What's new

Secularism is a Threat to Indian Muslims

SwAggeR

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
2,991
Reaction score
-13
Country
India
Location
India
11 November 2015

Secularism as practised in India is a threat to Indian Muslims for the reasons given in the paragraphs below. As per purely academic definitions, there are primarily two meanings of secularism. First, it is a movement of ideas that slowly removes the excessive influence of religion from social life. In this meaning, secularism undermines religious orthodoxies, frees individuals from the clutches of religion and empowers people to live their daily life in rational and meaningful ways. Second, there is a constitutional meaning of secularism which requires the Indian state to maintain distance from religion in policymaking and to treat all citizens equally.

However, there is a third, behavioural meaning of Indian secularism. In its behavioural meaning, secularism influences us as individuals in how we understand day-to-day developments in our societies and impacts on the minds of policymakers, government leaders, journalists, politicians and others. To fully grasp the phenomenon of secularism, one has to understand the habits of secularism in India, and comprehend its influences on our communities and leaders at the practical level. In its practical meaning as secularism is practiced in India, secularism is a threat to Indian Muslims, preventing their socio-economic and educational progress for the following reasons.

Secularism views Indian Muslims as Pakistanis, not as Indians. To convey this latent message to Indian Muslims, secular Hindus rush to release books and attend conferences in Pakistan, or to dine with Pakistani leaders such as General Pervez Musharraf. By any definition, Musharraf was the architect of the largest jihad against India in modern times. He not only launched the jihadist invasion of Kargil in 1999, it was on his watch that the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai were planned. To look good, secular Hindu journalists routinely invite Musharraf and other Pakistani leaders to our television studios for celebratory interviews, i.e. interviews which are unwarranted by current affairs developments. This is because secular Hindus unconsciously, subconsciously and sometimes consciously view Indian Muslims as part of the Pakistani identity.

Indian secularism is a form of latent racism, notably against Bangladeshis. For example, secular Indians do not speak in favour of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen when she is attacked in Hyderabad, India. Secular Hindus who love to visit Pakistan do not visit Bangladesh. India has played a critical military role in the creation of Bangladesh, but secular Hindus do not appreciate this Indian role. Bangladesh has truly liberal editors, unlike their Pakistani counterparts, but secular Hindus do not invite Bangladeshi journalists and writers to India for book events or conferences. A number of secular Indian editors are from West Bengal but they identify themselves with Pakistanis, not with next-door Bangladeshi journalists. Even Nitish Kumar loves to visit Pakistan, certifying the message to his voters that Indian Muslims are with Pakistan.

Secularism is another word for communalism. Indian secularism sows seeds of communal poison that causes riots and creates siege mentality among Muslims. Secularism resides in the siege mentality of Muslims. For example, at a village called Kangla Pahari in West Bengal secular Hindu officials have banned Durga Puja because it is disliked by Muslims. Such secular Hindu decisions give birth to Hindu extremism. Secularism engenders Hindu communalism and fosters Muslim insecurity. There were no 'Hindutva' forces in India before the secular Rajiv Gandhi made the following three decisions in the 1980s: the law that annulled the Supreme Court decision to give alimony to the destitute Muslim woman Shah Bano, the opening of Ayodhya locks that led to the demolition of Babri Mosque and the ban on The Satanic Verses.

Secularism does not seek to serve the interests of Muslims. It tells Indian Muslims: I will give you secularism and 5% quota in educational institutions and government jobs. Secular Hindus know that there are not more than 40 lakh central government jobs and even if 100% government jobs were given to Indian Muslims, it will not ensure their progress. The progress of communities is empowered by new ideas. But secularism doesn't tell Indian Muslims: I will give your daughters mathematics, economics and science from Grade 1. As per the Right to Education Act, all citizens of 6-14 years age must receive the same educational outcomes. But secular Hindus do not promise the same education to Muslims that they give their own kids. This is because secularism's purpose is not to serve the interests of Indian Muslims. Secularism is anti-Muslim.

