
> Why does the above "negate the very idea of secularism"?
>
> > Add to that the fact
> > India does not have a common personal law. The same
> > Muslims who timidly accept US law in toto, will
> > raise hell if anyone even talks about it in India.
>
> > Recently, there was a strong talk from the congress
> > to establish religion based quotas in civil service
> > and more disturbingly, in the military. For now
> > both were thwarted, but they are at it.
>
> > Obviously, you do not know enough about RSS and VHP.
> > At the very least, they will bring Hindu ethics to
> > the core of governance.
>
> Please expound on "hindu ethics [for] the core of governance".
Here is the argument against Art 30 of the Indian "constitution".
The author is well regarded scholar in these matters
Dr. Kak's Response:
The primary strength of the Indian constitution is its affirmation of
equality for all citizens. Its primary weakness is its form and size.
It is more than a thousand pages long and perhaps only high court
lawyers have seen the entire text. It is a recipe for bureaucratic
control of the state. The constitution has a lot of empty verbiage on
things like socialism, without defining such terms. It also has the
infamous Article 30 that has caused much resentment and may be the
underlying cause of religious discord in India. According to its
current interpretation by the courts, the state must financially
sup****t schools run by minority religious groups but not those by the
majority religious groups. It is a marvel that things are quite
peaceful in India in spite of this Article 30. Imagine what would
happen in the U.S. if the federal and the state governments gave funds
to Islamic schools and not to Christian schools. I bet there would be
bloodbath.
(End of quote)
Add to the above the Hujj subsidy to Muslims. Just a few days ago
the very same Muslims who travel to Mecca on "secular" Indian
taxpayers' expense, opposed tooth and nail a grant of a few acres
of land adjoining the Amarnath Temple for a tem****ary shelter to
pilgrims who visit the place just for two months in a year.
|
