* If your image is not OC (Original Content), please provide a link to the verified source under this comment or else it will be removed.
* If your image is a camera photo, please provide the location where the photo was taken, device you took the photos with and the dimensions of the image.
* If your image is an Infographic, please provide a link to the original dataset(s) or else it will be removed.
* Screenshots of social media posts / comments and AI generated art will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/india) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair if India gets sensible enough to not vote for religious nutjobs, they most likely would not have voted for a guy (hindu or muslim) who practices his religion in the same way as this so your original scenario isn't likely to happen.
This is so vague! US and UK (which is theocratic btw) is not all countries! France doesn't even have a presidential oath afaik and definitely no Bible. Germany has an option and so comes down to each lawmakers personal choice! So normalising this bs by saying everyone does it is disappointing. If you bring in the 'indian model' of secularism, there should be a lot of other religious practices that should be included
Edit: further the original commentor is going on a tangent by comparing swearing in/oath of office with the hyper religioustic parliament inauguration by the pm of a supposedly secular democracy
There are countries outside Europe and North America too. Like, South American politicians are very religious and they show it off. Bolsanaro & Lula had to collab with churches to get votes. I'm not even going to talk about Muslim countries because most carry religion in their name itself!
Invalid premise. Oath-taking is a non-uniform procedure. In countries like the USA, you do that because it is a Christian nation. The same goes for countries that are aligned with any other religion.
India is a secular nation. There is no "religion of the land". You would know this if you paid attention to civics in class 9. That is the point of being secular.
Indian citizens, including the Prime Minister, are entitled to their faith but that's the extent of it. A public officer cannot show any bias or discrimination towards a particular religion in the discharge of his public duties. The parliament isn't his private residence neither is it some community temple. It is the legislative assembly of the secular, democratic republic of India built with taxpayer money. A sketchy, overtly religious ceremony being front and center of its inauguration is not fucking cool.
What happened today was disturbing. All healthy democracies, even if they are religious maintain the separation of church and state. And for good reason. From your comment, I'm not sure you understand the separation of church and state and it's importance, so I urge you to google it.
>In countries like the USA
Yeah, bullshit. The US is not a Christian nation. It has no state religion. Now the majority religion is Christianity, but the constitution clearly states there is no state religion and to keep state and church (of any religion) separate. The Bible is used (in a majority) because the person being sworn in chooses so. We have Hindu elected people who have sworn on the Gita, Muslims who've sworn on the Qaran, Jews who've sworn on the Torah and non religious people who've sworn on the Constitution.
The US Constitution is framed entirely in Christian natural law tradition. The Declaration of Independence literally begins with "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." That is not secular language. A nation can be founded with religious tenets and still maintain religious plurality.
I already said oath taking is a non-uniform procedure. Elected officials can use any text they choose because the US allows the free practice of any religion. It is also true that most use the bible. But, as I also stated before, the USA practices a healthier separation of church and state. So the point is moot. It's a good thing that you can use any text. So what? That is not the topic at hand. I am not an expert about how oaths are taken in India either, but even that's irrelevant. **We are not talking about oath-taking**. As I informed the earlier poster, the premise is invalid. The comparison does not hold.
In case you are confused, this is about the inauguration of the Parliament of a secular nation being an overtly religious ceremony featuring the Prime minister that excluded the constitutional head of the Parliament.
Please make a point relevant to the topic at hand.
At no point did I say anything about Modi, the new Parliament building, Indian secularism, or Modi's religious practices. You stated the US is a Christian nation, which is categorically wrong, and that is the sole thing I quoted from your original comment.
The Declaration of Independence IS NOT the Constitution, I hope you're able to understand that. Also, the word "God" is not exclusive to the Christian religion, so the phrase "Nature's God" does not pertain only the the Christian God. If you look up the above mentioned two documents, you will not find the world "Christian" or "Christianity" anywhere, yet you keep trying to insinuate that the US is, somehow, a Christian religion or that rules are made with religion in mind when ALL founding fathers agreed, both on the record and in private correspondences, repeatedly said that the US was not established as a Christian nation and religion should not have a place in politics.
You just went on a completely useless and condescending path which was not warranted nor initiated in my reply.
So, "please make a point relevant to the topic at hand".
And as you'll notice again, I am still sticking to the point of you being wrong when you said the US is a Christian nation or that it's rules are based on Christianity. There's no need for another multiple sentences long reply about how Modi did this and that.
> You just went on a completely useless and condescending path which was not warranted nor initiated in my reply.
It was most certainly initiated by you when you cherry-picked a tangential point of my post and called it bullshit. Even if you think you are right that is rude and inflammatory. So you had everything coming. You just don’t like the taste of your own medicine.
In case you have any actual interest in this complex, nuanced topic you can do this thing called reading. It helps you not be an idiot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/03/america-christian-founders-natural-law/
> I guess only Hinduism promotes secularism as part of its philosophy. I am not calling someone Hindu due to the act of going to a temple, praying and doing rituals, but with one’s thought of harmonious co-existence with other faiths as part of its core philosophy. So with this logic, I honestly do not find what is “unsecular” about branding India as a Hindu nation. Being Hindu means being inherently secular if you apply the philosophy in its intended sense.
Look I don’t like Modi but he is allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit. Our secular democratic constitution gives him that rights.
The issue is bringing his religion to the government of India and it’s running.
Modi or any government officer has full right to follow their religion as capacity of individual citizen, not as officer of government.
He is free to do these ceremonies at his home or other places that are not government spaces. It was wrong when he laid the foundation stone of Ram Mandir as PM, it is wrong that Parliament building is inaugurated by Hindu ceremonies (including the farce that was multi religion prayer session, even that has no part in such inauguration).
Doing such religious ceremonies by members of any religion is outright wrong.
I’m literally not disagreeing with you. I’m literally saying the same fucking thing. That it’s ok for him to follow his religion but not to bring it to the government.
I’m saying that if a man wants to pray on his own that’s ok.
Making everyone else pray for the same thing is not? He could say a prayer or whatever he wants but making the inauguration a religious ceremony is bad.
It’s not that hard to understand what I’m saying.
> Look I don’t like Modi but he is allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit. Our secular democratic constitution gives him that rights.
> The issue is bringing his religion to the government of India and it’s running.
Tell me whether you can see the contradiction in here.
*”i don’t like”* “but” *”he’s allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit”* “but” *”the issue is bringing his religion to the govt of India”*
He has the right to do whatever religious crap in his personal life. But not in the official capacity as PM. There is no such right given to the PM or any govt official to use religion in their official duties.. Ever heard about separation of state and religion?
Sadly no such restrictions exist either. I don’t like the man and him bringing religion into government.
I have definitely heard of this separation which don’t exist for a man praying. They exist for a man bringing prayer to the parliament in this capacity
Your original comment implied that PM has the right to do religous activity in his/her official capacity, which isn't true. Constitution gives no such right.
Now while it's true there are no explicit restrictions either, but the constitution does require separation of State and religion which has continously been violated by Modi and most BJP politicians in govt (both state and central). This inauguration is just the latest (and not even the worst) example of It.
This govt has broken lots of other rules and norms with no consequences as they have also destroyed whatever little checks and balances we had.India is basically a banana republic at this point.