Secularism loves to forge Muslim communalism, more so at elections times. For example, in the just-concluded Bihar elections, secularism drove about 84% Muslims to vote communally for a single party. Secularism creates herd mentality and pushes Muslims into minority syndrome. Over the past six decades, riots were caused by the Congress, but the Congress was routinely presented as secular. Secularism thrives in the minority syndrome created by secularism itself. It prevents Indian Muslims from seeing that their actual progress could result from studying economics, mathematics and material sciences. But secular Hindus ally with orthodox Islamic clerics such as Imam Bukhari. Both serve each other. Secularism wants to give a few computers to madrasas but doesn’t advocate educational transformation or police reforms to end the minority syndrome.

Indian secularism is anti-women. Secularism is essentially against the interests of Muslim women. For example, secular Hindu intellectuals and journalists are totally silent on the issue of ending the Shah Bano legislation that denied alimony to Muslim women. This legislation was created by the secular Rajiv Gandhi to serve the cause of secularism in India. Secular Hindus know that if Muslim women progress, their secularism will die. Secular writers and intellectuals do not advocate the cause of the Uniform Civil Code, one of the objectives of the Constitution. Even feminist Hindus do not oppose the mushrooming of Burqas and Islamism among Muslim communities. The silence of feminists serves secularism. At this point in time, the only section of Indian society advocating equality for Muslim women is the Hindu right-winger, the hope of liberty.

The secular Hindu is a coward who walks away from responsibility by arguing this: change must come from within Muslims. Throughout the course of history, social change has essentially come through external sources: from interaction with foreign ideas occurring through wars, technologies and globalisation. It is not surprising that there are no liberal Muslim writers and reformers in India. This is because if a true liberal Muslim writer arose, secularism will shun him. Secularism's purpose is served not by liberal Muslim writers but by Islamists. The cause of Muslim reform in India is currently limited to interpreting Islamic texts, whether it be the case of late Marxist writer Asghar Ali Engineer, or social activist Shaista Amber. The secular Hindu will not welcome any Muslim who dared to question basic ideas of Islam.

India spends of billions of rupees on departments of Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Islamic studies in universities across the country. However, graduates from these departments do not even attempt to think. They do not ponder over the human condition or the power of new ideas to drive change; they fear new ideas, innovation and progress. Subjugated by the secular Hindus and Islamic clerics, the Muslim youth is not a carrier of new ideas. In between there is a species called 'Moderate Muslim' who is mostly sleeping-walking. But if a liberal Muslim challenged religious orthodoxies and clerics rose against him, the moderate Muslim rises up and attacks both. The moderate Muslim serves the purpose of secularism just in time. Indian secularism is a plot against Indian Muslims.


Secularism is a Threat to Indian Muslims, Islam and Politics, Tufail Ahmad, New Age Islam, New Age Islam

@Star Wars @ranjeet @arp2041 @magudi @Roybot
 
New Age Islam. 21st century's gift to reform in Islam and India. Let's see how far this goes. :tup:

The secular Hindu is a coward who walks away from responsibility
:agree: True.

This is because secular Hindus unconsciously, subconsciously and sometimes consciously view Indian Muslims as part of the Pakistani identity.

Indian secularism is a form of latent racism, notably against Bangladeshis. For example, secular Indians do not speak in favour of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen when she is attacked in Hyderabad, India. Secular Hindus who love to visit Pakistan do not visit Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has truly liberal editors, unlike their Pakistani counterparts, but secular Hindus do not invite Bangladeshi journalists and writers to India for book events or conferences. A number of secular Indian editors are from West Bengal but they identify themselves with Pakistanis, not with next-door Bangladeshi journalists. Even Nitish Kumar loves to visit Pakistan, certifying the message to his voters that Indian Muslims are with Pakistan.

For example, at a village called Kangla Pahari in West Bengal secular Hindu officials have banned Durga Puja because it is disliked by Muslims.

But secular Hindus ally with orthodox Islamic clerics such as Imam Bukhari. Both serve each other. Secularism wants to give a few computers to madrasas but doesn’t advocate educational transformation or police reforms to end the minority syndrome.

Secularism is essentially against the interests of Muslim women. For example, secular Hindu intellectuals and journalists are totally silent on the issue of ending the Shah Bano legislation that denied alimony to Muslim women.
Perfect. Almost like I was writing.
 
New Age Islam. 21st century's gift to reform in Islam and India. Let's see how far this goes. :tup:


:agree: True.
It didn't/won't take off under Congress. For it to take off BJP is required at center.
Perfect. Almost like I was writing.

