Nehru and the National Philosophy of India: Secularism

[ranjeet]

Who has over looked what Sikh Gurus or Sikhs 've done for the country???
Why do you've to repeatedly misconstrue my posts??
Let me clear my stand here
1) I call India secular because I've seen ppl around me respecting each other's culture and religion.
2) India has its issues with laws for minorities which should be gone with the introduction of Uniform civil code.
3) I'm NOT here to justify what Nehru or Congress might have done, I don't support 'em nor do I support ppl who repeatedly sully my country.

Those who think of themselves as outsiders should remain outsiders and that would be the treatment they would get...Like what happened to the Kashmiri guys who not just cheered for Pakistan but booed India during the match in Meerut. Who is to be blamed in such cases??

It wasn't specific to you .. Gosh. Just sharing what I think.
Well since it's cricket I don't care ... it's a silly game.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

When Partition happened, Sikhs had other options too - Independent Country - Khalistan or go with Pakistan. However, we were labeled Terrorist upon joining Indian Dominion. We were no rollovers, doing Hyderabad on us, wouldn't have been easier.



And we can be told to leave our Punjab and find another Place?

Yeah Secular Country which gave us Right to marry under our marrige act after 65 years.

We Sikhs have always protected Mother India and put our mother land over our Religion. India's history speaks for it & I don't require to speak further nor require anyone's certificate.

It's not about Marriage Law, it's about our Identity which is Sikh - Not Hindu. May be Hindus don't have problem, if they are labeled Muslim by Constitution of India or getting married under Muslim Marriage Act - Nikah Kabul Hai, aur Talak Talak Talak (sorry don't meant disrespect Islam, trying to give ex)

I just mearly pointed out the discrimination of India's Constitution. If a special community was given their rights, we should have been given ours. India might be secular for you, not me.

Still thank Goodness your Gurdwaras are not Govt property like temples are. Otherwise you would have seen the Golden temple being taxed today. Secularism ala Indian style. And you are not alone in being declared terrorists.

Remember Swami Aseemanand? Not one charge till today? I can count a thousand names - sants and common folk. All behind bars without trial.
Then the PM says that the first claim to India's resources should go to a particular community.

But one thing - let me assure you one thing. The Indian State, despite its failings as a soft state has a devilish side as well. On one hand there is the soft nurturing Motherland, while on the other hand there is also a devastating destructive and merciless avenger. From Nagaland to Kashmir, Punjab to Tamil Nadu to Goa to Hyderabad - India has eliminated every threat to her integrity. By force, and by simple ruthless and overwhelming force. And this has happened irrespective of who is at the Center. Be it Congress, BJP, be it Hindu PM, be it Sikh PM, Sikh Army Chief, Christian/ Parsi Chief/ Muslim President etc - the outcome will be the same - the physical extermination of the secessionists.

Another vital thing - lest I forget.

Secularism does not mean your community gets a special marriage law. That is appeasement. I don't want to see any religious marriage laws at all. Secondly the largely similar Hindus and Sikhs were clubbed together only to differentiate other totally different non Indian religions. Having a separate religious law does not mean you are in a Secular State.

Also you can marry according to any religious ceremony. The Special Marriage Act provided for all the needs that you talk about anyway. You want to marry by Jain laws? Answer is the Special Marriage Act. Want to marry according to Aramaic Law? Special Marriage Act. Buddhist Law? Special marriage Act... and so on. So no, there is NOTHING TO STOP YOU from following your religious laws AT ALL.

And you know what? I want all these Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu religious acts to go and replaced with one single Act that will just recognize a marriage, regardless of the religious ceremony undertaken.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

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.

First let's see this image here -

This is the Gyanvapi Mosque. The Outer walls is the remnant of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. It was demolished and converted to a Mosque. This is one of the most important of Hindu religious sites. Not just another temple... so anyway... in case I want to go and worship in this ex-temple, I will be arrested and put behind bars for inciting religious hatred. This is just one example.

Your post is a melting pot of differing ideas, I must tell you that. You have tried sugar coating many statements as well. So let's see one by one in a rational way.

1. India has been tolerant to foreign thoughts, practices, faiths etc. You have stated that except for Punjab and Bengal the reception of Islam was quite hostile among the Indian populace. I will correct that. The reception of Islam was ENTIRELY hostile and remain so today. And the reception was so even in Punjab as well.