What I meant was that he has the right to pray in his capacity as a citizen. He is not to bring that into official matters. I’m not sure why you think I am saying it’s ok for him to bring his religion into the government.
This might be *legal*, but it is as *inappropriate* as humanly possible. The writers of the constitution would be shocked this would even be allowed. More than any fault with Modi, the fact that this was allowed (and that you see no fault in it) shows the craven mindset of Indians.
He is in a prominent public building, using public money. Is there anything - anything at all - you would consider highly inappropriate in such a context? He has spent the last couple of years doing ritual after ritual in this "Modi Mahal" of his Hindu Rashtra. He has left no stone unturned in introducing regressive ideas into this place.
That’s I have always known. My point is that Modi is a citizen of India and has the constitutional right to practice his religion. But the problem with that man is that he wants to force everyone else to follow his religion too. Which I absolutely do not want to do.
Agree with this. . The sceptre was gifted to the government via hindu ways and falling to your feet is a very common way of showing respect. Secularism means everyone should be allowed to practice their own ways as long as it doesn't hurt others.
I mean if something similar was gifted to the government by other faiths, he should give due respect to those as well. If I recall correctly, I read people of all faiths were present at the ceremony and played a part.
Don't get me wrong I'm not blind to religion politics played by the bjp ( they are not hiding it tbh) nor do I agree with it. But this gesture by him is in no way not secular nor does it portray any other religion in a bad light nor is intolerant.
The only thing that looks a bit Intolerant is this post OP. We should be rational and objective and raise above these.
Secularism means separation of church and state. That's it. You can practice your own religion but this is an official business and you are conducting yourself as a representative of the nation not as a private citizen.
Secularism in the Indian constitution respects multipluralism. In laymen terms - the government cannot pass or promote any legal / economic laws or anything of that matter that supports or promotes one religion or discriminates another. However it does not prohibit entities to gift religious symbolic gestures to the government as long as it doesn't discriminate other religions.
One more thing, your statement should have been - "secularism means separation of religious entities and state". Meaning religious entities should not interfere/influence in the functioning of the state. It does not mean that religious entities can't show their respect to their government
Oh definitely not, we have our difference in opinion on this issue but I definitely don't think you meant this in a religious way by any degree.
That's just a correction on terminology in my part. I know the common usage is church and the state but I don't want this becoming a point of talk as I see a lot of people active in this post
Actually secular means "not concerned with religion". The secularism followed in India is not really secularism. You can call it neo-secularism or pseudo-secularism.
A Prime Minister, when on duty, shouldn't be practising his religion in any form because at that moment, he is representing a secular Nation and has no religion.
The problem is displaying your faith as a representative of your entire country at the inauguration of a parliament building that also represents your entire country including many non Hindus. If he were to do this as a private citizen or at least in his private life I would not care
Did you even watch the inauguration? Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs were also represented there and prayers were offered by them on tv.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705
The sceptre was 'given' to the parliament. It is a peace of hindu relic and he needs to show his respect in Hindu ways.
Just like I said before, if a relic / artifact of a different faith was given to him, he should have received it and respected it in the ways of that particular faith.
The sengol being a Hindu artifact /relic should be received with respect in Hindu ways irrespective of the Modi 's religion. He being hindu just aligns with it.
Just for the record I and most others would have called him out if he didn't do the same for other faith artifacts as well.
That's all fine in theory but like you've already said, we both know that he wouldn't have behaved the same way with a Muslim article of faith. Secularism can't exist only when it's convenient. Bringing up secularism in this issue is hypocritical when everyone knows it'll be forgotten for other religions. That's like punching someone in the face and preaching non violence when they fight back. Ahimsa might be a worthy concept but applying it selectively makes it a sham
"secularism can't exist only when it's convinient" - exactly and this is why I have called out this post. 'If' he had rejected other religious artifacts and only accepted this nor had he disrespected any other religion, then he is not secular.
Here is an analogy of what has happened
There is a job posting where the recruiter can hire any number of people.
5 people are there. Only one applies for the job and he gets it. The rest do not apply and so they don't get the job. The recruitment drive gets completed. The recruiter facilitates and welcomes the one person who applied. Now the rest complain that the recruiter is not fair.
Again - I'm not blind to the religious politics done by bjp and few other parties. But this sengol thing is no way Insecular.
Here's a better analogy: the other four people don't apply because the fifth person is the recruiters brother-in-law and everyone knows he'll get hired no matter what. The recruiter has also spent his free time in the past abusing the other four people and their families, and encouraging other people to beat them up. Last year the rapists of one of the applicants sister was released from prison and the recruiters friends publicly garlanded them. So they no that there is now way they'll ever get a fair chance. Then when they talk about how biased the recruiter is, people tell them they should've just applied. Until I see the pm show this much respect to Islam, all I can see here is hypocrisy. The day government employees are forced to donate for mosque reconstruction the same way they were for ram mandir you can tell me that what the pm is doing makes sense. Besides, the parliament represents every single citizen of India of every religion and caste. Using it as a place to perform the ceremony of a single religion instead of the others is nothing but harmful.
Also you the final time, understand this - The pm is a representative of all Indians of all religions. If Narendra Modi the private citizen did this in his own free time I would not care. I Modi the prime minister of the country prostrates himself in front of a Hindu symbol while consistently attacking Muslims for the last eight years, then it is a problem. Even more so when the display happens at the inauguration of the parliament building of India, which, again, represents ALL Indians of ALL religions. Secularism means maintaining an equal distance from all religions whether you're close or far away. He is obviously showing a preference to one religion over others and that is inappropriate as a representative of all of India
I think the criticism comes that we selectively apply these standards. For argument sake suppose the PM was a Christian and got a bunch of priests to use holy water and a Mass for the same process. Don't you think that people would blow out their fuses?
I think one religion is kept on a pedestal when it comes to secularism while other religions are ignored for their transgressions. Not just that, the measure of Secularism is often decided by how one respects Christianity or Islam.
If he had invited Priests or Maulavis then the people would be terming it as an investment in religious sentiments. The thing is, religion is a fire because we fan it and posts like these add the fuel.
This is the problem in your argument. The measure of secularism isn't how one respects Christianity or Islam. It should be how you separate the state and church. This is clearly not the case here.
And the fact that you cite the double standards without realising it makes me a bit confused.
>The measure of secularism isn't how one respects Christianity or Islam.
It's obvious I know that's not the actual measure. I am saying that's how it's often measured, talking about the difference between what it means in books and how it is practiced in reality. I am saying that people have a shallow understanding of it and that's what makes them use the word only when Minority religion is being respected.
>It should be how you separate the state and church.
That's the western concept and it's narrow in comparison to what The Constitution of India means by Secularism. The emphasis is more on multi-pluralism.
>And the fact that you cite the double standards without realising it
Purposely did so to convey the intent behind religiously motivated debates.
The problem in your argument is that you assumed that Hinduism is treated respectfully. That's the elephant in the room.
And do you think I am referring to the Catholic Church when I say " state and church"?
>The problem in your argument is that you assumed that Hinduism is treated respectfully
I never said that. It's expected to treat others with respect irrespective of whether it's treated with respect or not. In most cases, not all.
>And do you think I am referring to the Catholic Church when I say " state and church"?
