Is it INDIAN or BLOODY INDIAN???

Recently i have been watching Indian news very closely,especially this so called VIP SHARUKH KHAN issue, every Indian youth knows what happened to Mr. King Khan in Newark Airport in US,shockingly he/she realises that intorogatting Mr Khan by US authorities is an insult to INDIA, the whole political community stands up.what India is doing on OZ issue, daily an Indian student is getting beaten up like cheap country dog in Australia, and our honourable Foreign minister says India will continue to trust Australia and the relationship continues with it..

the question is detention of Mr.Khan by US authorities is really a grave issue for India? while we have lot of sucking issues with our neighbours.Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn’t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan’s own country.

SRK says he’s ``upset and angry’’ because it was his Muslim name that caused all this. Thousands of Muslims are made to go through extra security checks everyday in America and a host of Western countries. Is he equally upset at that? He's probably just pissed that it happened to him, India's mega star. We all know how a lot of Muslims have been subjected to prejudice around the world because many countries see terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon. Yes, it is uncalled for, unjust and maybe wrong. But America is a country that takes the killings of its people with the seriousness it deserves, unlike India whose record on this is shameful, to say the least.

Also, because most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslims, America thinks it has to be doubly careful where they are concerned. Had the terrorists been Jews, perhaps it would have looked at Jews with similar suspicion. I was much more aggrieved at President Kalam being frisked. But that’s a dated debate.

There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody’s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him ‘`Chinky’’ and not give a second look. For that matter, what if Gérard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn’t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home.

Moreover, America doesn’t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.

More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them’’. Well, guess what. It isn’t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism. Frisk Brad Pitt when he lands in India next. Give Tom Cruise the same dose. Don’t spare Bill Clinton either. Isn’t he an ex-prez just like Kalam? Who’s stopping you and what’s stopping you? Colonial hangover? Or is it plain lethargy and callousness. Looks like both.

We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don’t do it to them’’. Oh no, we don’t. And it’s a scandal. We should. I’ve seen white men – and women – get away in India with murder. Indian women can’t get into some discos wearing a sari. And bouncers will frown at you if you are dressed in a kurta. Have you seen what some of these firangs have on them? No one bats a eyelid.
So instead of making SRK’s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.

There’s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can’t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country’s safety is concerned. Can we do that or is it too much to ask from a country that’s been free for 62 years but was ruled by white sahibs for 200?

we have to stop making these goras call INDIAN as BLOODY INDIAN..it can't be achieved by Mr.SINGH Smiling his Italian smile at HILLARY CLINTON.instaed by showing the whole world what india is capable of doing when anybody questions its might.

WAKE UP INDIAN...

ANOTHER SLAP ON INDIAN!!!!!

I am totally pissed off rite now...whats happening in India..
guys crosses the sea,steps on my homeland, kills my own people, gets caught and later...
he is treated like a VIP in jail by my own people...
Really, as a Indian it really hurts to see how a prime terorist is making fun of entire judicial system and of the country. I don't know, what we are trying to portray to the world. Why we are giving him so much of importance and why we are delaying the case. He should be hanged immediately. Don't know whether all such tactics to delay the case will result same like the one happened with those who attack parliament. Really, we indians are in a habit to forget everything.
How long we will take this shame on us..how long we we will bare this..the whole world is treating us as an impotent..
When people say that its not a " Banana Republic" , so the trail of Kasab should be by court.Here we can see how he is mocking at all of us.He is one of those who comes and kills, Destroy and terrorise, and we are entertaining his demands. I means what is wrong with blood of the people of the country.. why are we so acting so helpless in our own country.
All these can happen only in India.... When the whole world knows (and also saw in the videos) that Kasab mercilessly killed so many innocent lives, we are still toying with providing him "legal" counsel and filing court cases. Back home his other terrorist-bhais would be laughing merrily on this whole "drama". This case should have been wrapped up in just a single day and pronounced death sentence to him so that the whole lot terrorists understand that we are pretty serious in dealing with terrorism.

Some times i feel we shouldn't be in democracy, with hundreds of party which do nothing but vote bank politics. congress for minorities BJP for majorities..bull shit..

all of us know neither congress nor BJP did anything for the country..why should we vote.i myself have decided not to vote unless and untill better candidates are nominated..

i dont feel scared by these terrorist coming from otside..i feel scared by the terrorist who are ruling us..the politicians..

