If Indians were to truly carry out their fundamental duties, then regressive trends like laws against inter-faith marriages would be energetically countered.
UP’s anti-conversion law seems to have deepened communal fault lines and instilled fear among Muslims. Fringe Hindu Right-wing groups say the fear is ‘important’.
In an affidavit filed before the Allahabad HC, the UP govt said the law intends to ‘regulate’ consent of two individuals to keep the interest of the ‘community and family safe’.
VHP, Bajrang Dal or Hindu Yuva Vahini, all outfits claim to have 'their people' in courts, notary offices for tip-offs. The woman is sent home & married off to Hindu man within days, 'even without consent'.
Since BJP assumed power at the Centre in 2014, fringe Hindu outfits have mushroomed in UP. While BJP says it has nothing to do with them, opposition alleges tacit support.
2020 was not only about Covid. It also witnessed protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, riots in Delhi, Ram Mandir bhoomi pujan, as well as elections in Bihar.
The couple had gone to Jabalpur collector’s office to register their marriage. Police say they haven’t filed a case as the girl’s mother doesn’t want to pursue the matter.
Rabindranath Tagore stood apart from his contemporaries by infusing poetry and universalism into Indian nationalism, opposing chauvinism and blind obedience, wrote A Ranganathan in 1962.
As many as 21 policy reforms are under implementation following Invest Kerala Global Summit, as LDF govt works to change perception that the state is not conducive to businesses.
Amid continued concerns over cross-border terrorism, General Upendra Dwivedi further warned the neighbour that India will not show restraint if there is an Op Sindoor 2.0.
Pakistan’s army has been a rentier force available to a reasonable bidder. It has never come to the aid of any Muslims including Palestinians or the Gazans, except making noises here and there.
This article is a classic example of how Brahminised minded authors distort history.
The article completely ignores Dr. Ambedkar’s central role in defending religious freedom and minority conversions in the Constituent Assembly. The author glorifies upper caste congress leaders like Patel, Munshi, and others who wanted to somehow restrict conversion but deliberately erase Ambedkar, main figure who successfully opposed Munshi’s amendment. His arguments led to the rejection of conversion restrictions in the Constitution, yet this article pretends he didn’t exist.
Religious conversions, specially the predatory minority religions, have become a menace in India. They are political too. Look at the state of Andhra Pradesh, it will very soon become a Christian State, as the lower strata in the society get direct money every month for being converted. This has political patronage, so as to turn as vote-banks.
Disclaimer: Applicable to all ALL beliefs. A view point with malice to none. The concept of GOD is necessary and various paths and not only one or two, lead to GOD.
How much should law play a role in matters of religion if it is about soul and GOD. The question should never be about the right to convert which is at par with the right not to convert. Is the real problem only with the right to convert? Most certainly not. Most conversions are for matters other than the soul and GOD. Therein lies the lacunae. Can India as a Nation, with its diversity, progress emotionally and evolve, if there are no debates on the pros and cons of religions, beliefs and faiths?
Knowledge: The Nation needs to discuss religions. Its practices, tenets and methods, most of which may be irrelevant today. Being critical of religion and religious practices is a must for an evolving society to free itself from archaic restrictive practices. Instead of shying away, discussions on religions and methods should be encouraged in a thinking (wo)man. A discussion need not be derogatory of individuals or groups. More than religious teachings we need lessons on religions. Without such empowering knowledge the “conversions” will most definitely seem for material gains, the very opposite of what religions say. The ambiguity lies more in the reason (why?) than in the right to convert.
Hurting religious sentiment is a misnomer. Please don’t throw bricks at me. What I say applies to ALL religions. Sentimentality is an emotional state disproportionate to the situation, and thus replaces extreme and generally unthinking feeling for normal ethical and intellectual judgment. Psychologically sentiment is an abnormal condition. While there can be a condition of religious sentiment, being abnormal it cannot be hurt but only aggravated. Being abnormal it is better for the society (all religions) to ignore such situations, especially any depiction in ANY art form. In time, the abnormality will all go away on its own.
Tail piece: Is religious freedom more empowering than freedom from religion? Does your religion restrict your actions and thinking rather than free it?
This article is a classic example of how Brahminised minded authors distort history.
The article completely ignores Dr. Ambedkar’s central role in defending religious freedom and minority conversions in the Constituent Assembly. The author glorifies upper caste congress leaders like Patel, Munshi, and others who wanted to somehow restrict conversion but deliberately erase Ambedkar, main figure who successfully opposed Munshi’s amendment. His arguments led to the rejection of conversion restrictions in the Constitution, yet this article pretends he didn’t exist.
Is this ThePrint’s idea of Journalism ?
Religious conversions, specially the predatory minority religions, have become a menace in India. They are political too. Look at the state of Andhra Pradesh, it will very soon become a Christian State, as the lower strata in the society get direct money every month for being converted. This has political patronage, so as to turn as vote-banks.
If they had, they would have banned it!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Applicable to all ALL beliefs. A view point with malice to none. The concept of GOD is necessary and various paths and not only one or two, lead to GOD.
How much should law play a role in matters of religion if it is about soul and GOD. The question should never be about the right to convert which is at par with the right not to convert. Is the real problem only with the right to convert? Most certainly not. Most conversions are for matters other than the soul and GOD. Therein lies the lacunae. Can India as a Nation, with its diversity, progress emotionally and evolve, if there are no debates on the pros and cons of religions, beliefs and faiths?
Knowledge: The Nation needs to discuss religions. Its practices, tenets and methods, most of which may be irrelevant today. Being critical of religion and religious practices is a must for an evolving society to free itself from archaic restrictive practices. Instead of shying away, discussions on religions and methods should be encouraged in a thinking (wo)man. A discussion need not be derogatory of individuals or groups. More than religious teachings we need lessons on religions. Without such empowering knowledge the “conversions” will most definitely seem for material gains, the very opposite of what religions say. The ambiguity lies more in the reason (why?) than in the right to convert.
Hurting religious sentiment is a misnomer. Please don’t throw bricks at me. What I say applies to ALL religions. Sentimentality is an emotional state disproportionate to the situation, and thus replaces extreme and generally unthinking feeling for normal ethical and intellectual judgment. Psychologically sentiment is an abnormal condition. While there can be a condition of religious sentiment, being abnormal it cannot be hurt but only aggravated. Being abnormal it is better for the society (all religions) to ignore such situations, especially any depiction in ANY art form. In time, the abnormality will all go away on its own.
Tail piece: Is religious freedom more empowering than freedom from religion? Does your religion restrict your actions and thinking rather than free it?
Using the same original constitution analogy, secular and socialist were added to Constitution preamble much later and that too ,through fraud.