roshangjha
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 404
- Reaction score
- 0
The 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution added the word Secularism to the preamble of our constitution. At that time, Secularism was meant to prohibit any discrimination against members of a particular race, caste, religion, gender or place of birth.
Though the definition of Indian Secularism remains unchanged, the way in which it is perceived in the modern society has changed a lot. This is especially true when we look at how our politicians and our mediapersons treat the subject of Secularism. It has become more of a political instrument than a social ideal.
Let us have a look at the 3 reason why India needs to Redefine its Idea of Secularism. The India here refers to the Indian Public, Media and the Politicians.
1) Secularism is not limited to Religion
Let us have a look at the way in which the topmost parties of India carry out their politics:-
Indian National Congress - Though Congress claims to be the most secular party in India, everyone knows that it has based its politics on Vote Banks. When talking of their political methods, one word comes to mind. HYPOCRISY. During elections, they try anything to gain minority votes. Be it talks of Sonia Gandhi crying on seeing Batla House Encounter or talks of providing reservations to Muslims, Congress can try anything to gain votes while later retracting the statements or not acting on it.
Bharatiya Janta Party - It is well known that the politics of Bharatiya Janta Party largely revolve around Hindutva. Its vote bank mainly comprises of Urban Youths, Upper Caste Voters and Hardcore Hindutva advocates.
Samajvadi Party (SP) - The vote bank of SP is largely based on Yadavs and Muslim voters.
BSP - BSP vote bank comprises of Dalits and Mahadalits.
I can go on and on. But, from what we can see above, most of the political parties base their votes on some Community or other. And when it comes to power, it is obvious that the party will be willing to keep its voters happy.
The discriminations against Brahmins during the rule of Lalu Yadav, attacks on Dalits during SP rule or appeasement of Muslims in Congress ruled states all point out to the fact that other communities are discriminated against when the party of a particular community comes to power.
Why single out the BJP then for having a largely Hindu Vote Bank? When some politician calls the BJP a communal party and calls their party secular, they try to base their conclusion on the fact that BJP has a Hindu Vote Bank while they have Muslims in their vote bank or want Muslims as their vote bank.
Why is it then that the definition of Communal only relates to Religion?
We need to change our definition of Communal to include parties that cater to any Community, be it based on Religion, Caste, Race or Gender.
2) Secularism should be about what one does, not about what one speaks
In our society at the moment, Secularism is a buzz word. Everyone wants to be known as a secular leader/person/journalist/media house, etc. And what is the criteria to determine if someone is secular? Well, its simple. Listen to what he speaks. If he is ready to say something negative on Narendra Modi, he must be secular. Parties certify themselves as the most secular party while no one tries to have a look at what their track record shows when they are in power.
After more than 50 years of ruling the country as a whole and most of its states, if the minorities are in a very poor condition as many committees set by our Govt. says, can Congress really be said to be secular? It focuses on the 2002 riots but forgets to mention 1984 massacre, 2012 Assam Riots, and the dozens of riots prior to 2002 in Congress ruled states. Even during 2002 riots, when the Gujarat Government requested assistance from all the 3 bordering states, none of them sent their police forces for help. (All were ruled by Congress or its Alliance.) Have a look at the below video where Digvijay Singh could not answer why Congress refused to help the Muslims as well as the Hindus who were dying in the riots by sending their police force. (After 2:48. I will recommend the whole video though)
3) Secularism must mean Removal of Your Tag
How many of us remember the recent speech of Akbaruddin Owaise regarding killing of 100 crore Hindus in 15 minutes?
How many remember or even know of Togadias speech against Muslims highlighting Nellie Massacre?
The two things that I have quoted above can be said to be speeches from two extremists who are using religion as a way to increase their influence in Indian society or Politics. But, what do we say when Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh where he says that Muslims must have first claim on resources?
Why couldnt he simply have stated that the poorest people in the country are the ones who must have first claim on resources? Why put the tag there? Are all Muslims in India poor? Does Mr. Azim Premji has more rights than Mr. Ambani on Indias resources?
When media houses question about how many Muslim Candidates did a party field or how many Christian Candidates did a party field in elections, are they not dividing the country a bit more based on these tags?
When Indian Constitution clearly says that there should be no discrimination on the basis of Religion, Caste, Race or Gender, why should these tags exist anymore? Why do we have to be labeled as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Marathi or a Bhaiyya, etc.?
Why cant all of us simply be INDIANS?
