Nehru and the National Philosophy of India: Secularism

[ranjeet]

Hold your horses,champ!! Do you realize that you appeared on this thread to speak the truth without even knowing what is being talked about here? This thread was about Nehru and his limitations of implementing his own beliefs which was challenged by at least two more other beliefs when it came to the relation between the state and its subjects about religious affairs. It was not to promote your, mine or Ricky martin's version of secularism!! What has your 'uncomfortable truth' has to do with the topic first of all when nothing was being discussed about the present government? Did you assume that people are championing Kejriwal or Mulayam Singh here? Please, if you are so fond of speaking your truth do it after reading the contents first. Narendra Modi in his election campaign spoke of the matter quite well. He will be applauded again and again if he gives equal treatment to all or separating everything from state affairs. Have patience first (quite unusual among the BJP fan boys here though) and no need to take unnecessary jibe at something you got no idea about.

Take it easy, According to the excerpt you posted Nehru's vision of Secularism was in fact a mickey mouse version to begin with, what other parties did is perverted it further more. Hindus were the majority in the country, so they had to bear the burden of secularism to make Muslims feel comfortable who as a matter of fact chose to live in multi religious country when they could have easily moved to the land of pure to live their life in accordance to their beliefs.

That was also why his government did not hesitate to pass the Hindu Code Bill and regulate the management of some Hindu temples. When it came to the Muslim personal law, Nehru refrained from ‘interfering’. He found some of its practices unacceptable, and even when he did not mind them, he was anxious that all Indians should be subject to a uniform civil code. However he concluded that any ‘interference’ with the Muslim personal law so soon after the partition was likely to arouse deep fears and provoke strong resistance, and that he ought to wait until the Muslim opinion was ready.

For how long was Nehru PM of India? It's a pity he couldn't help Muslims to make an opinion while he was in the office.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

It is Pesudo Secular.

India is pseudo secular - true.
@levina - And the same 10 yeah Sikh PM stated that "Muslims have the first right on India's resources."

 

[Parul]

India is pseudo secular - true.
@levina - And the same 10 yeah Sikh PM stated that "Muslims have the first right on India's resources."

I wanted to mention this in post but didn't. Post ka Secularism hurt ho jata.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I'm not in favour of special status for anyone. Everyone should be seen with same eye. Either have same laws for everyone, else special previlages shouldn't been given to the specific community, but to everyone.

Your beef with Article 25 is on shaky grounds. Check with lawyers - they will clear things up for you. I agree it is not in the best interests, but it is not anti Sikh as you think it is.

1. Hindu religion is UNDEFINED in the Constitution. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have been defined.
2. Christians, Zoroastrians and the special community have all been defined as well.
3. For the Constitution a distinction needed to be made for Indian religions. In 1947 this term - 'Indian religion' was not yet popular. Hindu is only used as a blanket term. It does not even mean as a religion. Show me one Article that defines a Hindu.
4. It does not put any obstacles on you declaring or practising your faith anywhere.

Finally, in India, everyone are cultural Hindus. Including the special community, regardless of the fact they like it or not.

That said, I want ONE LAW for ALL INDIANS.

I would like to know about your experiences here, you say so often for 7 years. I have also had several bad experiences that I would not have had to endure in a secular country. Anyway, you go first.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I wanted to mention this in post but didn't. Post ka Secularism hurt ho jata.

May be that is ok, God forbid if someone else claims India's resources.

 

[Parul]

Your beef with Article 25 is on shaky grounds. Check with lawyers - they will clear things up for you. I agree it is not in the best interests, but it is not anti Sikh as you think it is.

1. Hindu religion is UNDEFINED in the Constitution. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have been defined.
2. Christians, Zoroastrians and the special community have all been defined as well.
3. For the Constitution a distinction needed to be made for Indian religions. In 1947 this term - 'India religion' was not yet popular. Hindu is only used as a blanket term. It does not even mean as a religion. Show me one Article that defines a Hindu.
4. It does not put any obstacles on you declaring or practising your faith anywhere.

Finally, in India, everyone are Hindus. Including the special community, regardless of the fact they like it or not.

That said, I want ONE LAW for ALL INDIANS.