You could have done even better !! I know.

o_0 is how my face was while reading the article

I also feel this article is raising some uncomfortable questions , but the way it doing that is innovative.
 
I think you need to be very specific in your pleadings. Like begin by underscoring that there is nothing wrong with separation of Church and State, but only in its perversion, as you see it. Without that bit of preliminary statement, readers will read it without being sure whether you are advocating that India stop being a secular country altogether. That would be a wrong thing to say, IMO.
 
Indian secularism is a form of latent racism, notably against Bangladeshis. For example, secular Indians do not speak in favour of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen when she is attacked in Hyderabad, India. Secular Hindus who love to visit Pakistan do not visit Bangladesh. India has played a critical military role in the creation of Bangladesh, but secular Hindus do not appreciate this Indian role. Bangladesh has truly liberal editors, unlike their Pakistani counterparts, but secular Hindus do not invite Bangladeshi journalists and writers to India for book events or conferences. A number of secular Indian editors are from West Bengal but they identify themselves with Pakistanis, not with next-door Bangladeshi journalists. Even Nitish Kumar loves to visit Pakistan, certifying the message to his voters that Indian Muslims are with Pakistan.

Maybe Indian Muslims dont like to associate with Bangladesh because for that they can be tagged as illegal.
Or Indian Muslims are really communal that they dont like the liberal face of Bangladesh.
Or they are ignorant or damn care type that dont think much beyond countries other than India and Pakistan exist.
And to appease these Indian Muslim sentiments, Indian Hindus curbed their agenda accordingly.
Whatever the reason behind Indian Hindus and Muslims really dont care about Bangladesh, its true.
 

i won't judge the source website at the moment but the author, tufail ahmad, is pro-sangh and almost ghar-wapsi'ed and a house-muslim, so one must look at the article with those glasses.

11 November 2015
First, it is a movement of ideas that slowly removes the excessive influence of religion from social life. In this meaning, secularism undermines religious orthodoxies, frees individuals from the clutches of religion and empowers people to live their daily life in rational and meaningful ways.

1. which in india is forwarded by the older-style socialists/communists/rationalist and the newer movement called "aam aadmi party" ( including its rebels ) and the various progressive citizens who struggle to find voice on the roads, the college campuses and the internet that in the last 10 years have become hugely dominated by the reactionaries.

2. which in india is opposed not only by the modern muslim tendency towards reactionary thought but majorly by the sangh camp that the writer sits in.

Second, there is a constitutional meaning of secularism which requires the Indian state to maintain distance from religion in policymaking and to treat all citizens equally.

and because the indian constitution seems to be ambiguous largely, we in india in 2015 have continued to have uniquely indian problems dating to 900 bc or those problems that were removed by other modern societies decades ago through socialist revolution.

However, there is a third, behavioural meaning of Indian secularism. In its behavioural meaning, secularism influences us as individuals in how we understand day-to-day developments in our societies and impacts on the minds of policymakers, government leaders, journalists, politicians and others. To fully grasp the phenomenon of secularism, one has to understand the habits of secularism in India, and comprehend its influences on our communities and leaders at the practical level.

i have the proper definition of the secularism practiced in common indian society generally and promoted by the indian state/establishment - "i will tolerate your religious nonsense as long as you tolerate my religious nonsense".

Secularism views Indian Muslims as Pakistanis, not as Indians. To convey this latent message to Indian Muslims, secular Hindus rush to release books and attend conferences in Pakistan, or to dine with Pakistani leaders such as General Pervez Musharraf.

and may that section of people increase !!

the author seems to be talking the same war-mongering language as the current "defense" minister, manohar parrikar.

By any definition, Musharraf was the architect of the largest jihad against India in modern times. He not only launched the jihadist invasion of Kargil in 1999

and to be fair, the north koreans can file war crimes charges against the indian establishment/military for the latter's participation in the korea war on the uno side ( the nato side )... four million dprk ( north korea ) citizens were killed in that war of nato capitalist imperialism and resistance by dprk.

i as a socialist and humanitarian would support the assertion of dprk.