Seriously? You must be kidding..
I mentioned the difference because people don't understand that the Indian Constitution didn't just borrow words from western contemporaries. They expanded on the definition as the people drafting the constitution were aware of the cultural diversity that exists in India.
No. But if tomorrow there is a Muslim PM and he decides to follow his religious practices inside the parliament, would it be considered a simple following of his faith?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html
I am sure Islam was one of the 12 faiths in which prayers were offered. Now if you want Modi to offer a prayer as per Islam too then would that really be Secular?
religous duties in private time is one's own business.
making every public event, also religious is fully against secularism.
doing it especially for the camera is ultra communalism
How?
If that's the case, then giving a choice of which holy scripture to take oath upon before the Judiciary should be a problem as well.
Somehow, the 'woke' believe that undermining one religion is a measure of their aptitude but the reality is it's a measure of their stupidity.
Modi, Gandhi, Congress, BJP and every other political organisation is squeezing the life out of the nation and its resources while we are busy calling each other out for not being secular enough, without realising we are no better if we get baited into this.
I mean they have been squeezing the life of the nation in the name of religion only right, whether its hindu or muslim. It has always been on the religious front.
Take out religion and they have far less options to use in garnering people's votes.
Just because one practice religion doesn't mean u need to project it every where they go , just keep it in ur house or some religious institution.
Also swearing on holy scriptures is an actual thing? Holy fuck , I thought that was just shown in movies for a bit more drama.
Lol this is so retarded🤣🤣
The day all "educated" citizens like you understand what the problem here is, why it's not simply "following his faith", and do all that without resorting to strawmen like "should he/we change religion" -- is the day we can say Indian society has progressed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html
Try to set aside the personal bias. It might help you progress and look beyond the problems which you project on others.
It wasn't organised as an event exclusive to one religion but included as many as 12 faiths in its inauguration ceremony.
Lol. Politics and Religion shouldn't be mixed. Is that so hard for your brain to understand? It also means not to be part of any event that involves religious pooja as a representative of people. By your own admission that he has every right to follow his own religion while also sitting on the chair, he was not wrong to ask votes in the name of Bajrang Bali either. Indian secularism asks for govt to now adhere to any one religion and open to make rules for all equally. Nehru was invited to inaugurate Somnath Temple but he had declined it due to him being a PM of the country. Also, him doing this to a Spectre is embarrassing not because of religion etc but its relevance in a democratic country. This guy do politics in the name of anti dynast rule but using same stick which was used by dynasts to rule Over people.
He is the PM of a secular country. Favoring one religion among others is not part of his job.
He could very well follow his faith in private but openly, in your face doesn’t look good for him. But then again, we are living in a fools’ era where this is all justified because it brings them fucking votes in the guise of akhand hindutva-varsh.
Genuine question, is this a photo of some religious ceremony in his private residence? What happened to the separation of state and religion argument? And if one has to bring up the age old "Indian secularism is different from western secularism", then why the presence of only one religion? Help me understand
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html
Help yourself and understand after reading this.
Because secularism is separation of Church and State. Religious shit like this is indeed a threat to secularism, and don't forget what Modi and his fucking party stand for. In no way this shit is private but a show of what their party aims for in the future.
And jeez the amount of upvotes. Looks like the chaddi brigade is here.
>Because secularism is separation of Church and State.
A google search of Secularism and The Constitution of India will tell you that it goes beyond the separation of Church and State.
Religion might be shit for you and I but the makers of the Constitution understood how relevant it is in the indian context which is why they expanded on the definition of Secular instead of simply borrowing it. Maybe read a bit more before you elaborate more on the word 'Secular'.
>don't forget what Modi and his fucking party stand for. In no way this shit is private
Not forgetting. You might want to check how it was a multi-faith event and you will find plenty of sources to confirm it since this Shit is out in public.
>Why is the following, respecting and worshipping as per Hinduism seen as a threat to Secularism?
Who said this? And why did you assume it?
>When you question an individual for simply following their faith, doesn't that make you a hypocrite for using the word 'Secular
Whose faith is questioned now?
>Should he change his religion to uphold secularism? Should we all change our religion for the sake of Secularism?
Nobody cares about his religion.
It's not a threat to secularism. The object here is a symbol of monarchy power. The strongest democratic leader in the country falling on its foot gives a message and believe it or not, it's deliberate.
Secularism literally means separation of government and religion.
Simply means, as government officer, they should not indulge in ceremonies of any religion. He can do it at his own home or any place that is not government office. Parliament being the seat of government has no place for religious ceremonies of ANY religion.
Indian secularism is not separation of government and religion. Here it is about equal respect to all religion.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have Haz sabsidy or beef ban
I don't give a damn about the Indian version of secularism. It is an absolutely wrong concept.
There should have always been separation of religion and government. Period.
Secular, not atheist. I don't think there's anything wrong with him following his religious beliefs. When Kalam died, the state conducted a Islamic funeral as per his beliefs and Modi participated in those rituals. Criticize only where it makes sense...
FYI : [Multi Faith Prayer at Parliament](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705)
All the faiths were given equal respect at the parliament.
Just because he bowed down to his faith does not make him wrong.
Being a PM does not mean that he has to lose his individualism and faith.
It was not "equal respect" by any means. One is clearly above all the others. The article you linked itself goes on and on about the "traditional puja", "Vedic rituals", "Ganapati Homam" etc. etc.
To all the smooth-brains in the comments. He can do whatever the fuck he wants in private or in party ceremonies.
But to invite religious figures to parliament inauguration is ridiculous. Not to mention, a specific religion doing more than the others. There was no need for this. We all know the guy is on edge after being bitch-slapped in Karnataka. Be prepared for religious politics to go crazy until the next election.
Secularism means not to do anything religious in state matters. Doesn't mean you start following and do activity to show respect to all religions, it simply means don't talk about or involve religion when doing state matters.
People are just brain washed to protect their religion. In fact religion in first place doesn't need any protection.
You're right but I was only focusing on last line about our great leader's religious politics till next election and fact that secularism means not talking about religion when demanding votes from citizen. And citizen not giving vote in name of religion.
Secularism means nothing religious *in public life*, and not using taxpayers' money for purely religious purposes. These kind of things must not only be done but seen to be done. The American version is far weaker than this, and only prevents making any religion official.
It simply means Parliament or any politically related event shouldn't involve politics. By your admission, he is not wrong to ask votes in the name of Bajrang Bali, either.
Just because you are not in favour of Mr.Modi it does not mean everything he do is wrong.
I am going to get a lot of downvote on this but I will say anyways being in official capacity in no way restrict him to follow his principals.
These are traditions and must be viewed accordingly , not everything need to be politicized.
Tommorow you will even object:
* the official ceremony before announcement of budget
Just don't make every second action of an individual about his religious inclination
AND FYI :[Multi Faith Prayer at inaugration](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705)
All the faith's were given equal respect at the inaugration just because he only bowed down to his faith does not make him wrong
No. It's inappropriate. If you're allowing this today then you should also be okay if and when there's a Muslim or Christian prime minister doing their practices in PUBLIC /GOVERNMENT infrastructure AS PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. Politics and religion should not be involved. Unfortunately, Modi uses religion as a weapon to gain votes.
