Does India need Secularism?

[AUSTERLITZ]

Without secularism we would be no different from hndu version of saudis or radical fundamentalists.I at least won't want to live in religious fanatic's india.Its not india for me.
Also by taking away secularism concept u are taking away choice from all agnostics and atheists... just another name for fascism really.

 

[sankranti]

:agreed:That's what I meant, no one can change it.

People advocating on civilization based on religion should know that. The religious struggle period is over. Which is a part all race and civilization go through to become stable. Now if you want to make it capable, then you have to jettison those religious tanks and move towards global civilization.

You cant live in hate. People who live in hate will exterminate themselves, just like some other religion, you can guess what I am referring to.

You are either Naive or you choose to be ignorant.

Religious struggle is over in most part of the world where Islam and Christianity has taken over and has established their supremacy by eating and digesting native religion and culture. Today Christianity and Islam control most of the Lands, Finance and Firearms and the Media in the WORLD. If it wasn't for the rise of China ...India would have been alone in fighting this loosing battle.

In Rest of the Lands like China and India the Religious struggle is still on by the Natives. They fight Well Funded and organized Rabid Supremacists from Christianity......and to a much smaller extend by Islamic supremacists.

India today is a Battle Ground.

Keeping your eyes closed will not make this reality go away.

How do you expect Stability is a world that is full of such rabid extremists ? India did not go to other countries to start this war ......they have come uninvited to our land to destroy our culture, our value systems and our way of life. Its a battle for Survival.

The jews once thought like you did and thought the world was a nice beautiful place and they could live happily ever after there ........ you know how that story ended.

 

[Pride]

Secularism in true form is as missing in India as Democracy in its true form. Secularism is acceptance and tolerance towards other race, religion, Color, creed etc. Do you want to remove it? No, I will never accept such society in India.

While Secularism is considered as tool by politicians for "Muslim appeasement" during election. This needs to perished from Indian Society and can be done by Muslims only.

 

[The_Showstopper]

that would force us to get back our historical lands your option is kashmir+150 million muslims , yes or no or no response .

Are "150 million INDIAN muslims" some kind of commodity for you which you want to trade off with Pakistan. Let those INDIAN muslims decide what they want and I don't think it is any of your business to decide who stays where....

 

[bronxbull]

no it is my business,they live at the mercy of the majority.

 

[Kaniska]

What is this thing called 'Secularism'?

Why does India need Secularism?

What advantages Secularism offers to Indic Society compared to No-Secularism?

There was No Secularism before 1947, Why Indian society cannot live without secularism? Arguments by the proponents of secularism claim that India will break off without Secularism.

I am not sure about your question...But India's quest for secularism is always related to Nehru's quest for grabbing power....If Congress was so desperate to make India secular then Congress could have agreed to share power to Jinah and could have stopped creation of Pakistan...My intention is no way to say that Pakistan should be created or not...If you read histroy from neutral point of view, Jinah was also a good secular leader so like Nehru....But it is the duplicity of Congress and ambition that do not provide any space for negotiation to Jinah for minorities.....I respect Pakistan as a nation...But my intention is to expose the hypocrisy of Congress and its founding people who pioneered the secularism to save their a** and to get the power of independent India.....

Hence all these words secularism and other things are just ways to exploit the public by political parties...This was happening at 1947 and also it is happening now too...Only difference is that it is happening now in different versions...

 

[Kaniska]

if we give up secularism we will suffer the same fate as that of Pakistan....

Absolutely wrong...Why do you first of think that we are far better than Pakistan...A nation where more than half of its people do not have living standard like a human being, do you consider it as a nation with any pride?...

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Absolutely wrong...Why do you first of think that we are far better than Pakistan...A nation where more than half of its people do not have living standard like a human being, do you consider it as a nation with any pride?...

Ya, a hindu revolution will bring ocaens of milk and honey into our land

 

[Kaniska]

Ya, a hindu revolution will bring ocaens of milk and honey into our land

Never...I would never ever go for a Hindu kind of nation too...But at least i can aspire for a nation where nation should be built without any bias to any religion.....I will ask you other way around....without being a Hindu nation, which anyway I never support it, what else we have achieved it....See our hypocratic political system where one way we have to choose a corrupt Congress or the other way we have to choose a leader like Modi? Is it not a matter of shame for us that we even do not have a choice to represent in political system...I choose and vote for Modi not because I like him....rather just because it is a comparative failure of our biased political system where i can not stand anytime with Congress of so called secular party...

Apart from these I can find a hope with Arvind Kejriwal....But till that point i will go for a leader which I may not like completely..but at least he gains his vote just because his alternative are worst than him.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not sure about your question...But India's quest for secularism is always related to Nehru's quest for grabbing power....If Congress was so desperate to make India secular then Congress could have agreed to share power to Jinah and could have stopped creation of Pakistan...My intention is no way to say that Pakistan should be created or not...If you read histroy from neutral point of view, Jinah was also a good secular leader so like Nehru....But it is the duplicity of Congress and ambition that do not provide any space for negotiation to Jinah for minorities.....I respect Pakistan as a nation...But my intention is to expose the hypocrisy of Congress and its founding people who pioneered the secularism to save their a** and to get the power of independent India.....

