Nehru and the National Philosophy of India: Secularism

[thesolar65]

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.

I am sorry to say, but you are angry at your country of its state of affair and your anger is directed at us as to why we are not in your situation. That's why you keep harping some bad things here and there in our country. Your country needs a brutal dictator who will push religion in to a corner from everybody's daily life with the help of Army of course, then only you will love your country!!

 

[haviZsultan]

Jinnah clearly was secular. His 11th August speech is proof of it. He was until 1935 an advocate of Indian unity. He was treated so bad that we had to go for partition. His intention was to create a land where Muslims were free to follow their religion NOT to form a mullah's state.

Lets be realistic. No religious political party in Pakistan has ever swept the election. Lets not forget that Jinnah married a Parsi woman, he called Zafarullah Khan his son, who was an Ahmedi. Quaid E Azam refused to call Ahmedis non muslim despite severe pressure on him from the mullahs from day one.

Quad E Azam only went for partition when the real face of Congress showed itself. 90%+ of UP Muslims voted from Quaid (my province). If average Indians like you had swallowed their pride and let the Muslim majority provinces rule themselves the problem wouldn't exist. I will compare the 14 points of Jinnah to Mujib Ur Rehman's 6 points. If India had accepted the country might not have been divided.

I am just saying. I have no intention or interest being in India, except that the land we migrated from should have been given to Pakistan.

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.

That is why Pakistan was born then. Our demands were refused with the same recklessness with which you deny them now.

 

[SrNair]

Good to see members respecting secularism here. Some indian's just call it sickularism

That is not their fault.Our stupid political parties used that term unnecessarily for short term political gains and minority appeasement.So these people mainly youths become tired of this even minorities .Daily use Secularism cant bring you development and prosperity.


On topic.I am not a fan of Nehru.But that man gave us a unity ,a direction .He was front runner in the development of nuclear tech and Space Research in India .He gave us enough political support to our scientists even in a dire poverty situation .
Of Course he did a lot of mistake .But he was the one who gave us a stability in our democracy.

 

[INDIC]

Jinnah clearly was secular. His 11th August speech is proof of it. He was until 1935 an advocate of Indian unity. He was treated so bad that we had to go for partition. His intention was to create a land where Muslims were free to follow their religion NOT to form a mullah's state.
Lets be realistic. No religious political party in Pakistan has ever swept the election. Lets not forget that Jinnah married a Parsi woman, he called Zafarullah Khan his son, who was an Ahmedi. Quaid E Azam refused to call Ahmedis non muslim despite severe pressure on him from the mullahs from day one.
Quad E Azam only went for partition when the real face of Congress showed itself. 90%+ of UP Muslims voted from Quaid (my province). If average Indians like you had swallowed their pride and let the Muslim majority provinces rule themselves the problem wouldn't exist. I will compare the 14 points of Jinnah to Mujib Ur Rehman's 6 points. If India had accepted the country might not have been divided.
I am just saying. I have no intention or interest being in India, except that the land we migrated from should have been given to Pakistan.

Explain to me how can two nation theory be explained under the context of Secularism.

 

[Parul]

That is not their fault.Our stupid political parties used that term unnecessarily for short term political gains and minority appeasement.So these people mainly youths become tired of this even minorities .Daily use Secularism cant bring you development and prosperity.

How come a Community which makes 20+% of India's Population is a Minority? If 20+% is Minority, then what would one call the communities which makes 1 or 2 % of India's Population - Hindus? No perks or Reservation for them? What kind of Secularism is this?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Jinnah clearly was secular. His 11th August speech is proof of it. He was until 1935 an advocate of Indian unity. He was treated so bad that we had to go for partition. His intention was to create a land where Muslims were free to follow their religion NOT to form a mullah's state.

Lets be realistic. No religious political party in Pakistan has ever swept the election. Lets not forget that Jinnah married a Parsi woman, he called Zafarullah Khan his son, who was an Ahmedi. Quaid E Azam refused to call Ahmedis non muslim despite severe pressure on him from the mullahs from day one.

Quad E Azam only went for partition when the real face of Congress showed itself. 90%+ of UP Muslims voted from Quaid (my province). If average Indians like you had swallowed their pride and let the Muslim majority provinces rule themselves the problem wouldn't exist. I will compare the 14 points of Jinnah to Mujib Ur Rehman's 6 points. If India had accepted the country might not have been divided.

I am just saying. I have no intention or interest being in India, except that the land we migrated from should have been given to Pakistan.



That is why Pakistan was born then. Our demands were refused with the same recklessness with which you deny them now.

