I seem to have struck a nerve.
Pakistan has secular laws? Really? The fact that Pakistan has blasphemy laws - which are applied throughout the country - negates any other secular practice of society.
Balderdash. You can look at the very short list of controversial cases associated with these laws, and contrast them with just once incident of communal rioting in India and the truth bears itself out. There is uproar in Pakistan against these laws. However, I see the butcher of Gujrat, Modi, in power in India. Don't wax poetic about the negation of secular practices. Apnay giraybaan mein jhaankiyay.
Possibly, but these so called Muslim nationalists did not come even close in terms of Popularity to Gandhi.
Possibly, but that just proves that muslim leaders were not popular amongst Hindus and vice-versa. This phenomenon clearly didn't exist in 1857, but it certainly took hold after Gandhi's return from South Africa and the subsequent hinduization of the Congress.
Gandhi didnt introduce Hinduism in politics, nor was he communal, you're sadly misinformed. A byproduct of biased and blind nationalist history no doubt. He followed the standard Indian practice of taking the garb of a saint - for Muslims and Hindus alike - to gain a mass following. Shahid Amin in his book - "Event, Metaphor, Memory" - researches this so called Gandhi effect. According to him, Gandhi was not a static signifier during the independence struggle - Hindu, Communal, etc - like you suggest, rather, he was appropriated by people of different religious backgrounds as one of them. Won't go into details as this is an offtopic discussion, but lets not bandy half truths as history.
This may be your perspective, but it is not the truth. And the book I just quoted is not part of the educational curriculum in Pakistan - another topic that Indians seem to be hugely mistaken about. But let's leave that mental reprogramming for a different thread.
As I said, while I have already cited a few books and other references, the fact of the matter is that history speaks loudly and clearly on this subject. Jinnah was the poster child for Hindu Muslim Unity, and it was Gandhi that alienated him by communalizing politics, bringing in Hindu symbolism, Hindu religious lingo, Hindu dogma, Hindu slogans, the promise of Sanskritized schools post-partition and so on and so forth. It was then that Jinnah declared, "Gandhi baghal ka churra hay" - "Gandhi is a dagger disguised!"
We don't have to agree on this subject, by the way. We are already far, far removed from the thread title. We can agree to disagree and just move on.
That is the correct attitude. Words like secular dont mean much until they are actually practiced. Pakistan needs to understand that a modern nation state in the 21st century cannot afford not be secular.
Non-muslims in Pakistan are free to practice their faith as they wish. Earlier in this thread I provided a long list of facts about Pakistani society viz this issue, and also brought up Governmental support (logistics and financial) to assist non-muslim citizens and pilgrims/visitors. I find the Indian view of Pakistan so highly caricatured that it never ceases to amaze me. Mr. Cowasjee, a Parsi, writes often in Dawn and is known for his scathing - and I mean scathing - attacks against politicians, sitting Prime Ministers and Presidents. Not a hair on the man's head has been harmed due to any of this. He is invited to discussions on TV channels regularly where he abuses (literally) the "muslim" leaders of Pakistan. Everyone listens to him and respects him. There are innumerable examples...
This is easily explained. The majority religion does not feel as threatened in a Muslim country, so there would be no need to support or vote for a religious party. The rise of the BJP in India was due to a backlash of so called Muslim appeasement that was felt in middle class Hindu India during the 80s and 90s. These people felt (misguidedly of course) that their religion was threatened and hence voted for a fascist party.
Hindus feeling that Muslims were being "appeased"... so being the majority they vote in a radical Hindu party, that also happens to be, in your own words, fascist. A party that has a single muslim representative, and him too, for show. If that doesn't make the case for the two nation theory, I don't know what the hell would.
You can't put them in the same basket, they refer to completely different things. Atheism is a personal practice, Secularism essentially refers to the practice of a State.
Of course you can't. But there are a large number of idiots in Pakistan who don't fully grasp the meaning of either and thus equate the two words. If you go back to the start of this thread, you will note that this is the very position I took to begin with. That Pakistan is, for all practical purposes, secular. I contrasted law and practice in Pakistan with countries like Saudi Arabia. The differences are massive. Theocracies and Secular states do not have perfect definitions which allow for binary classification - there are numerous shades of gray. For example, the United States allows parents to vote on what is taught in schools. As a consequence, evolution is not taught in most southern states. Even in the US, a Christian majority view can impact children of all faiths and background. In the context of these shades of gray, Pakistan is far, far removed from a theocracy and far closer to the absolute notion of a secular state, if there is such a thing.
With that said, I conclude my participation in this discussion. Good luck to you!
)before that there wasnt a single Riot between Hindu and Muslims....I think that has created some tension between two community...and that leaded to the situation right now ....so you cant blem the indian secularism for this..you need to blem the politician who asked for the separate pakistan.
