Bharat Rakshak

There are enough social media platforms for putting political message across. No point in opening front on LinkedIn where it is for professional career only- saved in server history, and only about 10% ever put a message there. It's not sm platform.

madhu wrote:UPA v/s NDA Pan India security analysis

Nice analysis but needs some revisions IMO.

NDA1 is not 2014-2019, but 1999-2004. In NDA1 a large number of jihadis were killed (probably more than in all of 2004-2019) and violence was already on the downtrend. UPA1 conveniently got to finish the job. Should include NDA1 with numbers, and change Modi sarkar to NDA2.

Retweeted
JAYANTH ಜಯಂತ
@JAYANTH40830762
·
13h
Replying to
@NAN_DINI_
Liberals & Islamists are kissing cousins. Both hate nationalism. Bigoted liberals are more venomous than Islamists. Islamists figured that using libs as a front gives them a Veneer of acceptability. liberals don’t have any foot soldiers except Islamists. Both feed off each other.

Indira Gandhi is supposed to have added the word "secular" to the constt in 1975. How did she do it, didn't she have to go through Parliament? If Modi with his strength has so much opposition, why not back in 1975? Or did she declare Emergency, get it added in when things were in a limbo? If so, wouldn't that be illegal and reversible?

Vikas wrote: For some reason, Every rookie on this debate assumes that Hindu Rashtra would result in Bharat becoming mirror image of Malasi Countries.

This is exactly what Indian peacefuls and non Indians peacefuls seem to think when I have these discussions. I say I am okay with India being a Hindu nation but they recoil in horror (55 Islamic nations irony is lost on them). But then I realize why. They know how non Muslims are treated in Islamic countries and are afraid Hindus will do the same to Muslims.

A Hindu nation will not terrorize/persecute like an Islamic nation.

KJo wrote:Indira Gandhi is supposed to have added the word "secular" to the constt in 1975. How did she do it, didn't she have to go through Parliament? If Modi with his strength has so much opposition, why not back in 1975? Or did she declare Emergency, get it added in when things were in a limbo? If so, wouldn't that be illegal and reversible?

It was done after emergency was declared and parliament suspended. It was done through 42nd amendment and in year 1976. Google up and you will be surprised how illegal and unethical it is. Original India did not have secular. The country was divided into two based on religion, Hindu and Muslim. While TSP constitution had Islamic to begin with, India did not have anything (no secular). It was assumed to be Hindu without explicitly called out as such.
the word secular was added (influence from western players- just like Nepal in front of us, Nehru family starting from Motilala was always a cat's paw of some power (read British)) - to abate conversion. Of course both Abrahamic religion misuse it in different ways - Muslims that don't bother us, let us breed to majority and we will make Gazwa e Hind and Christians - Let me convert as many heathens as possible, harvest as many, under the guise of secular.
Either way one religion is getting shafted and many in that religion do not have the guts to stand up and say what is happening is wrong. Acknowledging this does not make any one bigoted, acknowledging this and drawing line will in fact work for everyone. You do not out breed us and you do not convert, you follow your religion and I follow mine. Not this secularism, where you have the right to have a go at my expense.

KJo wrote:Indira Gandhi is supposed to have added the word "secular" to the constt in 1975. How did she do it, didn't she have to go through Parliament? If Modi with his strength has so much opposition, why not back in 1975? Or did she declare Emergency, get it added in when things were in a limbo? If so, wouldn't that be illegal and reversible?

Without a shade of doubt the words secular and socialist were illegally and unconstitutionally rammed in there by IG.

Raveen wrote:

KJo wrote:Indira Gandhi is supposed to have added the word "secular" to the constt in 1975. How did she do it, didn't she have to go through Parliament? If Modi with his strength has so much opposition, why not back in 1975? Or did she declare Emergency, get it added in when things were in a limbo? If so, wouldn't that be illegal and reversible?

Without a shade of doubt the words secular and socialist were illegally and unconstitutionally rammed in there by IG.

as this was never ratified by parliament, and so for all intents and purposes, it is illegal as well as unconstitutional.

chetak wrote:

Raveen wrote:

Without a shade of doubt the words secular and socialist were illegally and unconstitutionally rammed in there by IG.

as this was never ratified by parliament, and so for all intents and purposes, it is illegal as well as unconstitutional.

Thanks fanne saar, great explanation and good ammo for future use.

chetak, if it is illegal and was never ratified, it means that it can be removed, can't it?

Modi III project?

KJo wrote:

chetak wrote:
as this was never ratified by parliament, and so for all intents and purposes, it is illegal as well as unconstitutional.

Thanks fanne saar, great explanation and good ammo for future use.

chetak, if it is illegal and was never ratified, it means that it can be removed, can't it?

Modi III project?

yes, and that day will come too.