Hence all these words secularism and other things are just ways to exploit the public by political parties...This was happening at 1947 and also it is happening now too...Only difference is that it is happening now in different versions...

This is a very confused point of view, with good analysis and bad jostling for space.

Jinnah was a secular leader in the early stages, during his Congress membership, in the early decades of the twentieth century. When he returned from London at the pleading of the Muslim League and took up its leadership, his purposes and objectives were the purposes and objectives of the Muslim League, and they were no longer secular.

On the other hand, irrespective of the Muslim League's objectives, and Jinnah's brilliant advocacy of these objectives, there was nothing compelling Gandhi (not Nehru) to deny any space to the quests for identity that were so evident then, and which were repressed by the Congress, and by Gandhi's insistence that there could be no other identity that would be allowed to find expression. It was not just about denying the Muslims space, the Congress also suppressed the Dalits, with Gandhi threatening to fast to death unless Ambedkar gave up his separate demands for Dalits; it suppressed the Tamils, who were enraged to the extent of withholding wholehearted support to the Indian union until 1962; it suppressed the tribals of Bastar and central India, with the consequences that are visible in front of all of us to see; and it suppressed the whole of the north-east in that region's own multifarious quests for identity, yet another example where the trouble is with us even today.

It is wrong to say that the Congress adopted secularism of the Indian sort "to save their a**", because the Congress genuinely believed that they were right; it is right to say that they sought power, and that their secular image was one of the aspects that they hoped would gain them the electorate.

It is difficult to support you in all respects. The Congress definition of secularism was pernicious; far from the exclusion of religion and religious identity from all public places and public occasions. Their definition was based on everyone being equally free to drag religion into the public sphere; instead of blocking it, the Congress doctrine on secularism went to the other extreme of appeasing the religious fringe of each religion, rather than to the progressive minded elements inside it.

You failed to mention that their stupidity is matched by the bigotry of another national trend. This national trend has picked up on the hypocrisy of the Congress, but it has sought to replace those hypocrisies with an exclusionary philosophy. They have used the vote bank tactics of the Congress to belabour the Congress, but instead of replacing it with a neutral approach to the electorate, they have made their stand on the electorate isolated by vote banks Congress style.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Never...I would never ever go for a Hindu kind of nation too...But at least i can aspire for a nation where nation should be built without any bias to any religion.....I will ask you other way around....without being a Hindu nation, which anyway I never support it, what else we have achieved it....See our hypocratic political system where one way we have to choose a corrupt Congress or the other way we have to choose a leader like Modi? Is it not a matter of shame for us that we even do not have a choice to represent in political system...I choose and vote for Modi not because I like him....rather just because it is a comparative failure of our biased political system where i can not stand anytime with Congress of so called secular party...

Apart from these I can find a hope with Arvind Kejriwal....But till that point i will go for a leader which I may not like completely..but at least he gains his vote just because his alternative are worst than him.....

You just like to talk big big things and most of it is nonsense. The reason why India chose to be secular is avoid needless underlying tensions. 150 million is the pop of britain- you want to alienate this group and expect to see great great things happen? Why? Becuase they don;t vote for a party that YOU think should rule? In a democracy people are supposed to vote for parties that represent THEIR interests. Not YOURS, and the muslims are wrong because they do not ignore the venom and attacks that the BJP leaders have historically spewed on them and vote for BJP? They vote congress because congress best represents their interests. And you are no one to counter-question their decision or change the constitution just becuase you'd like to see your guy win. PERIOD

Your Modi has not promised a single fundamental reform of the system. The biggest reform needed is to make CBI independent- is he gonna do that? Of course not! He is gonna harangue and harass people with that for his own gains the way the congress is doing now. Worse, he is not going to remove corruption either. In his own state he REFUSED to appoint a lokayukta for several years to hide any goings on, several of his cabinet ministers are corrupt and criminals. Your 'revolution' with hinduism is as degraded as the system it is supposed to replace. Worse still when their government is exposed to be corrupt BJP resorts to sentiment tones to hide it. That's when cow protection and ayodhya etc. become shriller- coz they want people to stop talking about the 10,000 crore scam in obalapuram mining company. One of Modi's ardent supporters and 'friends' happens to be Yeddy and Nitin Gdakari- both famous for their scams.

You're just pulling this stuff out of your @$$ aren't you?

 

[FaujHistorian]

This is a very confused point of view, with good analysis and bad jostling for space.

Jinnah was a secular leader in the early stages, during his Congress membership, in the early decades of the twentieth century. When he returned from London at the pleading of the Muslim League and took up its leadership, his purposes and objectives were the purposes and objectives of the Muslim League, and they were no longer secular. .