3 Reasons Why India needs to Redefine its Idea of Secularism | CBArticle Blog: For Your Information
To view the video there, you may visit the website.
What are your views on this?
Though the definition of Indian Secularism remains unchanged, the way in which it is perceived in the modern society has changed a lot. This is especially true when we look at how our politicians and our mediapersons treat the subject of Secularism. It has become more of a political instrument than a social ideal.
Let us have a look at the 3 reason why India needs to Redefine its Idea of Secularism. The India here refers to the Indian Public, Media and the Politicians.
1) Secularism is not limited to Religion
Let us have a look at the way in which the topmost parties of India carry out their politics:-
Indian National Congress - Though Congress claims to be the most secular party in India, everyone knows that it has based its politics on Vote Banks. When talking of their political methods, one word comes to mind. HYPOCRISY. During elections, they try anything to gain minority votes. Be it talks of Sonia Gandhi crying on seeing Batla House Encounter or talks of providing reservations to Muslims, Congress can try anything to gain votes while later retracting the statements or not acting on it.
Bharatiya Janta Party - It is well known that the politics of Bharatiya Janta Party largely revolve around Hindutva. Its vote bank mainly comprises of Urban Youths, Upper Caste Voters and Hardcore Hindutva advocates.
Samajvadi Party (SP) - The vote bank of SP is largely based on Yadavs and Muslim voters.
BSP - BSP vote bank comprises of Dalits and Mahadalits.
I can go on and on. But, from what we can see above, most of the political parties base their votes on some Community or other. And when it comes to power, it is obvious that the party will be willing to keep its voters happy.
The discriminations against Brahmins during the rule of Lalu Yadav, attacks on Dalits during SP rule or appeasement of Muslims in Congress ruled states all point out to the fact that other communities are discriminated against when the party of a particular community comes to power.
Why single out the BJP then for having a largely Hindu Vote Bank? When some politician calls the BJP a communal party and calls their party secular, they try to base their conclusion on the fact that BJP has a Hindu Vote Bank while they have Muslims in their vote bank or want Muslims as their vote bank.
Why is it then that the definition of Communal only relates to Religion?
We need to change our definition of Communal to include parties that cater to any Community, be it based on Religion, Caste, Race or Gender.
2) Secularism should be about what one does, not about what one speaks
In our society at the moment, Secularism is a buzz word. Everyone wants to be known as a secular leader/person/journalist/media house, etc. And what is the criteria to determine if someone is secular? Well, its simple. Listen to what he speaks. If he is ready to say something negative on Narendra Modi, he must be secular. Parties certify themselves as the most secular party while no one tries to have a look at what their track record shows when they are in power.
After more than 50 years of ruling the country as a whole and most of its states, if the minorities are in a very poor condition as many committees set by our Govt. says, can Congress really be said to be secular? It focuses on the 2002 riots but forgets to mention 1984 massacre, 2012 Assam Riots, and the dozens of riots prior to 2002 in Congress ruled states. Even during 2002 riots, when the Gujarat Government requested assistance from all the 3 bordering states, none of them sent their police forces for help. (All were ruled by Congress or its Alliance.) Have a look at the below video where Digvijay Singh could not answer why Congress refused to help the Muslims as well as the Hindus who were dying in the riots by sending their police force. (After 2:48. I will recommend the whole video though)
3) Secularism must mean Removal of Your Tag
How many of us remember the recent speech of Akbaruddin Owaise regarding killing of 100 crore Hindus in 15 minutes?
How many remember or even know of Togadias speech against Muslims highlighting Nellie Massacre?
The two things that I have quoted above can be said to be speeches from two extremists who are using religion as a way to increase their influence in Indian society or Politics. But, what do we say when Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh where he says that Muslims must have first claim on resources?
Why couldnt he simply have stated that the poorest people in the country are the ones who must have first claim on resources? Why put the tag there? Are all Muslims in India poor? Does Mr. Azim Premji has more rights than Mr. Ambani on Indias resources?
When media houses question about how many Muslim Candidates did a party field or how many Christian Candidates did a party field in elections, are they not dividing the country a bit more based on these tags?
When Indian Constitution clearly says that there should be no discrimination on the basis of Religion, Caste, Race or Gender, why should these tags exist anymore? Why do we have to be labeled as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Marathi or a Bhaiyya, etc.?
Why cant all of us simply be INDIANS?
3 Reasons Why India needs to Redefine its Idea of Secularism | CBArticle Blog: For Your Information
To view the video there, you may visit the website.
What are your views on this?