It was done by the commies and the anti Hindu BIF whose help she desperately needed to control the narrative.

just like it happened in nepal, after the same anti Hindu BIF got the royal family killed and the commies came to power. Their constitution was similarly amended too.

Before all this happened, Nepal was the only officially declared Hindu country in the world.

It means Hindus need to be secular 'individuals' as certified by non-pseudo seculars whilest believers with codified religion s can follow religion.

Like how education is Monday version of Sunday schools.

chetak wrote: just like it happened in nepal, after the BIF got the royal family killed and the commies came to power. Their constitution was similarly amended too. Before all this happened, Nepal was the only officially declared Hindu country in the world.

Is there any consensus now (years after the fact) on who orchestrated it? China comes to mind (the brutality of massacring the king, queen, prince and others points to China, IMHO). Were the guards turned..... I suppose they were, since they were the only ones left to tell the world (their version) what happened. No leaks from the guards (who would have been local Nepalese) since then, years after the event.

vishvak wrote:It means Hindus need to be secular 'individuals' as certified by non-pseudo seculars whilest believers with codified religion s can follow religion.

as i had posted a few pages ago:

the xtians follow christianity.

the muslims follow islam.

and all the while, the Hindus are busy following secularism

SriKumar wrote:

chetak wrote: just like it happened in nepal, after the BIF got the royal family killed and the commies came to power. Their constitution was similarly amended too. Before all this happened, Nepal was the only officially declared Hindu country in the world.

Is there any consensus now (years after the fact) on who orchestrated it? China comes to mind (the brutality of massacring the king, queen, prince and others points to China, IMHO). Were the guards turned..... I suppose they were, since they were the only ones left to tell the world (their version) what happened. No leaks from the guards (who would have been local Nepalese) since then, years after the event.

IIRC, there was no one else when it happened except for the crazed and drug addled member of the royal family who actually shot them all.

It appears that the narrative was designed to be tightly controlled right from the beginning of the conspiracy.

xtian conversions have grown exponentially since the constitution was amended with every FFNGO having a free run.

China would not have allowed this to happen so easily.

The anti Hindu BIF has certainly benefitted so it is the answer to the eternal question of "cui bono".

chetak wrote:

SriKumar wrote: Is there any consensus now (years after the fact) on who orchestrated it? China comes to mind (the brutality of massacring the king, queen, prince and others points to China, IMHO). Were the guards turned..... I suppose they were, since they were the only ones left to tell the world (their version) what happened. No leaks from the guards (who would have been local Nepalese) since then, years after the event.

IIRC, there was no one else when it happened except for the crazed and drug addled member of the royal family who actually shot them all.

It appears that the narrative was designed to be tightly controlled right from the beginning of the conspiracy.

xtian conversions have grown exponentially since the constitution was amended with every FFNGO having a free run.

China would not have allowed this to happen so easily.

The anti Hindu BIF has certainly benefitted so it is the answer to the eternal question of "cui bono".

Probably Paki ISI(s)

chetak wrote:

SriKumar wrote: Is there any consensus now (years after the fact) on who orchestrated it? China comes to mind (the brutality of massacring the king, queen, prince and others points to China, IMHO). Were the guards turned..... I suppose they were, since they were the only ones left to tell the world (their version) what happened. No leaks from the guards (who would have been local Nepalese) since then, years after the event.

IIRC, there was no one else when it happened except for the crazed and drug addled member of the royal family who actually shot them ".

so you believe this version then. I am sceptical for the reason that this seemed a tad too convenient. The entire royal family shot dead... and it was a royal that did it , who by the way, shot himself. I suspect some larger forces made this happen....no proof though. And Nothing has 'come out' since then ...so either the official version is the truth or the planning was water-tight.

Indian intelligence may know something...the lady that the Prince was after is in India.

https://twitter.com/rajshekharTOI/statu ... 7704111104

Raj Shekhar Jha @rajshekharTOI

Delhi Police write to High Court to appoint a Claims Commissioner to assess damages during anti #CAA riots in Delhi and establish liability. Damages to be recovered from rioters, properties to be attached like UP.

Delhi too seeks to recover damages from rioters.

chetak wrote: <snip...>

.....
edwina's role in leading some of our priapic leadership to give away the country and allow the BIF free reign to wreak the havoc that they eventually did cannot be underestimated. Atlee's govt should have been grateful to her for her "services".
<snip...>

Saar outstanding use of language!

SriKumar wrote:

chetak wrote:
IIRC, there was no one else when it happened except for the crazed and drug addled member of the royal family who actually shot them ".

so you believe this version then. I am sceptical for the reason that this seemed a tad too convenient. The entire royal family shot dead... and it was a royal that did it , who by the way, shot himself. I suspect some larger forces made this happen....no proof though. And Nothing has 'come out' since then ...so either the official version is the truth or the planning was water-tight.

Indian intelligence may know something...the lady that the Prince was after is in India.