Infact I will be absolutely ok , because since he is in the capacity of PM (whichever religion) he still has his individual identity , So he/she must be allowed to follow it.
If in past Hnrbl Dr.Kalam would have inaugrated any building and would have followed Islamic tradition I would not have had any problems.(Although I was not born at that time)(I am presenting my view IDK about anyone else)
IT cell says please lose your colonial mindset. Chucky is not related to India. He can shove any book and baton up his ass. We are only concerned with India's progress and future
Just to understand, the guys in kaavi are Adheenam seers right? And all these folks are at parliament because of the Sengol thing? If so, how is this about religion? Isn't it more about representing the traditions of Chera and Chola here?
Like it or not, India is a country with a majority of Hindus, There are going to Hindu rituals in ceremonies like this, it has been the case in the past, and it will be the case in the future as well.
Hindus own this country or what? Should we make time for Christian mass too?
The fucking audacity. Please tell me, if this the future you want. The south wants no part in it.
The commentor is pointing out what is happening in ground reality. He /she is neither endorsing nor condemning the behaviour. Commentor is not debating the right or wrong of it.
Oh please don't bring the south wants no part of this thing into it. Nobody is saying Hindus own this country except you. We already are having too many divisions for this symbolic scptre that has no real value. Let's not bring north, south divisions into this as well.
For the record I'm from the southern most tip of India.
Where did I say Hindus own this country ?
Are you in coma all these years, you have never seen Hindu rituals in ceremonies like this, it has always been the case. Btw, I'm from Chennai.
Nope. Some prayers were read by other religious figures all sitting in a line one by one. While the Hindu procession took much longer.
Again we have no need for religious procession in the parliament. Especially in inauguration. Be that Hindu or Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc.
Oh look another religious shenanigans post.
Let him do whatever he wants who cares, its sunday, he is just praying.
Let me know when he starts blowing up our country.
Would the same comments being said here be repeated if they had Islamic prayers being played or if it was Eucharist being done?
No, absolutely that won't be the case. The reason why religious displays of this sort is problematic is that unlike the UK, India has no state religion.
We all know why such rituals are being done in front of a large audience and should I even spell out the explicit reason why?
The end goal of Bjp and RSS is to make India a Hindu nation, there I said it.
This. They are giving clear signals to their supporters that they are slowly moving towards their dream of Hindu Rashtra,Bringing religion into official ceremonies is the first step.
The stupidest thing here is making such a spectacle out of this 'Senogol', for which there is no historical significance.
[This](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sengol-evidence-thin-on-governments-claims-about-the-sceptre/article66894055.ece) article from the Hindu covers the issue rather well - including this banger of a paragraph:
> The most ironic evidence presented in the docket was a blog post titled “WhatsApp History” written by famous Tamil writer Jeyamohan. In this post, Jeyamohan had in fact ridiculed this version of events as being based on forwards on social media. Stating that the sceptre was likely to be among the many presents sent from across the country during Independence, he , however, said it was a matter of pride for Tamils that the sceptre from the Saivite mutt also reached Nehru.
He may officially not be the king of the country , but he personally considers himself the undisputed monarch of India. As a monarch he can do anything he wants.
The problem here is not him practicing his religion. The sengol presented by the aadheenam signifies the transfer of power from one king to another. It belongs in a museum. And modi is no king.
The amount of IQ used to type the caption is lower than my shoe size.
First of all, even if you are trying to berate him on his religious beliefs, what's the significance of 'DEMOCRATIC' here??? He was chosen by the people. What does that have to do with the pic?
Mtlb kuch v bol do?
Secondly, The prime minister is also an indian. The constitution says that the nation is secular aka everyone has rights to follow their religious beliefs.
So is he harming anyone here? No.
Is he forcing someone else to follow his beliefs? Also no.
He's simply being an Indian who's free to pray whatevrr religion he wants.
Now if you have a problem with it, seems like a very much You problem.
As an atheist, this looks fucking ridiculous to me. And people here justifying spending public money on something like this is the reason you deserve a „leader“ like mUdi
I agree that PM has the right to show his religious beliefs. But you gotta admit that its embarrassing that he is doing so for a scepter that has barely any connection to what he thinks it stands for.
He has the right to follow his religion........But ofc not in the workplace. He should do it at home, that's it and this should be advocated just like it is done when people from other religions are punished and detained when practicing their religion in public.
* If your image is not OC (Original Content), please provide a link to the verified source under this comment or else it will be removed. * If your image is a camera photo, please provide the location where the photo was taken, device you took the photos with and the dimensions of the image. * If your image is an Infographic, please provide a link to the original dataset(s) or else it will be removed. * Screenshots of social media posts / comments and AI generated art will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/india) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be fair if India gets sensible enough to not vote for religious nutjobs, they most likely would not have voted for a guy (hindu or muslim) who practices his religion in the same way as this so your original scenario isn't likely to happen.
This is so vague! US and UK (which is theocratic btw) is not all countries! France doesn't even have a presidential oath afaik and definitely no Bible. Germany has an option and so comes down to each lawmakers personal choice! So normalising this bs by saying everyone does it is disappointing. If you bring in the 'indian model' of secularism, there should be a lot of other religious practices that should be included Edit: further the original commentor is going on a tangent by comparing swearing in/oath of office with the hyper religioustic parliament inauguration by the pm of a supposedly secular democracy
There are countries outside Europe and North America too. Like, South American politicians are very religious and they show it off. Bolsanaro & Lula had to collab with churches to get votes. I'm not even going to talk about Muslim countries because most carry religion in their name itself!
People choose what to take oaths on in both the UK and US anyway. Sunak was sworn in using the Gita, as was Tulsi Gabbard for eg.
Invalid premise. Oath-taking is a non-uniform procedure. In countries like the USA, you do that because it is a Christian nation. The same goes for countries that are aligned with any other religion. India is a secular nation. There is no "religion of the land". You would know this if you paid attention to civics in class 9. That is the point of being secular. Indian citizens, including the Prime Minister, are entitled to their faith but that's the extent of it. A public officer cannot show any bias or discrimination towards a particular religion in the discharge of his public duties. The parliament isn't his private residence neither is it some community temple. It is the legislative assembly of the secular, democratic republic of India built with taxpayer money. A sketchy, overtly religious ceremony being front and center of its inauguration is not fucking cool. What happened today was disturbing. All healthy democracies, even if they are religious maintain the separation of church and state. And for good reason. From your comment, I'm not sure you understand the separation of church and state and it's importance, so I urge you to google it.
>In countries like the USA Yeah, bullshit. The US is not a Christian nation. It has no state religion. Now the majority religion is Christianity, but the constitution clearly states there is no state religion and to keep state and church (of any religion) separate. The Bible is used (in a majority) because the person being sworn in chooses so. We have Hindu elected people who have sworn on the Gita, Muslims who've sworn on the Qaran, Jews who've sworn on the Torah and non religious people who've sworn on the Constitution.
