"secularism" was NEVER part of the Indian constitution until Indira Gandhi FORCIBLY inserted in into the constitution during EMERGENCY , when the entire opposition was in JAIL.
Even after that, "secularism" itself is NOT DEFINED in the constitution.
But it has come to mean every communal act of appeasement is now called "secularism". It has now come to mean Hinduphobia and moral cowardice.
Who are you to declare someone else's Understanding "misplaced" ?
It takes a certain amount of Hubris just to make that claim.
A "State religion" is not a "religious state".
It is pure rubbish to claim other religions were denied equal space especially since a host of other religions actively sought refugee and thrived when they were denied space in other abrahamic societies.
Jews, zorashtrians, syrian Christians, Tibetan buddhists, Ahmedias, Jains, sikhs, Bahaits etc.
Arjun Appadurai OTOH is a well known Hinduphobic American colonialist who claims postcolonial identity is created through globalization. This while the US is actively denying visa and entry to people from colonial pasts.
RUBBISH. A secular state merely has to provide equal space to all religion / non religion and practices. To be secular there only needs to be no specific laws favoring the Hindu majority, nor can the Government control the expression of Hinduism.
Napal has learn from the sabotage of Hindu identity and secularism in India. It has now clearly defined its own secularism as " religious and cultural freedom, along with the protection of religion and customs practised from ancient times'.
There is little doubt what that means for the ancient Dharmic religions.
This too is a LIE perpetuated by those who seek to pervert secularism to make it act communal.
There was a lengthy debate in the parliament on this very topic when the constitution was being formed and Dr. Ambedkar was very clear on this topic.
On 15 November 1948 at the Constituent Assembly debate in Parliament, a member, Prof K.T Shah from Bihar moved an Amendment to the original Preamble statement. He insisted that the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist” be inserted into the statement. In a detailed reply, BR Ambedkar justified why he did not include the words “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble:
Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social (secular) and economic (socialist) side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.
Then Ambedkar remarked, “The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous.”
In a Hindu majority country, when things go wrong, the blame should rightly be put on the Hindus for their moral cowardice, laziness and dishonesty.
But that does not excuse the muslims for their communal behaviour and past which in turn
.