I resisted getting into this intra-Indian debate.

However I see so much "misinformation" being spread around. So here are my 2 cents worth

Congress was not 100% secular. Instead it was "multi-religious" platform. All major Mullahs were in Congress
--- Main funders for Congress were Textile Mill owners
--- Thus it was a party for the mill owners by the mill owners

Muslim League was not 100% religious either. Majority of Mullahs hated Jinnah and declared him Kafir.
--- Main funders for ML were big land lords
--- thus it was a party for the land lords by the land lords


With this quick bullet points,

Let me emphasize that religion was being used by both parties to gather more votes. Congress used Mullahs to gather Muslims votes, Mandirs to gather Hindu upper caste vote, and Harijan slogan was used to gather lower caste votes.

But the real fight was between the old aristocratic land lords (mostly Muslims)

and

Newly rich textile mill owners that were mostly Hindus.


Therefore the core of the tussle was economic.
and lot less religious.


Thank you

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I resisted getting into this intra-Indian debate.

However I see so much "misinformation" being spread around. So here are my 2 cents worth

Congress was not 100% secular. Instead it was "multi-religious" platform. All major Mullahs were in Congress
--- Main funders for Congress were Textile Mill owners
--- Thus it was a party for the mill owners by the mill owners

Muslim League was not 100% religious either. Majority of Mullahs hated Jinnah and declared him Kafir.
--- Main funders for ML were big land lords
--- thus it was a party for the land lords by the land lords


With this quick bullet points,

Let me emphasize that religion was being used by both parties to gather more votes. Congress used Mullahs to gather Muslims votes, Mandirs to gather Hindu upper caste vote, and Harijan slogan was used to gather lower caste votes.

But the real fight was between the old aristocratic land lords (mostly Muslims)

and

Newly rich textile mill owners that were mostly Hindus.


Therefore the core of the tussle was economic.
and lot less religious.


Thank you

Your historical understanding is incomplete. When Gandhi took over, he changed the character of Congress to a mass movement rather than the elite one it used to be. Calling it textile mill owner party is flawed. And yes, Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity for most of his career. I like to think that in this situation one should not be harsh in judging leaders. On one hand, great leaders are created do get created by representing and securing the interests of their people (Jinnah). And then there are times when the rarest of rare leader is born- the one that unifies- and that is Gandhi, I think Jinnah could not believe that no matter how great Gandhi was, his legacy would survive beyond him. So his approach was pragmatic- ask for a state so that there is no historic poker game being played with his people. I, on the other hand at that time, would like to believe that Gandhi's legacy would have survived and thrown in for remaning united. But as of 2013, I'm quite happy that we are two countries- as of today the way we have evolved, we definitely are incompatible.

 

[Aka123]

India is a secular state.There are few troubles created by some fringe group of elements but that's nominal in case a comparison is done. With such a huge population with people of varied culture and religion, it's difficult to control each and everything. But still these incidents are reducing day by day. Things are coming under control as more and more people are understanding the importance of ignoring these foolish concepts of hatred and living in peace mixing with each other. People do understand nowadays that there are much more important things to do. Mind you, i am speaking about the mass and not on the behalf of criminals. Every country have their share of criminals. We can just try to reduce them.

No one rather no country can be perfect. Cite one example of another country having a similar and vast demoghraphy as India but having complete peace. You'll find none. Else we would have lived in a peaceful world which is an ideal condition and a dream.

This thread only gives platform to some people from other countries to spew hate against India. So grow up people. First look at the issues your country is facing and try to curb them. That will be a much better idea I guess.

My above comments are applicable only when a question on secularism of India comes up.I won't have made these comments if the subjectline rather had been 'Does India needs development or Is corruption not prevelant in India'.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Your historical understanding is incomplete. When Gandhi took over, he changed the character of Congress to a mass movement rather than the elite one it used to be. Calling it textile mill owner party is flawed. .

Obviously I was not trying to cover the whole history, I was just replying to Joe S's specific reference to Jinnah. That was obviously wrong.


So in order to complete the analysis (as per your suggestion) Here are some specific questions. Hope you know the answer already (and don't have to google and wiki )

1. Do you know who was running the "show" in Congress party before Gandhi?

2. Why was he 'kicked" out?

3. How was "kicked" out?

4. Why did he (the kicked out guy) sue (in court) the bigwigs of Congress party?

5. Who represented the kicked out guy in court? (Attorney's name).

6. Who invited Gandhi from S. Africa?

7. What was Gandhi famous for in S. Africa?
-- In other words why was Gandhi invited from S. Africa?

8. When did Gandhi arrive in S. Africa?

9. was there a time frame linked to Gandhi's coming, and Gandhi's predecessor's kicking out?


OK

on to mass movement that you talk about.


10. What were the main sources "approved" for buying cloth during his "charkha" movement?


Thank you.