India is about to hang someone.

Which bit am I missing? There is nothing in the text quoted that says prisoners of war can't be hanged.

Is he even a prisoner of war?

I doubt it, it's a very long document. I know that 99% of British police officers wouldn't have the first idea about the UK constitution, most of them probably don't even know we have one.

Besides, the whole point of a secular state is that you have constitution that doesn't represent any religion, but all people in a country.

I doubt it, it's a very long document. I know that 99% of British police officers wouldn't have the first idea about the UK constitution, most of them probably don't even know we have one.

Besides, the whole point of a secular state is that you have constitution that doesn't represent any religion, but all people in a country.

yes he is. What about this mate article 25b I think its game set and match to the Khalistan movement and Baba Rajoana.

Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

Do your research.

You will find that the Indian Government censors any campaign for Sikh justice. Hence, by publicising this case Sikhs are able to gain world-wide media attention to show the world how corrupt the justice system is.

It's nonsense to suggest that in every situation, even that of genocide, it is wrong to assassinate the instigator.

If you're referring to Schedule II clause b then it has been repealed. http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm

Yes but as per international law a prisoner of war cannot be hanged, understand?

Look. You can either read what I wrote or spout your propaganda to someone else.

I have said that he shouldn't be hanged. That is not my point.

If you're referring to Schedule II clause b then it has been repealed. http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm

Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly

If you're referring to Schedule II clause b then it has been repealed. http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion.—(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and
to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or
prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or
other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open
of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and
sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to
be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus
shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina
or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be
construed accordingly.

So, I've found the bit you're talking abou it is article 25, perhaps it would be better to look at the whole article to see the sentence in context:



Basically I read it as where the constitution once referred to Hindus and Hindu religious institutions it has now been amended and clarified to include other religions. I don't really see the problem, surely this a good thing? Of course it would be better if there were no mention of religion by removing the words I have emboldened above, rather than having to add a clarification listing other religions. But maybe it's just a matter of legal conformity to simply add explanations to amend the constitution rather than rewording the original text.

I don't really care what other countries want to do. It's none of our concern.

mate your pdf says this:

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.—(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains or Buddhists.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

So, I've found the bit you're talking abou it is article 25, perhaps it would be better to look at the whole article to see the sentence in context:



Basically I read it as where the constitution once referred to Hindus and Hindu religious institutions it has now been amended and clarified to include other religions. I don't really see the problem, surely this a good thing? Of course it would be better if there were no mention of religion by removing the words I have emboldened above, rather than having to add a clarification listing other religions. But maybe it's just a matter of legal conformity to simply add explanations to amend the constitution rather than rewording the original text.

Whichever way you interpret it, Sikhs are not given separate recognition as a religion. Which we can both agree is ridiculous (given how the two faiths contrast big time).

what are you on about mate. Where is the mention of chrisitanity or islam in the previous clause. I am insulted that you suggest that I should happy that my religion got brackted in with Hinduism in the constitution, dont forget con-man Gandhi's promises about sikh representation in constitution

dont forget con-man Gandhi's promises about sikh representation in constitution

I agree that other religions should be included in their too, or preferably the mention to individual religions removed all together, but at least we have shown that Sikhs are afforded the same theoretical rights in the constitution now as Hindus.

I agree that other religions should be included in their too, or preferably the mention to individual religions removed all together, but at least we have shown that Sikhs are afforded the same theoretical rights in the constitution now as Hindus.