Your demands would have been refused even today. Reserved representation for the depressed classes was a demand from Ambedkar too, ad he had legitimiate grounds for the ask. But during negotiations he came around to the conclusion that no matter how difficult, tha formula just has no basis for the future. In the end everyone has to go through the same representation process to get their people elected. We aren't deviating for you and the long term consequences giving in to your demands meant that it is acceptable for us that you leave rather than have a weak, divided banana republic in its place.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Explain to me how can two nation theory be explained under the context of Secularism.

Jinnah was secular in the beginning, he later let his petty ambitions dictate his stand rather than other way around.

 

[Levina]

My definition of Secularism is plain and simple : Principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. However, this is alien in India.

Further, Article 25 of Indian Constitution is discrminatory and it deprives, a certain community of their basic right which other communities are not. That community had to wait for 60+ years for a basic law-right which it only got in 2012. This discrimination makes me believe India is not a Secular Country.

Uniform Civil Law won't be touched, as it's going to break the fake secularism of India and Streets would be burning all over India.

I 'd call India a secular country still.....Secularism does not mean disrespecting other religions in India.
The Western concept of secularism sees a separation of religion and state but the concept of secularism is peculiar in India which envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state... and equal participation of state in different religions...which makes it ambiguous. This is what I would like to change in the approach towards secularism.
But it is the same reason which gives every person the right to follow his or her religion in India.And also courtesy secularism that during office hours the prayers are allowed. Persons bring their own individual Guru’s pictures, images into the offices. Government officially patronage the pilgrimages, provide all facilities and extend financial concessions. Government lands are allotted to religious purposes.
Its not just about constitution, we have been secular for a very long time,many religions 've co existed and prospered in India.
But leaving the term secularism as ambiguous is what caused each religion (I blame EACH AND EVERY religion) to take advantage of the weakness of political parties and gained much to benefit in several ways. Religious establishments became powerful institutions with huge amounts accumulated.....all religions get exemption from taxes. There is no accountability either for the illegal money or business affairs conducted in the name spiritual activity.
I strongly believe that there should be no exemptions to the principle that all are equal before law and ergo i support UCC.
UCC might face storms from the political classes which not mention would be their desperate efforts to not loose the benefits they milk in the name of religion.
India is secular in its own ways.

 

[Levina]

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

We're still faring better.... that earns us a lot of jealous neighbors.

 

[Donatello]

We're still faring better.... that earns us a lot of jealous neighbors.

That is what you think.

And i will defend to death your right to say that on PAKISTAN DEFENSE FORUM.

 

[INDIC]

Maybe because it is easy to put 'secular India' on paper than practice.
Maybe, perhaps, that it is after all, not secular?

How do you know?

 

[Donatello]

How do you know?

The question is, how do your fellow members know?

 

[INDIC]

The question is, how do your fellow members know?

You need to answer about it, is your answer sarkari taleem.

 

[Donatello]

You need to answer about it, is your answer sarkari taleem.

Didn't get any sarkari taleem. Didn't need to.

 

[Parul]

I 'd call India a secular country still.....Secularism does not mean disrespecting other religions in India.
The Western concept of secularism sees a separation of religion and state but the concept of secularism is peculiar in India which envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state... and equal participation of state in different religions...which makes it ambiguous. This is what I would like to change in the approach towards secularism.
But it is the same reason which gives every person the right to follow his or her religion in India.And also courtesy secularism that during office hours the prayers are allowed. Persons bring their own individual Guru’s pictures, images into the offices. Government officially patronage the pilgrimages, provide all facilities and extend financial concessions. Government lands are allotted to religious purposes.
Its not just about constitution, we have been secular for a very long time,many religions 've co existed and prospered in India.
But leaving the term secularism as ambiguous is what caused each religion (I blame EACH AND EVERY religion) to take advantage of the weakness of political parties and gained much to benefit in several ways. Religious establishments became powerful institutions with huge amounts accumulated.....all religions get exemption from taxes. There is no accountability either for the illegal money or business affairs conducted in the name spiritual activity.
I strongly believe that there should be no exemptions to the principle that all are equal before law and ergo i support UCC.
UCC might face storms from the political classes which not mention would be their desperate efforts to not loose the benefits they milk in the name of religion.
India is secular in its own ways.

The Constitution of India dose disrespect a certain religion. That religion has nothing to do with Hinduism. However, India's constitution labels it as part of Hinduism - Hindus. That Religion has a separate marriage law, but people of that religion until 2012 had to marry under Hindu Marriage Act. However, other community, had separate marriage law and is not labeled as Hindus. Moreover, the Patronage for Pillgrimage, Reservations, Laptops etc is provided to that Community, not to the one who are labeled as Hindus.

For me, this is pure discrimination by Government of India + Constitution of India. Had India been a Secular Country, that Community wouldn't be facing such discrimination since Independence.