I would like to know about your experiences here, you say so often for 7 years. I have also had several bad experiences that I would not have had to endure in a secular country. Anyway, you go first.

It is not on Shaky Grounds, may be you can confirm with a lawyer. That is why matter is in the Supreme Court of India. Further, I'm not a Religious Fanatic, it doesn't bother me at all.

Upon joining Indian Dominion Sikhs were promised certain things by Gandhi's, Nehru's, Patel's and other founding members of India. Those people backstabbed Sikhs, once they joined Indian Dominion. Had they been, really secular - they wouldn't have robbed us. Most of the people are navie about it. Hence, I didn't touch that part, but only pointed out two things to put across my Point that since 15, August, 1947, India is a Pesudo Secular Country and not a Secular (I known secularism was added later in constitution), because since it's inception, they treated one Community, as a special Community and other as Illegitimate Child of Bharat Mata.

Further, I don't wish to share my bitter experiences in this thread, some day we can discuss it in Chit-Chat threads.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Further, I don't wish to share my bitter experiences in this thread, some day we can discuss it in Chit-Chat threads.

Yeah, me too. I will be branded for life otherwise.

 

[ranjeet]

It is not on Shaky Grounds, may be you can confirm with a lawyer. That is why matter is in the Supreme Court of India. Further, I'm not a Religious Fanatic, it doesn't bother me at all.

Upon joining Indian Dominion Sikhs were promised certain things by Gandhi's, Nehru's, Patel's and other founding members of India. Those people backstabbed Sikhs, once they joined Indian Dominion. Had they been, really secular - they wouldn't have robbed us. Most of the people are navie about it. Hence, I didn't touch that part, but only pointed out two things to put across my Point that since 15, August, 1947, India is a Pesudo Secular Country and not a Secular (I known secularism was added later in constitution), because since it's inception, they treated one Community, as a special Community and other as Illegitimate Child of Bharat Mata.

Further, I don't wish to share my bitter experiences in this thread, some day we can discuss it in Chit-Chat threads.

If m not wrong .. Nehru did promised something the Sikh leader at the time of partition.

 

[Parul]

If m not wrong .. Nehru did promised something the Sikh leader at the time of partition.

Well lot of things were promised to Sikhs when they joined Indian Dominion. If you want I can list few and discuss it in Chit-Chat thread?However, non was fulfilled and when we ask for it - We were labeled Terrorist by them that to in Secular India. I ain't even referring to Militancy Period. The Militancy was also courtesy of the Leader who added Secular word in our Constitution.

 

[ranjeet]

Well lot of things were promised to Sikhs when they joined Indian Dominion. If you want I can list few and discuss it in Chit-Chat thread?However, non was fulfilled and when we ask for it - We were labeled Terrorist by them that to in Secular India. I ain't even referring to Militancy Period. The Militancy was also courtesy of the Leader who added Secular word in our Constitution.

That bitch got what she deserved.

 

[Parul]

That bitch got what she deserved.

So did Rajiv Gandhi. Practically India is Pesudo Secular Country - Constitution may Secular Word Add Karne say Kuch nahi hota. That is it.

 

[ranjeet]

So did Rajiv Gandhi. Practically India is Pesudo Secular Country - Constitution may Secular Word Add Karne say Kuch nahi hota. That is it.

I think instead of Secular that b!tch have added the word Islamic.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