I never said that I believed it and that's why I wrote anti Hindu BIF which automatically includes the commies who soon thereafter came to power in nepal.

the prince was a horny guy and so many ladies were involved.

the lady (a royal herself from an erstwhile Indian kingdom) that the prince was after being from India was probably just one of the many who were momentarily the flavor of the week or whatever passed for his fancy at the time

Sometime later, yech-ury was inexplicably chosen by the then GoI to "negotiate" with the nepalese commies and as expected, he simply "negotiated" India right out of the equation.

why anyone would allow a traitorous, duplicitous and a devious commie turd like yech-ury to represent the GoI, especially in vital international negotiations is quite beyond me.

Our stock with the new nepal plummetted quite steeply after this deliberate yech-ury fiasco and remains at rock bottom even today.

If anyone would have all the juicy details of who orchestrated the entire conspiracy and how it all played out, it would be yech-ury.

chetak wrote:

SriKumar wrote: so you believe this version then. I am sceptical for the reason that this seemed a tad too convenient. The entire royal family shot dead... and it was a royal that did it , who by the way, shot himself. I suspect some larger forces made this happen....no proof though. And Nothing has 'come out' since then ...so either the official version is the truth or the planning was water-tight.

Indian intelligence may know something...the lady that the Prince was after is in India.

I never said that I believed it and that's why I wrote anti Hindu BIF which automatically includes the commies who soon thereafter came to power in nepal.

the prince was a horny guy and so many ladies were involved.

the lady (a royal herself from an erstwhile Indian kingdom) that the prince was after being from India was probably just one of the many who were momentarily the flavor of the week or whatever passed for his fancy at the time

Sometime later, yech-ury was inexplicably chosen by the then GoI to "negotiate" with the nepalese commies and as expected, he simply "negotiated" India right out of the equation.

why anyone would allow a traitorous, duplicitous and a devious commie turd like yech-ury to represent the GoI, especially in vital international negotiations is quite beyond me.

Our stock with the new nepal plummetted quite steeply after this deliberate yech-ury fiasco and remains at rock bottom even today

Wow, I was not aware Yechury was sent as an Indian envoy! Explains our fall from grace in Nepal. Who selected and sent him? UPA?

Raveen wrote:

chetak wrote:
I never said that I believed it and that's why I wrote anti Hindu BIF which automatically includes the commies who soon thereafter came to power in nepal.

the prince was a horny guy and so many ladies were involved.

the lady (a royal herself from an erstwhile Indian kingdom) that the prince was after being from India was probably just one of the many who were momentarily the flavor of the week or whatever passed for his fancy at the time

Sometime later, yech-ury was inexplicably chosen by the then GoI to "negotiate" with the nepalese commies and as expected, he simply "negotiated" India right out of the equation.

why anyone would allow a traitorous, duplicitous and a devious commie turd like yech-ury to represent the GoI, especially in vital international negotiations is quite beyond me.

Our stock with the new nepal plummetted quite steeply after this deliberate yech-ury fiasco and remains at rock bottom even today

Wow, I was not aware Yechury was sent as an Indian envoy! Explains our fall from grace in Nepal. Who selected and sent him? UPA?

I suspect it was.

google the timeline and please see what fits.

The NDA would never have sent a cunning commie to handle negotiations with an erstwhile Hindu kingdom.

They would have preferred to work via some deep state Hindu contacts there to figure out the lay of the land first and sent someone of the stature of jaswant singh or LK Advani.

unfortunately, the same BIF controlled the narrative on both sides of the border and the conversion mafia was in desperate need of newer harvests

edited twice because I got interrupted by new years wishes.

IG added the words secular and social in the preamble of the constitution - rather than an new or amendment to an article ? and didn't in Kesavananda case SC rule that basic structure of Constitution cannot be altered ? So all it takes is someone to file a PIL in SC against amending the preamble without any explicit approval of Parliament and then SC will be bound to strike it down ? Or even if someone files a case sighting 'secular' provision of the Constitution and that would be enough for SC to first decide on validity of this amendment ?

Nbs wrote:IG added the words secular and social in the preamble of the constitution - rather than an new or amendment to an article ? and didn't in Kesavananda case SC rule that basic structure of Constitution cannot be altered ? So all it takes is someone to file a PIL in SC against amending the preamble without any explicit approval of Parliament and then SC will be bound to strike it down ? Or even if someone files a case sighting 'secular' provision of the Constitution and that would be enough for SC to first decide on validity of this amendment ?

For a PIL, you have to prove a fundamental right afforded to you under the constitution is being infringed. Which fundamental right is being infringed?

Agree - but isnt it the AntiCAA camp argument that 'fundamental rights' of Muslim migrants have been violated by CAA - and it is unconstitutional to seperate Muslims out as the Constitution is 'Secular' ?

New year, new thread please.