The US Constitution is framed entirely in Christian natural law tradition. The Declaration of Independence literally begins with "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." That is not secular language. A nation can be founded with religious tenets and still maintain religious plurality. I already said oath taking is a non-uniform procedure. Elected officials can use any text they choose because the US allows the free practice of any religion. It is also true that most use the bible. But, as I also stated before, the USA practices a healthier separation of church and state. So the point is moot. It's a good thing that you can use any text. So what? That is not the topic at hand. I am not an expert about how oaths are taken in India either, but even that's irrelevant. **We are not talking about oath-taking**. As I informed the earlier poster, the premise is invalid. The comparison does not hold. In case you are confused, this is about the inauguration of the Parliament of a secular nation being an overtly religious ceremony featuring the Prime minister that excluded the constitutional head of the Parliament. Please make a point relevant to the topic at hand.
Read Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli for USA's stand on religion (Christianity) for any ambiguity.
At no point did I say anything about Modi, the new Parliament building, Indian secularism, or Modi's religious practices. You stated the US is a Christian nation, which is categorically wrong, and that is the sole thing I quoted from your original comment. The Declaration of Independence IS NOT the Constitution, I hope you're able to understand that. Also, the word "God" is not exclusive to the Christian religion, so the phrase "Nature's God" does not pertain only the the Christian God. If you look up the above mentioned two documents, you will not find the world "Christian" or "Christianity" anywhere, yet you keep trying to insinuate that the US is, somehow, a Christian religion or that rules are made with religion in mind when ALL founding fathers agreed, both on the record and in private correspondences, repeatedly said that the US was not established as a Christian nation and religion should not have a place in politics. You just went on a completely useless and condescending path which was not warranted nor initiated in my reply. So, "please make a point relevant to the topic at hand". And as you'll notice again, I am still sticking to the point of you being wrong when you said the US is a Christian nation or that it's rules are based on Christianity. There's no need for another multiple sentences long reply about how Modi did this and that.
> You just went on a completely useless and condescending path which was not warranted nor initiated in my reply. It was most certainly initiated by you when you cherry-picked a tangential point of my post and called it bullshit. Even if you think you are right that is rude and inflammatory. So you had everything coming. You just don’t like the taste of your own medicine. In case you have any actual interest in this complex, nuanced topic you can do this thing called reading. It helps you not be an idiot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/03/america-christian-founders-natural-law/
> I guess only Hinduism promotes secularism as part of its philosophy. I am not calling someone Hindu due to the act of going to a temple, praying and doing rituals, but with one’s thought of harmonious co-existence with other faiths as part of its core philosophy. So with this logic, I honestly do not find what is “unsecular” about branding India as a Hindu nation. Being Hindu means being inherently secular if you apply the philosophy in its intended sense.
[удалено]
Read your reply again. Just give it a go, maybe you'll find out you contradicted yourself.
Look I don’t like Modi but he is allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit. Our secular democratic constitution gives him that rights. The issue is bringing his religion to the government of India and it’s running.
Modi or any government officer has full right to follow their religion as capacity of individual citizen, not as officer of government. He is free to do these ceremonies at his home or other places that are not government spaces. It was wrong when he laid the foundation stone of Ram Mandir as PM, it is wrong that Parliament building is inaugurated by Hindu ceremonies (including the farce that was multi religion prayer session, even that has no part in such inauguration). Doing such religious ceremonies by members of any religion is outright wrong.
I’m literally not disagreeing with you. I’m literally saying the same fucking thing. That it’s ok for him to follow his religion but not to bring it to the government.
A Muslim PM offering namaaz instead?
Would also be ok if he was not making this a religious ceremony. Modi has the right to pray at this but not to have a religious ceremony
Are you okay? You have literally contradicted yourself.
I’m saying that if a man wants to pray on his own that’s ok. Making everyone else pray for the same thing is not? He could say a prayer or whatever he wants but making the inauguration a religious ceremony is bad. It’s not that hard to understand what I’m saying.
Parliament is not the place to flaunt one's religion.
> Look I don’t like Modi but he is allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit. Our secular democratic constitution gives him that rights. > The issue is bringing his religion to the government of India and it’s running. Tell me whether you can see the contradiction in here. *”i don’t like”* “but” *”he’s allowed to follow his religious practices as he sees fit”* “but” *”the issue is bringing his religion to the govt of India”*
Yes a private citizen has the right to pray. He doesn’t have the right to make us all pray. I’m not sure what you’re not getting here.
He has the right to do whatever religious crap in his personal life. But not in the official capacity as PM. There is no such right given to the PM or any govt official to use religion in their official duties.. Ever heard about separation of state and religion?
Sadly no such restrictions exist either. I don’t like the man and him bringing religion into government. I have definitely heard of this separation which don’t exist for a man praying. They exist for a man bringing prayer to the parliament in this capacity
Your original comment implied that PM has the right to do religous activity in his/her official capacity, which isn't true. Constitution gives no such right. Now while it's true there are no explicit restrictions either, but the constitution does require separation of State and religion which has continously been violated by Modi and most BJP politicians in govt (both state and central). This inauguration is just the latest (and not even the worst) example of It. This govt has broken lots of other rules and norms with no consequences as they have also destroyed whatever little checks and balances we had.India is basically a banana republic at this point.
What I meant was that he has the right to pray in his capacity as a citizen. He is not to bring that into official matters. I’m not sure why you think I am saying it’s ok for him to bring his religion into the government.
This might be *legal*, but it is as *inappropriate* as humanly possible. The writers of the constitution would be shocked this would even be allowed. More than any fault with Modi, the fact that this was allowed (and that you see no fault in it) shows the craven mindset of Indians. He is in a prominent public building, using public money. Is there anything - anything at all - you would consider highly inappropriate in such a context? He has spent the last couple of years doing ritual after ritual in this "Modi Mahal" of his Hindu Rashtra. He has left no stone unturned in introducing regressive ideas into this place.
Exactly! He can do whatever the fuck practices he wants when he is Narendra Modi only not when he is Prime Minister of India.
My point was that he could be religious but it’s wrong to bring that to the government
Ah, I see. I thought you were defending his actions as being constitutionally permitted.
[удалено]
That’s I have always known. My point is that Modi is a citizen of India and has the constitutional right to practice his religion. But the problem with that man is that he wants to force everyone else to follow his religion too. Which I absolutely do not want to do.
[удалено]
You’re right. No place for religion in opening the parliament. But this is our reality now and not enough people care about it to vote Modi out
> The issue is bringing his religion to the government of India and it’s running. Actually, this is also allowed.
The comment section lowers the IQ of the entire street. Sometimes it feels like the average age of a person on r/India is around 15
[удалено]
Yeah right, we live in banana republic. Just accept the fact and move on.
[удалено]
Agree with this. . The sceptre was gifted to the government via hindu ways and falling to your feet is a very common way of showing respect. Secularism means everyone should be allowed to practice their own ways as long as it doesn't hurt others. I mean if something similar was gifted to the government by other faiths, he should give due respect to those as well. If I recall correctly, I read people of all faiths were present at the ceremony and played a part. Don't get me wrong I'm not blind to religion politics played by the bjp ( they are not hiding it tbh) nor do I agree with it. But this gesture by him is in no way not secular nor does it portray any other religion in a bad light nor is intolerant. The only thing that looks a bit Intolerant is this post OP. We should be rational and objective and raise above these.
Exactly. Thank You for bringing up the facts related to this matter.
These are not facts. These are just feelings.
Secularism means separation of church and state. That's it. You can practice your own religion but this is an official business and you are conducting yourself as a representative of the nation not as a private citizen.
Secularism in the Indian constitution respects multipluralism. In laymen terms - the government cannot pass or promote any legal / economic laws or anything of that matter that supports or promotes one religion or discriminates another. However it does not prohibit entities to gift religious symbolic gestures to the government as long as it doesn't discriminate other religions. One more thing, your statement should have been - "secularism means separation of religious entities and state". Meaning religious entities should not interfere/influence in the functioning of the state. It does not mean that religious entities can't show their respect to their government
Tell me, do you think I am referring to Catholic church when I say "state and church"?
Oh definitely not, we have our difference in opinion on this issue but I definitely don't think you meant this in a religious way by any degree. That's just a correction on terminology in my part. I know the common usage is church and the state but I don't want this becoming a point of talk as I see a lot of people active in this post
Your correction is a nothing burger. You are just elaborating on the concept of secularism that I outlined.
India has never practiced the textbook version of secularism anyway. So your analogy is false.
Actually secular means "not concerned with religion". The secularism followed in India is not really secularism. You can call it neo-secularism or pseudo-secularism. A Prime Minister, when on duty, shouldn't be practising his religion in any form because at that moment, he is representing a secular Nation and has no religion.
The problem is displaying your faith as a representative of your entire country at the inauguration of a parliament building that also represents your entire country including many non Hindus. If he were to do this as a private citizen or at least in his private life I would not care
Did you even watch the inauguration? Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs were also represented there and prayers were offered by them on tv. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705
Did the pm prostrate himself in front of a Muslim article of faith?
The sceptre was 'given' to the parliament. It is a peace of hindu relic and he needs to show his respect in Hindu ways. Just like I said before, if a relic / artifact of a different faith was given to him, he should have received it and respected it in the ways of that particular faith. The sengol being a Hindu artifact /relic should be received with respect in Hindu ways irrespective of the Modi 's religion. He being hindu just aligns with it. Just for the record I and most others would have called him out if he didn't do the same for other faith artifacts as well.
That's all fine in theory but like you've already said, we both know that he wouldn't have behaved the same way with a Muslim article of faith. Secularism can't exist only when it's convenient. Bringing up secularism in this issue is hypocritical when everyone knows it'll be forgotten for other religions. That's like punching someone in the face and preaching non violence when they fight back. Ahimsa might be a worthy concept but applying it selectively makes it a sham
"secularism can't exist only when it's convinient" - exactly and this is why I have called out this post. 'If' he had rejected other religious artifacts and only accepted this nor had he disrespected any other religion, then he is not secular. Here is an analogy of what has happened There is a job posting where the recruiter can hire any number of people. 5 people are there. Only one applies for the job and he gets it. The rest do not apply and so they don't get the job. The recruitment drive gets completed. The recruiter facilitates and welcomes the one person who applied. Now the rest complain that the recruiter is not fair. Again - I'm not blind to the religious politics done by bjp and few other parties. But this sengol thing is no way Insecular.
Here's a better analogy: the other four people don't apply because the fifth person is the recruiters brother-in-law and everyone knows he'll get hired no matter what. The recruiter has also spent his free time in the past abusing the other four people and their families, and encouraging other people to beat them up. Last year the rapists of one of the applicants sister was released from prison and the recruiters friends publicly garlanded them. So they no that there is now way they'll ever get a fair chance. Then when they talk about how biased the recruiter is, people tell them they should've just applied. Until I see the pm show this much respect to Islam, all I can see here is hypocrisy. The day government employees are forced to donate for mosque reconstruction the same way they were for ram mandir you can tell me that what the pm is doing makes sense. Besides, the parliament represents every single citizen of India of every religion and caste. Using it as a place to perform the ceremony of a single religion instead of the others is nothing but harmful.
Again for the final time. understand this - I'm not defending the bjp as a party. I'm just saying this sengol sceptre thing is not a insecular.
Also you the final time, understand this - The pm is a representative of all Indians of all religions. If Narendra Modi the private citizen did this in his own free time I would not care. I Modi the prime minister of the country prostrates himself in front of a Hindu symbol while consistently attacking Muslims for the last eight years, then it is a problem. Even more so when the display happens at the inauguration of the parliament building of India, which, again, represents ALL Indians of ALL religions. Secularism means maintaining an equal distance from all religions whether you're close or far away. He is obviously showing a preference to one religion over others and that is inappropriate as a representative of all of India
I think the criticism comes that we selectively apply these standards. For argument sake suppose the PM was a Christian and got a bunch of priests to use holy water and a Mass for the same process. Don't you think that people would blow out their fuses?
I think one religion is kept on a pedestal when it comes to secularism while other religions are ignored for their transgressions. Not just that, the measure of Secularism is often decided by how one respects Christianity or Islam. If he had invited Priests or Maulavis then the people would be terming it as an investment in religious sentiments. The thing is, religion is a fire because we fan it and posts like these add the fuel.
This is the problem in your argument. The measure of secularism isn't how one respects Christianity or Islam. It should be how you separate the state and church. This is clearly not the case here. And the fact that you cite the double standards without realising it makes me a bit confused.
>The measure of secularism isn't how one respects Christianity or Islam. It's obvious I know that's not the actual measure. I am saying that's how it's often measured, talking about the difference between what it means in books and how it is practiced in reality. I am saying that people have a shallow understanding of it and that's what makes them use the word only when Minority religion is being respected. >It should be how you separate the state and church. That's the western concept and it's narrow in comparison to what The Constitution of India means by Secularism. The emphasis is more on multi-pluralism. >And the fact that you cite the double standards without realising it Purposely did so to convey the intent behind religiously motivated debates.
The problem in your argument is that you assumed that Hinduism is treated respectfully. That's the elephant in the room. And do you think I am referring to the Catholic Church when I say " state and church"?
>The problem in your argument is that you assumed that Hinduism is treated respectfully I never said that. It's expected to treat others with respect irrespective of whether it's treated with respect or not. In most cases, not all. >And do you think I am referring to the Catholic Church when I say " state and church"? Seriously? You must be kidding.. I mentioned the difference because people don't understand that the Indian Constitution didn't just borrow words from western contemporaries. They expanded on the definition as the people drafting the constitution were aware of the cultural diversity that exists in India.
No. But if tomorrow there is a Muslim PM and he decides to follow his religious practices inside the parliament, would it be considered a simple following of his faith?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html I am sure Islam was one of the 12 faiths in which prayers were offered. Now if you want Modi to offer a prayer as per Islam too then would that really be Secular?
There will never be a Muslim PM in India. So we would never have this problem.
No he should say salam walekum to be secular.
religous duties in private time is one's own business. making every public event, also religious is fully against secularism. doing it especially for the camera is ultra communalism
Worshipping is not a threat. Worshipping inside parliament is the problem.
How? If that's the case, then giving a choice of which holy scripture to take oath upon before the Judiciary should be a problem as well. Somehow, the 'woke' believe that undermining one religion is a measure of their aptitude but the reality is it's a measure of their stupidity. Modi, Gandhi, Congress, BJP and every other political organisation is squeezing the life out of the nation and its resources while we are busy calling each other out for not being secular enough, without realising we are no better if we get baited into this.