Bangladesh has truly liberal editors, unlike their Pakistani counterparts

i am not trying to take away bangladeshi liberalism but what tufail says is a deliberate half-truth... he is trying to instigate bangladeshis against pakistanis.

There were no 'Hindutva' forces in India before the secular Rajiv Gandhi made the following three decisions in the 1980s: the law that annulled the Supreme Court decision to give alimony to the destitute Muslim woman Shah Bano, the opening of Ayodhya locks that led to the demolition of Babri Mosque and the ban on The Satanic Verses.

again, :rofl:

top bullshitter this tufail fellow.

and though i must thank him for his concern for destitute muslim women, where is his concern for hindu women most of whom cannot remarry when widowed, or suffer from dowry problems, or what about his view on the recent supreme court's mistake of disallowing hindu women from inheriting paternal property if the father died before 2005??

not only a top bullshitter but a top hypocrite as well.

Secularism does not seek to serve the interests of Muslims. It tells Indian Muslims: I will give you secularism and 5% quota in educational institutions and government jobs. Secular Hindus know that there are not more than 40 lakh central government jobs and even if 100% government jobs were given to Indian Muslims, it will not ensure their progress. The progress of communities is empowered by new ideas. But secularism doesn't tell Indian Muslims: I will give your daughters mathematics, economics and science from Grade 1. As per the Right to Education Act, all citizens of 6-14 years age must receive the same educational outcomes. But secular Hindus do not promise the same education to Muslims that they give their own kids. This is because secularism's purpose is not to serve the interests of Indian Muslims. Secularism is anti-Muslim.

right, i want tufail to write another article putting his clear support for a "uniform civil code" designed by progressives/socialist and which will take care of not only the social/economic life of muslim but also of hindus and the other communities.

i do not support reservation because socialism is the key to real indian progress and ucc is the first step.

68 years have gone by of india perhaps being the biggest failed state in the world... let ucc clean that up - a swacch india.

Secularism loves to forge Muslim communalism, more so at elections times. For example, in the just-concluded Bihar elections, secularism drove about 84% Muslims to vote communally for a single party. Secularism creates herd mentality and pushes Muslims into minority syndrome. Over the past six decades, riots were caused by the Congress, but the Congress was routinely presented as secular. Secularism thrives in the minority syndrome created by secularism itself.

and did the biggest vote bank party india, the bjp, not win a single vote??

It prevents Indian Muslims from seeing that their actual progress could result from studying economics, mathematics and material sciences.

when money system is something that must be abolished, economics must be modified towards socialism and the modern capitalist bullshit training grounds called "mba colleges" and "business schools" must not be studied but reviled... aakh thoo !!

But secular Hindus ally with orthodox Islamic clerics such as Imam Bukhari. Both serve each other. Secularism wants to give a few computers to madrasas but doesn’t advocate educational transformation or police reforms to end the minority syndrome.

and what do rss shakhas, sri sri ravishankar's ashram and the hippie'fied hindutva gurukuls teach?? certainly not the ideals of communism and the romance of space travel.

Indian secularism is anti-women. Secularism is essentially against the interests of Muslim women.

as against that most feminist of indian males - pramod muthalik. :enjoy:

For example, secular Hindu intellectuals and journalists are totally silent on the issue of ending the Shah Bano legislation that denied alimony to Muslim women.

why doesn't tufail point out that shah bano's case was really a perversion of true islami socialistic marriage law and that the indian "civil law" marriage system derives indirectly from the same true islami wedding procedure??

This legislation was created by the secular Rajiv Gandhi to serve the cause of secularism in India.

did the same rajiv gandhi ban rss and the various sangh branches present during his governance??

and the same rajiv gandhi was a opponent of socialism ( rajiv gandhi saw pakistan as buffer against ussr ).

Secular Hindus know that if Muslim women progress, their secularism will die.

what is this nonsense?? :what:

Secular writers and intellectuals do not advocate the cause of the Uniform Civil Code

hain??

