Nehru and the National Philosophy of India: Secularism

[Donatello]

We've survived 67 years!!
The population of minorities in our country is still growing.
And once UCC(uniform civil code) is brought in then no religion would get special consideration under our constitution. Everyone will be equal.
Modi had promised on getting article 372 scrapped, bring in UCC and promised to stop India from taking only defensive stance always.
I hope Modi is not gonna renege from his promises.
Those who doubt India's secularism 're those who burn with jealousy.

Talk is always cheap. I don't care what India's constitution says or Pakistan or USA. What matters is the real life.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Talk is always cheap. I don't care what India's constitution says or Pakistan or USA. What matters is the real life.

In real life India's constitution has been closer to the secular definition than otherwise. What's happening to your country is very evident otherwise.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

India IS a secular country

India is so secular that it keeps separate laws for communities. LOL.
And unbearable corruption of Congress? - Tauba Tauba

But yes, Indian Constitution is more secular than anything else. But not Nehru and not Congress. Not the ruling classes who ruled us for most part since independence. Ideally we are a secular nation. In reality we are pseudo secular - at times even quasi Islamic.

 

[Donatello]

In real life India's constitution has been closer to the secular definition than otherwise. What's happening to your country is very evident otherwise.

What happens in MY country, happens in YOUR country as well. It is just that people like you ignore it and harp about MY country more than anything else.
Whether that is some sort of complex, i don't know.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

What happens in MY country, happens in YOUR country as well. It is just that people like you ignore it and harp about MY country more than anything else.
Whether that is some sort of complex, i don't know.

Incorrect. I usually refrain from posting to Pakistanis on a thread that has entirely to do with Indians - and vice versa. But here goes.

Our Constitution is as secular as secular can be. In practise, Islam has been given more concessions than others. Just a small example - there is no equivalent of the Objectives Resolution here, nor will there ever be one anything remotely similar to that.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

India is so secular that it keeps separate laws for communities. LOL.
And unbearable corruption of Congress? - Tauba Tauba

But yes, Indian Constitution is more secular than anything else. But not Nehru and not Congress. Not the ruling classes who ruled us for most part since independence. Ideally we are a secular nation. In reality we are pseudo secular - at times even quasi Islamic.

That shows an immature understanding of social conditions. In 1960s India the average Hindu in Delhi would cook his own food so that it is not polluted by other lower case HINDUs. In a situation like that anyone talking about 'separation of state from relegion' was being stupid. So there was 'equal respect' principle adopted, where people were allowed to have their own personal laws until the time the society was ready to implement more progressive legislation. With a secular society, the consensus can be achieved in 100 years, with a right wing government, that'll take 250 years.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

What happens in MY country, happens in YOUR country as well. It is just that people like you ignore it and harp about MY country more than anything else.
Whether that is some sort of complex, i don't know.

No YOUR country is DEFINITELY bad and MINE is DEFINITELY better.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

That shows an immature understanding of social conditions. In 1960s India the average Hindu in Delhi would cook his own food so that it is not polluted by other lower case HINDUs. In a situation like that anyone talking about 'separation of state from relegion' was being stupid. So there was 'equal respect' principle adopted, where people were allowed to have their own personal laws until the time the society was ready to implement more progressive legislation. With a secular society, the consensus can be achieved in 100 years, with a right wing government, that'll take 250 years.

Wait sire. I am NOT secular, nor do I want to be one...EVER I respect the Constitution because I have to. That's all.
Secondly, when sati was banned for example, the society was certainly not ready to implement it. It took time, but the standards were set.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Wait sire. I am NOT secular, nor do I want to be one...EVER I respect the Constitution because I have to. That's all.
Secondly, when sati was banned for example, the society was certainly not ready to implement it. It took time, but the standards were set.

I'm sorry but the option of changing the constitution to make it MORE SECULAR is always available if you get the consensus in place. The Sati example is a stupid one. That had more urgency because people were being killed, the brits or even Indian govts. for that matter have not banned caste altogether, for instance. That has implications similar to the UCC implementation.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The Sati example is a stupid one. That had more urgency because people were being killed, the brits or even Indian govts. for that matter have not banned caste altogether, for instance. That has implications similar to the UCC implementation.

Sati example is not stupid at all. The ONLY reason it was passed was because the Govt was not elected.
Now UCC implementation is difficult because of votebank politics. It will be the final nail on Nehruvian thinking.

Btw - the lack of UCC also kills ... just not so quickly by fire.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Sati example is not stupid at all. The ONLY reason it was passed was because the Govt was not elected.
Now UCC implementation is difficult because of votebank politics. It will be the final nail on Nehruvian thinking.

Btw - the lack of UCC also kills ... just not so quickly by fire.

BS. All countries around the world take the social situations in consideration before bringing key legislation into force, only Banana Republic groups like RSS blare nonsense. Case in point- slavery was abolished 100+ years ago, but more progressive legislation had to wait until 20th century until America was ready.

 

[scorpionx]

Nehru was NOT a secular. Case in point - his own book and speeches.

Personally I find him an European and an anti Hindu in short.

Why is secularism needed? It is necessary to inculcate tolerance among the population. And it is on record that Indians have been among the most tolerant of the nations in the world. The most important legacy of Nehru to India is not secularism. It is stability. For good or for (mostly) bad, Nehru's towering presence itself gave the regime and the Govt a lot of recognition. This enabled us to carve a path of our own. We did not become a pawn of either of the super powers in the initial years.