"Please, Mr.Ganguly. I expect people like you to be smart enough (unlike the other usual idiots here championing radical Hindutva) to realize some basic facts. 16th of May'2014 was not a victorious moment for rabid Hindu nationalism in India. The elected prime minister did talk about equal treatment for all the citizens of India, didn't he? So says the ideology of secularism. If one has to go find some difference between this particular political philosophy with what our elected prime minister preached before the elections there is none. What I despise is the unnecessary hatred and vilification for an ethical concept by some political illiterates on an international forum to promote their own distorted version of national integration whose fundamental principle is to alienate its opposition, be it an ethno-linguistic group or a religious community. What is more worrying is the support for such bigotry among the neo-patriots who like you could hardly differentiate between soft Hindutva (a civilizational nationalist version) and the fanatical interpretation of Hindutva.
As far as your dissension against 'Nehruvian model' is concerned, Nehru ruled for about 17 years and tried to implement his policies in a more or less democratic way. After his death, how many years passed? Don't you think its a bit absurd and kind of escapist maneuver to shift the blame on a man in grave for the failures we suffered for the last 50 years? Unlike the current leaders, Nehru did not think his principles absolute. He once wrote,"Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end, and we are always journeying, trying to approach something that is ever receding. And each one of us are many different human beings with their inconsistencies and contradictions, each pulling in different directions." Had he have resurrected today, his words might not have varied much with what Modi preached during his election campaigns. And ironically, the person who had quite been at friction with Nehru, agreed on this particular principle and more irony is that man is subjected to the greatest reverence by the ultra nationalists here."

Source: Secularism is now a National Security Threat | Page 12

I will objectively list the rebuttal to your points in bold( in this unformatted post.) @DRAY @Oscar - Since you liked this post, you are also invited. Also the topic at hand is also relevant. I don't want trolls to interfere, hence the Senior's Cafe is the place I choose to respond.

i. Thanks for calling me smart. It's not actually being smart, more to do with being wise perhaps, the kind that comes with experience.

ii. 16th May was a victory of nationalism and a defeat of Nehruvian ideology - plain and simple. Let's list out the cornerstones of Nehruvianism, as an impartial observer.

a. Economic Policy - Socialist, idealist, Planned economy. The hon'ble PM even deprived Indians of the Right to Private Property in 1955.
b. Foreign Policy - Non Aligned Movement, nobody's ally, nobody's enemy.
c. Defence Policy - No Armed preparedness, all resources should go to build the nation and not to protect it.
d. Aggressive Pseudo Secularism - Impose laws for each community.

Now let's see the condition of these cornerstones or pillars today - They are all in the grave. Except for the Aggressive Pseudo Secularism. Give it some time, sir, it will be gone as well. So there goes another point.

iii. I can't differentiate between "soft and hard Hindutva". Well, on one hand there is Hindutva and on the other hand there is no Hindutva. There is no Hindutva Lite version launched yet. This soft Hindutva logic is very popular among the far/militant Left that accuses Congress of peddling soft Hindutva. But the opposite of Nehruvian ideology is not necessary Hindutva. Also you have made an almost last ditch emotional appeal for saving the pseudo secularism that is already in coma, kinda like the helpless messages that came out from Saigon in 1975 Military HQ. Nehru was NOT secular, I can accept that one time possibly Jinnah even was. But not Nehru. He has enormous power, he could have implemented equal laws for all. But his personal hatred for all Indian faiths (this is documented) made him blind.

But yes, he was a realist. He knew that denying Hindus of some rights won't destroy the country. Denying Muslims of any rights might. Hence his dilution of secularism.

Finally you have called me a 'neo-patriot'. Not sure if that's a compliment or not. Anyway, I love my country, that's all I can say.

iv. Nehru being democratic is like saying Putin is democratic. There was no opposition to Nehru AT ALL. Forget an opposition party, even within the Congress there only a handful of people who could raise their voice against him. After Gandhi and Patel, Nehru remained the undisputed face of India in the foreign arena. So democratic was he that he accepted the UN mandated ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir WITHOUT even CONSULTING his Cabinet, India's first Cabinet. Brilliant standards setting there. No wonder we have so many sycophants today.
S.P.Mukherjee disappeared right away in Kashmir in 20th century independent India because he wanted the same law to be applied everywhere. Was he fighting for a Hindu Law or a Sikh Law? But no, Articles had to be introduced in the Constitution.

v. Oh how sweet of Nehru to say - "Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end". Otherwise we poor uneducated backward Indians would never have known otherwise. We would perhaps have followed him like sheep and considered his ideas as the Ultimate Truth. Anyway, wrt to all discussions about Nehru, the crux of it revolves around 1 and ONLY 1 aspect - secularism. People defending Nehru defend his secularism, because that is the only aspect of him that survives in India now.