Even feminist Hindus do not oppose the mushrooming of Burqas and Islamism among Muslim communities.

really?? did someone personally tell him??

or maybe he is talking about sanghi fake-feminists like madhu kishwar or that loudmouth, smriti irani... these two typify the reactionary apologists and members who would be comfortable with burqas because birds of the same feather flock together.

let me also remind the read of another sanghi fake-feminist, nirmala sitaraman, a spokesperson for the bjp now and who was removed from the "national commission for women" in 2009 because she had voiced support for that sanghi terrorist, pramod muthalik, who then had become world infamous for getting his terror group, sri ram sena, to raid a disco in mangalore city and beat up the female patrons there in the a brutal and repulsive fashion... perhaps tufail considers nirmala sitaraman to be a true feminist.

At this point in time, the only section of Indian society advocating equality for Muslim women is the Hindu right-winger, the hope of liberty.

ho ho ho ho... ho ho ho ho.

jai feminist baba pramod muthalik... jai bajrang dal.

change must come from within Muslims.

idiot, then speak of the four muslims who were among the eight founders of the communist party of india in 1921.

Throughout the course of history, social change has essentially come through external sources: from interaction with foreign ideas occurring through wars, technologies and globalisation.

so tufail ahmad, let us speak of the coming 2017 centenary anniversary of the russian revolution and the change it brought to all societies in the world.

It is not surprising that there are no liberal Muslim writers and reformers in India.

liberal and reformer like his sanghi self??

The secular Hindu will not welcome any Muslim who dared to question basic ideas of Islam.

and what is the basic idea of islam, sir??

India spends of billions of rupees on departments of Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Islamic studies in universities across the country. However, graduates from these departments do not even attempt to think.

as if graduates from other departments and communities have achieved anything ( no invention from India in 60 years: n. r. narayana murthy ).

They do not ponder over the human condition or the power of new ideas to drive change; they fear new ideas, innovation and progress.

what about the rss and its supreme research into the goodness of gau mutra and the various sangh proponents of the theory that "indians" 5000 years ago were flying about between planets built on vedic technologies??

Subjugated by the secular Hindus and Islamic clerics, the Muslim youth is not a carrier of new ideas. In between there is a species called 'Moderate Muslim' who is mostly sleeping-walking. But if a liberal Muslim challenged religious orthodoxies and clerics rose against him, the moderate Muslim rises up and attacks both. The moderate Muslim serves the purpose of secularism just in time. Indian secularism is a plot against Indian Muslims.

there is another and older category called the socialist muslim, whose main enemy, like with any socialist in india, is the saffroni camp that tufail belongs to.

Or Indian Muslims are really communal that they dont like the liberal face of Bangladesh.

sadly, that is true to a large extent.
 
Sometimes, I just think... this world has surpassed its capacity. It's overflowing. Our day-to-day lives are replete with both happiness and misfortune. Yet, because we cannot see the excess from the inside, we still feel unfulfilled. Given that we are capable of acknowledging neither excess nor deprivation, we might as well not exist. In other words... you can't withdraw coins from an ATM. That's common sense.
 
Sometimes, I just think... this world has surpassed its capacity. It's overflowing. Our day-to-day lives are replete with both happiness and misfortune. Yet, because we cannot see the excess from the inside, we still feel unfulfilled. Given that we are capable of acknowledging neither excess nor deprivation, we might as well not exist. In other words... you can't withdraw coins from an ATM. That's common sense.

that belongs to the "whatever" thread really. :D

but it is a good piece of text. :tup:
 
Maybe Indian Muslims dont like to associate with Bangladesh because for that they can be tagged as illegal.
Or Indian Muslims are really communal that they dont like the liberal face of Bangladesh.
Or they are ignorant or damn care type that dont think much beyond countries other than India and Pakistan exist.
And to appease these Indian Muslim sentiments, Indian Hindus curbed their agenda accordingly.
Whatever the reason behind Indian Hindus and Muslims really dont care about Bangladesh, its true.
No that's not true. Some do. But that does not discount some of the uncomfortable facts that we would like to to be addressed.
 
Maybe Indian Muslims dont like to associate with Bangladesh because for that they can be tagged as illegal.
Or Indian Muslims are really communal that they dont like the liberal face of Bangladesh.
Or they are ignorant or damn care type that dont think much beyond countries other than India and Pakistan exist.
And to appease these Indian Muslim sentiments, Indian Hindus curbed their agenda accordingly.
Whatever the reason behind Indian Hindus and Muslims really dont care about Bangladesh, its true.


Hindus do for liberal ones.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom