This video is incredibly informative and well-presented! Keep up the great work!

The whole dispute arose when X'tians started conversion of the so called hindus to Christanity as part of Evangilization of India which was subsequently followed by Muslims who wanted to establish an Islamic state in India. Now the DMK is attempting to eradicate Sanathana Dharma as they very well know that that was the way of life of the inhabitants in India who were named Hindus during independence. The CAA 2019 amendments only aims to clarify the matters in a fair and just manner so that the persecuted and persecutors may no seek asylum in India which is a home to all human beings agreeable to a way of life as per the Sanathana Sharma which was being followed from time immemorial. The question of minority and majority in terms of religion will be done away with there will be no room for appeasement politics in Bharath.

Detailed explanation thank you

Very good 👍❤

nice & usefull.

Best

Secular state according to Ms. Anna Oomen means a state with no official religion. But prior to any other religions migrated to India from ancient years under kings rule in various regions there was no religion but the people were following Sanathana Dharma which does not means Hindu a connotation made by the british during independence in 1947. Therefore secular state means a state where Sanathana Sharma is followed not a state which has no official religion as now being said especially after inclusion of SECULAR in the preamble of our Constitution by the congress govt as part of appeasement of minorities. India was secular even prior to the above said amendment and hence person's religion was not taboo to migrate and settle down in India in ancient days and thus various religious people happened to cohabit peacefully as human beings.

Excellent information, keep it up

Nice 👍

Hindi में है क्या चैनल ?

Madam , I am from Srilanka Indian-origin Hindu living in Tamil Nadu paste 30 years can i apply Indian citizenship

Filled case against Bihari

Explanation and illustration are lucid . Here , in this issue art.14 and Preamble are the main issue including a question on dual CITIZENSHIP. First Preamble :- This issue is now under challenge in SC. The court itself had raised a question that , whether without changing the date of ADOPTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION , preamble can be changed ? Earlier SUPREME COURT ruled that PREAMBLE is a part of the Constitution and amenable .This judgment was delivered in the year 1976. Prior to 1976, in 1973 K. Bharati Judgment was passed wherein Basic Structure Doctrine was came into Constitutional matters , however not listing such items in our Constitution . Later, Preamble was declared as Basic Structure of the Constitution . Now, question is to decide whether without changing the date of adoption of our Constitution [29/11/1949] , PREAMBLE CAN BE CHANGED ? We must note it here PREAMBLE was changed in !976. Next issue is art.14:- Equality before the Law and Equal protection of Laws .[ LAW in article both in singular and plural form has some implication] .So far it is accepted that art 14 is the article which is applicable for both Citizens and Non Citizens. Not only that , in part III wherever in any article the word" Citizen" is not available , it is held that all those are for Not Citizens too. Apparently this view goes expressively against the view expressed by Dr. AMBEDKER in Constituent Assembly Debate on art 7 [ NOW ART.12] . In STATE TRADING CORPORATION vs. COMM TAX OFF. matter a 9 judges Bench of Supreme Court of India stated [ 7:2 ] that , in case of any doubt , CA debate should be looked into if possible to get the intention of Constitution makers. Having said so , nothing found in the said judgment that while explaining the position of Non Citizens in Part III of constitution of India. Therefore conclusion drawn is flawed on that point of view. WHAT DID Dr. AMBEDKER SAID ? READ: PARA 7.60.155 DTD .25/11/1948 OF CA DEBATE:- " The object of the Fundamental Rights is two-fold. First, that every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority." So, when object of part are specifically explained then how Court took different view ? Court should have explained . But, Bench fight sighed the matter even after uttering the need of such . Secondly, in para 7.160.156 he expressed that it was a stupid thought to repeat same phraseology every time , though in another context. In para 7.60.140 in question of territorial jurisdiction of STATE , he defined the areas where mere a resident also could avail the Fundamental Rights . What is meant by Indian territory ? " A part from the territories which form the part of India.........."[ if by mistake " a part " is read as " apart " , the entire situation will be different . IN FR CHAPTER PART III] all rights are flowing like a river and on its one Bank Citizens are standing and on the other side STATE is standing. Citizens will claim and STATE will oblige them by providing those Rights . CITIZENS have no binding as fundamental duties , but STATE have. Third issue :- DUAL CITIZENSHIP > When law is strictly barred to grant such, it is implied automatic . Like Confirmation of a job after probation period . If not intimated anything it will be automatic confirmed . Similarly , by law once granted, other Citizenship is automatically extinguished . When a negation clause is declared in a subject matter , the moment one step into that area , negation clause is automatically comes into effect.

Haa koie vhi akar baith jau chahe woe badi hoe yea or kuch and yea acc hindus k liye ek muslim k liye or ek but kuch vhi