GOD SAVE INDIA..

SECULARISM

WHAT IS SECULARISM OR SECULARITY??

Secularism or secularity are also used in the meaning of Laïcité, a concept related to the separation of state and religion. Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of non-secular activities. An approximate synonym for secular is worldly; although this is often used from a Christian point of view.

Secularism has two distinct meanings.It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination.

Secular movementsIts proponents argue secularism is the concept that societies should be governed by a process of reasoning rather than dogmatic belief. Its opponents argue that secularism is a concept which, instead of presenting freedom of religion, actually holds all religions in contempt.State SecularismIn political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of church and state. This is the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society. This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Ten Commandments and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion.Secularism is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and plays a major role in Western society. The principles, but not necessarily practices, of Separation of church and state in the United States and Laïcité in France draw heavily on secularism.It is an essential component of a secular-humanist political ideology, because it adds to democracy by protecting the rights of atheist and religious minorities.

Government SecularismIn this sense, secularists would prefer that politicians make decisions based on secular reasons, rather than religious ones. Decisions about many contemporary issues, such as stem cell research and sex education, are often made on the basis of religious belief.Societal SecularismSecularism can also be the social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world and are instead segregated from matters of governance and reasoning. In this sense, secularism can be involved in the promotion of science, reason, and naturalistic thinking.Secularism can also mean the practice of working to promote any of those three forms of secularism. It should not be assumed that an advocate of secularism in one sense will also be a secularist in any other sense. Secularism does not necessarily equate to atheism; indeed, many secularists have counted themselves among the religious.

Some societies become increasingly secular as the result of social processes, rather than through the actions of a dedicated secular movement; see secularization.Secular ethicsHolyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism thus:Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:
(1) The improvement of this life by material means.
(2) That science is the available Providence of man.
(3) That it is good to do good.

Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good. Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.Secular societyIn studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. Generally, there is near-complete freedom of religion (one may believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction).

In the West, it is believed religion does not dictate political decisions, though the moral views originating in religious traditions remain important in political debate in some countries, such as Canada, France, United States and others (see Laïcité). Religious references are considered out-of-place in mainstream politics. Religious influence is also largely minimised in the public sphere, and religion no longer holds the same importance in people's lives as it used to.Modern sociology, born of a crisis of legitimation resulting from challenges to traditional Western religious authority, has since Durkheim often been preoccupied with the problem of authority in secularized societies and with secularization as a sociological or historical process. Twentieth-century scholars whose work has contributed to the understanding of these matters are Max Weber, Carl L. Becker, Karl Löwith, Hans Blumenberg, M.H. Abrams, Peter L. Berger, and Paul Bénichou, among others.Secular stateMost major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society.

The majority of Christians are proponents of a secular state, and may acknowledge that the idea has support in biblical teachings, specifically in the book of Luke, chapter 20, verse 25. In this verse, in response to a question about taxes, Jesus said, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." However, fundamentalism opposes secularism. The most significant forces of religious fundamentalism in the contemporary world are fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Islam.Some of the well-known constitutionally secular states are India, France, US, Turkey and South Korea.Criticism of secularismProponents of secularism have long held a general rise of secularism in all the senses enumerated above, and corresponding general decline of religion in so called 'secularized' countries, to be the inevitable result of the Enlightenment, as people turn towards science and rationalism and away from religion and superstition.Motto of the French republic on the tympanum of a church.Opponents think that this view is arrogant, that secular government creates more problems than it solves, and that a government without a secular ethos is better. Christian opponents contend that a Christian state can give more freedom of religion than a secular one. For evidence, they point to Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark, all have a constitutional link between church and state and are far more progressive and liberal societies than some countries without such a link. For example, Iceland was among the first countries to legalise abortion, and the Finnish government provides funding for the construction of Mosques. However, proponents of secularism note that Scandinavian countries are de facto among the most secular countries in the world, having low percentages of individuals who hold religious beliefs. Recently this argument has been debated publicly in Norway where movements sought to disestablish the state's Lutheran church. Some modern commentators have tried to demonize secularism by conflating it with anti-religious, atheistic, or even satanic belief systems.