So here's the thing. Nehru WAS NOT secular. He diluted the secularism that WAS there in the Constitution. He was the pioneer, and his path of appeasing the Muslims (not all minorities, only the Muslims) alone was the pillar of this pseudo secular thought. His party was no longer secular. Hell, his regime saw the introduction of SPECIAL LAWS for Muslims. And this was what Congress opposed while going against the Communal Bill during the freedom movement. So no, when you defend Nehru you defend pseudo secularism, not secularism. Secularism is a higher ideal that Nehruvians don't want in this country. But since we have a rudimentary democracy in this country, these stalwarts have been dumped. the elites and liberals will take time to adjust, like they always have. But Nehruvianism is going to die a slow death. Only then we can have the SAME LAW for ALL INDIANS. Before that any Indian crying out for preserving Indian secularism is a hypocrite and nothing else.

You end with this. I have really nothing to say about it anymore. I also hang my head in shame. But though I am a proud Kashmiri, I am a prouder Indian and will always remain so, regardless how much mainlanders vilify us.
"The more they behaved like this I became a more proud Bengali and an ashamed Indian"

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/secularism-is-now-a-national-security-threat.344768/page-12#ixzz3JgalMeZe

 

[dray]

"Please, Mr.Ganguly. I expect people like you to be smart enough (unlike the other usual idiots here championing radical Hindutva) to realize some basic facts. 16th of May'2014 was not a victorious moment for rabid Hindu nationalism in India. The elected prime minister did talk about equal treatment for all the citizens of India, didn't he? So says the ideology of secularism. If one has to go find some difference between this particular political philosophy with what our elected prime minister preached before the elections there is none. What I despise is the unnecessary hatred and vilification for an ethical concept by some political illiterates on an international forum to promote their own distorted version of national integration whose fundamental principle is to alienate its opposition, be it an ethno-linguistic group or a religious community. What is more worrying is the support for such bigotry among the neo-patriots who like you could hardly differentiate between soft Hindutva (a civilizational nationalist version) and the fanatical interpretation of Hindutva.
As far as your dissension against 'Nehruvian model' is concerned, Nehru ruled for about 17 years and tried to implement his policies in a more or less democratic way. After his death, how many years passed? Don't you think its a bit absurd and kind of escapist maneuver to shift the blame on a man in grave for the failures we suffered for the last 50 years? Unlike the current leaders, Nehru did not think his principles absolute. He once wrote,"Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end, and we are always journeying, trying to approach something that is ever receding. And each one of us are many different human beings with their inconsistencies and contradictions, each pulling in different directions." Had he have resurrected today, his words might not have varied much with what Modi preached during his election campaigns. And ironically, the person who had quite been at friction with Nehru, agreed on this particular principle and more irony is that man is subjected to the greatest reverence by the ultra nationalists here."

Source: Secularism is now a National Security Threat | Page 12

I will objectively list the rebuttal to your points in bold( in this unformatted post.) @DRAY @Oscar - Since you liked this post, you are also invited. Also the topic at hand is also relevant. I don't want trolls to interfere, hence the Senior's Cafe is the place I choose to respond.

i. Thanks for calling me smart. It's not actually being smart, more to do with being wise perhaps, the kind that comes with experience.

ii. 16th May was a victory of nationalism and a defeat of Nehruvian ideology - plain and simple. Let's list out the cornerstones of Nehruvianism, as an impartial observer.

a. Economic Policy - Socialist, idealist, Planned economy. The hon'ble PM even deprived Indians of the Right to Private Property in 1955.
b. Foreign Policy - Non Aligned Movement, nobody's ally, nobody's enemy.
c. Defence Policy - No Armed preparedness, all resources should go to build the nation and not to protect it.
d. Aggressive Pseudo Secularism - Impose laws for each community.

Now let's see the condition of these cornerstones or pillars today - They are all in the grave. Except for the Aggressive Pseudo Secularism. Give it some time, sir, it will be gone as well. So there goes another point.

iii. I can't differentiate between "soft and hard Hindutva". Well, on one hand there is Hindutva and on the other hand there is no Hindutva. There is no Hindutva Lite version launched yet. This soft Hindutva logic is very popular among the far/militant Left that accuses Congress of peddling soft Hindutva. But the opposite of Nehruvian ideology is not necessary Hindutva. Also you have made an almost last ditch emotional appeal for saving the pseudo secularism that is already in coma, kinda like the helpless messages that came out from Saigon in 1975 Military HQ. Nehru was NOT secular, I can accept that one time possibly Jinnah even was. But not Nehru. He has enormous power, he could have implemented equal laws for all. But his personal hatred for all Indian faiths (this is documented) made him blind.