We did become a Soviet ally for all practical purposes, but by then the Institutions had already started to mature. The next dhakka was the Emergency.


Nehruvian philosophy is almost dead. It will die in a few years.

I often wonder how remarkably often, the sentiment of right wing nationalism when challenged, this very argument of ancient Indian tolerance of foreign faiths appear before us completely avoiding some basic deficiencies of it. There is little scope to differ with the fact that subcontinent had been a melting pot of at least three world religions, hundreds of ethnics and linguistic groups.But this very fact does not assure us that the response of every sphere of Indian societies to these alien belief systems had been a homogeneous one. For example, the reception to Islam in Punjab and East Bengal was in no way in conformity in other parts of Northern India. When a large part of the peasants, artisans and labourers loosely adhered to their previous faith accepted it by mass conversion, a much larger section of the people refrained from any kind of social intercourse with it, often spirited by ancient orthodoxy; however this medieval orthodoxy was not just symbolized by this shunning away from a foreign faith, but this very orthodoxy was instrumental in dividing the society in the form of caste system.

The right wing argument that India has always been tolerant to foreign faith acutely flounders when it’s very society could not be sympathetic to every part of its own society itself. If South West India celebrated the opening ceremony of peaceful introduction of Islam and Christianity from the Arabian Peninsula, it’s very social coherence was horribly paralyzed by ancient religious prejudices and social dogmas. Right wing argument fails to see the obvious fact that if for its thousand year old prejudiced institution could not protect its own people within its community, chances of survival of a foreign faith under such institution is not even distantly possible.

Nehru’s idea of secularism did have some visible short comings. But who denied it? Even Nehru saw it. It is, for us the younger generations very easy to criticize, retrospect even reject the older ideas but what the neo-secularism has been ignorant so far is to realize the gravity of the communal problem since 1857, its aggravation in the 20’s and finally its termination in 1947 with bloody massacres. We better analyze his idea with a more rational way, rather quickly terming him anti-Hindu or a European especially when this country has witnessed the deliberate state failure to protect its minorities on two obvious occasions when Nehru was already a much vilified political character than anybody else since Independence.

 

[haviZsultan]

Secularism and Sickularism has different definitions

Nehru was NOT a secular. Case in point - his own book and speeches.

Personally I find him an European and an anti Hindu in short.

Why is secularism needed? It is necessary to inculcate tolerance among the population. And it is on record that Indians have been among the most tolerant of the nations in the world. The most important legacy of Nehru to India is not secularism. It is stability. For good or for (mostly) bad, Nehru's towering presence itself gave the regime and the Govt a lot of recognition. This enabled us to carve a path of our own. We did not become a pawn of either of the super powers in the initial years.

We did become a Soviet ally for all practical purposes, but by then the Institutions had already started to mature. The next dhakka was the Emergency.


Nehruvian philosophy is almost dead. It will die in a few years.

Nehru according to Jaswant Singh was also the reason you lost Pakistan, both east and west. If he had given some rights to Muslims and self rule to Muslim majority provinces including cow slaughter and separate marriage laws the nation might not have been divided. Lets not forget Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, so only severe discrimination made him decide that he and the Hindus should part ways.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Nehru according to Jaswant Singh was also the reason you lost Pakistan, both east and west. If he had given some rights to Muslims and self rule to Muslim majority provinces including cow slaughter and separate marriage laws the nation might not have been divided. Lets not forget Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, so only severe discrimination made him decide that he and the Hindus should part ways.

I disagree with Jaswant Singh here. Nehru alone was certainly not responsible. Besides, I thank him for the any hand in the Partition of India. Secondly Jinnah was anything but an ambassador or Hindu Muslim amity. He was a genius, no doubt but pretty much the opposite of Nehru. While Nehru was an idealist, Jinnah was a practical shrewd man who knew how to bargain. But then for all his failings, Nehru truly loved this country. Just that his views should have been dumped into the trash can by a more pragmatic generation. Instead we got lackeys and slaves of the Dynasty. But still that was better than the political uncertainty that Pakistan and pretty much every other third world country was blessed with. We got stability and some of the institutions of that time shine today. His politics, economic policy, foreign policy, defence were mostly failures. But there were some good stuff as well. But Jinnah had no real political legacy at all. Pakistan is not even sure if he was secular or not! Even today!

India never had this confusion. Things have been much clearer to all the camps here. We know where each of us stand. This comes from stability, when the morning mist of uncertainty clears. We wish we had someone who did not consider himself or rather his views to be so lofty. But anyway, still, it was better than so many others. At least at that time.

@scorpionx - You will need a more thorough rebuttal.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Nehru according to Jaswant Singh was also the reason you lost Pakistan, both east and west. If he had given some rights to Muslims and self rule to Muslim majority provinces including cow slaughter and separate marriage laws the nation might not have been divided. Lets not forget Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, so only severe discrimination made him decide that he and the Hindus should part ways.

Sorry, the kind of compromises that you were asking, no country can legitimiately give. It's better you leave rather than existing through that farce. The African Americans, despite their racial differences, will never be given 'reseverd areas for representation. Under all circumstances they will have to fight it out like the rest of them. Your proposals would have led to a banana republic. But then you knew the implications and that's why you proposed them.