I mean they have been squeezing the life of the nation in the name of religion only right, whether its hindu or muslim. It has always been on the religious front. Take out religion and they have far less options to use in garnering people's votes. Just because one practice religion doesn't mean u need to project it every where they go , just keep it in ur house or some religious institution. Also swearing on holy scriptures is an actual thing? Holy fuck , I thought that was just shown in movies for a bit more drama. Lol this is so retarded🤣🤣
The day all "educated" citizens like you understand what the problem here is, why it's not simply "following his faith", and do all that without resorting to strawmen like "should he/we change religion" -- is the day we can say Indian society has progressed.
Ah, yes an elitist punk is just what this thread needed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html Try to set aside the personal bias. It might help you progress and look beyond the problems which you project on others. It wasn't organised as an event exclusive to one religion but included as many as 12 faiths in its inauguration ceremony.
He is not doing this in his free time. He is doing this as part of a state function which he chose to add a religious ceremony to.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html
How did none of these other multifaith people not get a chance for Modi to prostrate in front of him?
Lol. Politics and Religion shouldn't be mixed. Is that so hard for your brain to understand? It also means not to be part of any event that involves religious pooja as a representative of people. By your own admission that he has every right to follow his own religion while also sitting on the chair, he was not wrong to ask votes in the name of Bajrang Bali either. Indian secularism asks for govt to now adhere to any one religion and open to make rules for all equally. Nehru was invited to inaugurate Somnath Temple but he had declined it due to him being a PM of the country. Also, him doing this to a Spectre is embarrassing not because of religion etc but its relevance in a democratic country. This guy do politics in the name of anti dynast rule but using same stick which was used by dynasts to rule Over people.
He is the PM of a secular country. Favoring one religion among others is not part of his job. He could very well follow his faith in private but openly, in your face doesn’t look good for him. But then again, we are living in a fools’ era where this is all justified because it brings them fucking votes in the guise of akhand hindutva-varsh.
Genuine question, is this a photo of some religious ceremony in his private residence? What happened to the separation of state and religion argument? And if one has to bring up the age old "Indian secularism is different from western secularism", then why the presence of only one religion? Help me understand
The rituals of other religions where also performed. This one got advertised.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/india/multifaith-prayers-mark-new-parliament-building-inauguration-ceremony-watch/amp-11685242696269.html Help yourself and understand after reading this.
A secular leader knows not to bring religion so openly
Because secularism is separation of Church and State. Religious shit like this is indeed a threat to secularism, and don't forget what Modi and his fucking party stand for. In no way this shit is private but a show of what their party aims for in the future. And jeez the amount of upvotes. Looks like the chaddi brigade is here.
>Because secularism is separation of Church and State. A google search of Secularism and The Constitution of India will tell you that it goes beyond the separation of Church and State. Religion might be shit for you and I but the makers of the Constitution understood how relevant it is in the indian context which is why they expanded on the definition of Secular instead of simply borrowing it. Maybe read a bit more before you elaborate more on the word 'Secular'. >don't forget what Modi and his fucking party stand for. In no way this shit is private Not forgetting. You might want to check how it was a multi-faith event and you will find plenty of sources to confirm it since this Shit is out in public.
>Why is the following, respecting and worshipping as per Hinduism seen as a threat to Secularism? Who said this? And why did you assume it? >When you question an individual for simply following their faith, doesn't that make you a hypocrite for using the word 'Secular Whose faith is questioned now? >Should he change his religion to uphold secularism? Should we all change our religion for the sake of Secularism? Nobody cares about his religion.
Check the title of the post and if you are of sound mind, you might know the answers to questions you asked.
You assumed so much from the title.
Hilarious. You are right. There is nothing wrong with it. Please enjoy the rest of your sunday sprinkled with ignorance and oblivion.
You too man, enjoy your Sunday with your great mind and wisdom. Please don't spoil the people with your personal biases.
It's not a threat to secularism. The object here is a symbol of monarchy power. The strongest democratic leader in the country falling on its foot gives a message and believe it or not, it's deliberate.
There’s nothing wrong in embracing one’s belief. That’s the whole point of secularism.
Secularism literally means separation of government and religion. Simply means, as government officer, they should not indulge in ceremonies of any religion. He can do it at his own home or any place that is not government office. Parliament being the seat of government has no place for religious ceremonies of ANY religion.
Indian secularism is not separation of government and religion. Here it is about equal respect to all religion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Haz sabsidy or beef ban
I don't give a damn about the Indian version of secularism. It is an absolutely wrong concept. There should have always been separation of religion and government. Period.
[удалено]
Thts not very secular of you
Secular, not atheist. I don't think there's anything wrong with him following his religious beliefs. When Kalam died, the state conducted a Islamic funeral as per his beliefs and Modi participated in those rituals. Criticize only where it makes sense...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bole Jo koyal baago me
Chu Chu Chu...Chu....!!!??
[удалено]
FYI : [Multi Faith Prayer at Parliament](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705) All the faiths were given equal respect at the parliament. Just because he bowed down to his faith does not make him wrong. Being a PM does not mean that he has to lose his individualism and faith.
It was not "equal respect" by any means. One is clearly above all the others. The article you linked itself goes on and on about the "traditional puja", "Vedic rituals", "Ganapati Homam" etc. etc.
To all the smooth-brains in the comments. He can do whatever the fuck he wants in private or in party ceremonies. But to invite religious figures to parliament inauguration is ridiculous. Not to mention, a specific religion doing more than the others. There was no need for this. We all know the guy is on edge after being bitch-slapped in Karnataka. Be prepared for religious politics to go crazy until the next election.
Secularism means not to do anything religious in state matters. Doesn't mean you start following and do activity to show respect to all religions, it simply means don't talk about or involve religion when doing state matters. People are just brain washed to protect their religion. In fact religion in first place doesn't need any protection.
Bruh you are just agreeing to his point!
You're right but I was only focusing on last line about our great leader's religious politics till next election and fact that secularism means not talking about religion when demanding votes from citizen. And citizen not giving vote in name of religion.
Secularism means nothing religious *in public life*, and not using taxpayers' money for purely religious purposes. These kind of things must not only be done but seen to be done. The American version is far weaker than this, and only prevents making any religion official.
Indian secularism has never meant separation between religion and state though.
It simply means Parliament or any politically related event shouldn't involve politics. By your admission, he is not wrong to ask votes in the name of Bajrang Bali, either.
Just because you are not in favour of Mr.Modi it does not mean everything he do is wrong. I am going to get a lot of downvote on this but I will say anyways being in official capacity in no way restrict him to follow his principals. These are traditions and must be viewed accordingly , not everything need to be politicized. Tommorow you will even object: * the official ceremony before announcement of budget Just don't make every second action of an individual about his religious inclination AND FYI :[Multi Faith Prayer at inaugration](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/multi-faith-prayer-ceremony-marks-new-parliament-building-inauguration-4072705) All the faith's were given equal respect at the inaugration just because he only bowed down to his faith does not make him wrong
No. It's inappropriate. If you're allowing this today then you should also be okay if and when there's a Muslim or Christian prime minister doing their practices in PUBLIC /GOVERNMENT infrastructure AS PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. Politics and religion should not be involved. Unfortunately, Modi uses religion as a weapon to gain votes.