But yes, he was a realist. He knew that denying Hindus of some rights won't destroy the country. Denying Muslims of any rights might. Hence his dilution of secularism.

Finally you have called me a 'neo-patriot'. Not sure if that's a compliment or not. Anyway, I love my country, that's all I can say.

iv. Nehru being democratic is like saying Putin is democratic. There was no opposition to Nehru AT ALL. Forget an opposition party, even within the Congress there only a handful of people who could raise their voice against him. After Gandhi and Patel, Nehru remained the undisputed face of India in the foreign arena. So democratic was he that he accepted the UN mandated ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir WITHOUT even CONSULTING his Cabinet, India's first Cabinet. Brilliant standards setting there. No wonder we have so many sycophants today.
S.P.Mukherjee disappeared right away in Kashmir in 20th century independent India because he wanted the same law to be applied everywhere. Was he fighting for a Hindu Law or a Sikh Law? But no, Articles had to be introduced in the Constitution.

v. Oh how sweet of Nehru to say - "Perfection, is beyond us for it means in the end". Otherwise we poor uneducated backward Indians would never have known otherwise. We would perhaps have followed him like sheep and considered his ideas as the Ultimate Truth. Anyway, wrt to all discussions about Nehru, the crux of it revolves around 1 and ONLY 1 aspect - secularism. People defending Nehru defend his secularism, because that is the only aspect of him that survives in India now.

So here's the thing. Nehru WAS NOT secular. He diluted the secularism that WAS there in the Constitution. He was the pioneer, and his path of appeasing the Muslims (not all minorities, only the Muslims) alone was the pillar of this pseudo secular thought. His party was no longer secular. Hell, his regime saw the introduction of SPECIAL LAWS for Muslims. And this was what Congress opposed while going against the Communal Bill during the freedom movement. So no, when you defend Nehru you defend pseudo secularism, not secularism. Secularism is a higher ideal that Nehruvians don't want in this country. But since we have a rudimentary democracy in this country, these stalwarts have been dumped. the elites and liberals will take time to adjust, like they always have. But Nehruvianism is going to die a slow death. Only then we can have the SAME LAW for ALL INDIANS. Before that any Indian crying out for preserving Indian secularism is a hypocrite and nothing else.

You end with this. I have really nothing to say about it anymore. I also hang my head in shame. But though I am a proud Kashmiri, I am a prouder Indian and will always remain so, regardless how much mainlanders vilify us.
"The more they behaved like this I became a more proud Bengali and an ashamed Indian"

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/secularism-is-now-a-national-security-threat.344768/page-12#ixzz3JgalMeZe

You are smart because you can effectively mask the radical Hindutva ideologies of RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal/Sri Ram Sena etc. under a soft cultural non-intrusive welfare organizations type image, which is no easy task!! Most can't do it, as evident here. @scorpionx is complimenting you baba.

About rest of your post, it deserves a long reply which is not possible now from a mobile while I am travelling, so I will reply later.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You are smart because you can effectively mask the radical Hindutva ideologies of RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal/Sri Ram Sena etc. under a soft cultural non-intrusive welfare organizations type image, which is no easy task!! Most can't do it, as evident here. @scorpionx is complimenting you baba.

About rest of your post, it deserves a long reply which is not possible now from a mobile while I am travelling, so I will reply later.

Sri Ram Sena is not part of the Sangh. I want the same law for all Indians irrespective of anything else. Not a theocratic state. No Hindu laws. No special benefits for Hindus, Sikhs, or Buddhists or Jains. Just a single same law for all. That's all.

As for Nehru, (since the discussion is on him), I can quote his own Cabinet Ministers...what he had in his mind about 'secularism'. Nehru was NO secular. Not at all.