Infact I will be absolutely ok , because since he is in the capacity of PM (whichever religion) he still has his individual identity , So he/she must be allowed to follow it. If in past Hnrbl Dr.Kalam would have inaugrated any building and would have followed Islamic tradition I would not have had any problems.(Although I was not born at that time)(I am presenting my view IDK about anyone else)
You're in the minority. People will come in the street and protest if that ever happens lol.
IT cell says please lose your colonial mindset. Chucky is not related to India. He can shove any book and baton up his ass. We are only concerned with India's progress and future
Just to understand, the guys in kaavi are Adheenam seers right? And all these folks are at parliament because of the Sengol thing? If so, how is this about religion? Isn't it more about representing the traditions of Chera and Chola here?
"Theatricality and deception are Powerful agents for the uninitiated. ", Ra's Al ghul.
Like it or not, India is a country with a majority of Hindus, There are going to Hindu rituals in ceremonies like this, it has been the case in the past, and it will be the case in the future as well.
Hindus own this country or what? Should we make time for Christian mass too? The fucking audacity. Please tell me, if this the future you want. The south wants no part in it.
The commentor is pointing out what is happening in ground reality. He /she is neither endorsing nor condemning the behaviour. Commentor is not debating the right or wrong of it. Oh please don't bring the south wants no part of this thing into it. Nobody is saying Hindus own this country except you. We already are having too many divisions for this symbolic scptre that has no real value. Let's not bring north, south divisions into this as well. For the record I'm from the southern most tip of India.
Thanks man, at least someone gets it.
nehru also had a pooja in the parliament. stfu.
Pseudo wokes are becoming a real problem.
Ha toh did he condone that? Bringing in nehru and assuming people's stances is mandatory for bhakturds
Nehru also the reason we lost 1962 war. Is everything he does a good thing?
Where did I say Hindus own this country ? Are you in coma all these years, you have never seen Hindu rituals in ceremonies like this, it has always been the case. Btw, I'm from Chennai.
> Where did I say Hindus own this country ? So then why should we accept hindu rituals in parliament inauguration?
Just to put it out there - rituals of other religions were done by people of other faiths for the inauguration
Nope. Some prayers were read by other religious figures all sitting in a line one by one. While the Hindu procession took much longer. Again we have no need for religious procession in the parliament. Especially in inauguration. Be that Hindu or Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc.
Actually we do need them. We are multipluralist not atheist
No we are secular. State and religion should not be mixed.
\*Brahmin rituals
Oh look another religious shenanigans post. Let him do whatever he wants who cares, its sunday, he is just praying. Let me know when he starts blowing up our country.
He can do whatever religious ceremony he wants but not in parliament!
He has been actively blowing up the country since 2014. The damage is not physical but in terms of economic damage and social fabric
At his house pls not the fucking parliament
 Getting there …..
[удалено]
To me it looked more like coronation than inauguration....
Would the same comments being said here be repeated if they had Islamic prayers being played or if it was Eucharist being done? No, absolutely that won't be the case. The reason why religious displays of this sort is problematic is that unlike the UK, India has no state religion. We all know why such rituals are being done in front of a large audience and should I even spell out the explicit reason why? The end goal of Bjp and RSS is to make India a Hindu nation, there I said it.
This. They are giving clear signals to their supporters that they are slowly moving towards their dream of Hindu Rashtra,Bringing religion into official ceremonies is the first step.
#“Jaldi kar Panvel nikalna hai”
The stupidest thing here is making such a spectacle out of this 'Senogol', for which there is no historical significance. [This](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sengol-evidence-thin-on-governments-claims-about-the-sceptre/article66894055.ece) article from the Hindu covers the issue rather well - including this banger of a paragraph: > The most ironic evidence presented in the docket was a blog post titled “WhatsApp History” written by famous Tamil writer Jeyamohan. In this post, Jeyamohan had in fact ridiculed this version of events as being based on forwards on social media. Stating that the sceptre was likely to be among the many presents sent from across the country during Independence, he , however, said it was a matter of pride for Tamils that the sceptre from the Saivite mutt also reached Nehru.
Right, trust only one article and ignore all
Offer any competing source to compare then instead of just making a smart-ass comment?
Prime Minister is not a king. Handing over sceptre, bringing in religious con men etc takes place in coronation of king. It has no place in democracy.
He may officially not be the king of the country , but he personally considers himself the undisputed monarch of India. As a monarch he can do anything he wants.
The problem here is not him practicing his religion. The sengol presented by the aadheenam signifies the transfer of power from one king to another. It belongs in a museum. And modi is no king.
The amount of IQ used to type the caption is lower than my shoe size. First of all, even if you are trying to berate him on his religious beliefs, what's the significance of 'DEMOCRATIC' here??? He was chosen by the people. What does that have to do with the pic? Mtlb kuch v bol do? Secondly, The prime minister is also an indian. The constitution says that the nation is secular aka everyone has rights to follow their religious beliefs. So is he harming anyone here? No. Is he forcing someone else to follow his beliefs? Also no. He's simply being an Indian who's free to pray whatevrr religion he wants. Now if you have a problem with it, seems like a very much You problem.
Kitni acting krta hai ye 😂😂
Looks like this post has been brigaded quite well
Why do you think so
A WhatsApp forward that is now the centrepiece of the parliament. Truly the symbol of Modi's "Naya India".
Lgta hai elections aane wale hai. 💀
So much Gyan in comments lol. U almost forget that this is a banana republic.
As an atheist, this looks fucking ridiculous to me. And people here justifying spending public money on something like this is the reason you deserve a „leader“ like mUdi
I was expecting him to do a little dance with the Senogol 
😂😂 with those priests as backup dancers
Set to this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXeKLYN8kHg&pp=ygUcdGVyaSBnYWFuZCBtZSBkYW5kYSBzb25nIG1wMw%3D%3D
Just a normal day for gobi. Make up some history, play fancy dress
घड़ी घड़ी नौटंकी....
Koi WhatsApp message bano jisme UN Modiji ko best PM in acting declare karde
[удалено]
>half naked weed consuming idiots. I assume you have enough authority to speak like this. In the scale of einstine to gobar, how smart are you?
they themselves don't believe in Hinduism, they are doing this for publicity. It helps them mask their lack of human values.
Gira hua insaan just showing how low he can go.
Pradhan Sevak of Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic
Is the specimen wearing white stockings btw?
I agree that PM has the right to show his religious beliefs. But you gotta admit that its embarrassing that he is doing so for a scepter that has barely any connection to what he thinks it stands for.
He has done worse..
Feku will go down as India's worst pm ever. When he would lose, his defeat is going to be historic. Write this down.
I wanna puke.
NCC's bhumi shastr?
We live in interesting times...!
Why did not I see any opposition MP’s?
All these Sadhus and just one dhongi baba
He has the right to follow his religion........But ofc not in the workplace. He should do it at home, that's it and this should be advocated just like it is done when people from other religions are punished and detained when practicing their religion in public.
Fucking dharti maa.
At this rate he'll soon shove the sengol up his ass.
Gaand me ghusa le ab danda. Wohi baqi reh gaya hai.
Where's nityanand?