First let me give you the instances of India's tolerance -
o Jews were sheltered
o Parsis were given refuge
o Tibetans were and are given refugee status and even allowed to work as a 'Government'
o Sri Lankans, BDeshis etc etc

Now let me tell you why India's tolerance fails to extend to Islam. It's mostly because of the way Islam was introduced into India. But for small hamlets of Kerala, the first (most important) impression of Islam the people of the Indian subcontinent got carried with it gory experiences of mass murder, wars, torture, repression, defeat, rape and destruction. So what kind of reaction do you expect from the native people?

2. Secondly, you state that medieval India was engulfed in orthodoxy - namely caste related issues. In this case, you are right. It truly was a dark age. But then this has nothing to do with the topic at hand ie Nehru, or India's allegedly 'Secular philosophy'. Suffice to say that the first baby steps to remove the caste rigidity was undertaken by Indians only - there were plenty of reform movements. Many of them originated in Bengal as well.

3. Your final paragraph is one that emanates fear, fear of the Muslims. The idea goes like this - the non Muslims can be denied of a few rights and no hell will break loose. But if some special privileges are not granted to the Muslims(even if they are not practised in reality), the Muslims will tear the country apart. Who knows, the Hindus and Sikhs may also jump into the fray. So to prevent that, let's suffocate them all, except the Muslims, to make sure religious consciousness remains limited. The fear of the riots, the simple fear of it itself prevents us from making decisions which even we know are right. And the center/the left have perpetuated this fear even after almost 70 years of independence. That is stay within limits otherwise the Hindus and Muslims will do what they fear comes naturally to them - riots. In reality it is just plain cowardice.

 

[scorpionx]

First let's see this image here -

View attachment 153510

This is the Gyanvapi Mosque. The Outer walls is the remnant of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. It was demolished and converted to a Mosque. This is one of the most important of Hindu religious sites. Not just another temple... so anyway... in case I want to go and worship in this ex-temple, I will be arrested and put behind bars for inciting religious hatred. This is just one example.


Your post is a melting pot of differing ideas, I must tell you that.

You have tried sugar coating many statements as well. So let's see one by one in a rational way.


1. India has been tolerant to foreign thoughts, practices, faiths etc. You have stated that except for Punjab and Bengal the reception of Islam was quite hostile among the Indian populace. I will correct that. The reception of Islam was ENTIRELY hostile and remain so today. And the reception was so even in Punjab as well.


First let me give you the instances of India's tolerance -

o Jews were sheltered

o Parsis were given refuge

o Tibetans were and are given refugee status and even allowed to work as a 'Government'

o Sri Lankans, BDeshis etc etc


Now let me tell you why India's tolerance fails to extend to Islam. It's mostly because of the way Islam was introduced into India. But for small hamlets of Kerala, the first (most important) impression of Islam the people of the Indian subcontinent got carried with it gory experiences of mass murder, wars, torture, repression, defeat, rape and destruction. So what kind of reaction do you expect from the native people?


2. Secondly, you state that mediaval India was engulfed in orthodoxy - namely caste related issues. In this case, you are right. It truly was a dark age. But then this has nothing to do with the topic at hand ie Nehru, or India's allegedly 'Secular philosophy'. Suffice to say that the first baby steps to remove the caste rigidity was undertaken by Indians only - there were plenty of reform movements. Many of them originated in Bengal as well.


3. Your final paragraph is one that emanates fear, fear of the Muslims. The idea goes like this - the non Muslims can be denied of a few rights and no hell will break loose. But if some special privileges are not granted to the Muslims(even if they are not practised in reality), the Muslims will tear the country apart. Who knows, the Hindus and Sikhs may also jump into the fray. So to prevent that, let's suffocate them all, except the Muslims, to make sure religious consciousness remains limited. The fear of the riots, the simple fear of it itself prevents us from making decisions which even we know are right. And the center/the left haveperpetuated this fear even after almost 70 years of independence. That is stay within limits otherwise the Hindus and Muslims will do what they fear comes naturally to them - riots. In reality it is just plain cowardice.

Let us for once, go back to your original statement (post#20) where you quite conveniently inferred that as India had been tolerant to alien faiths for centuries there is no need for a specific indoctrination for the state to aloof itself from religious affairs or giving same respect and treat them equally (the two diverging ideas of secularism as per Bhikhu Patel). I saw a fatal weakness in this logic and I am amused that you have made an attempt to hide that weakness again in your ‘rebuttal’ of my argument. Fundamental basis of my opposition of such view was that when a society that could not tolerate social coexistence or cordial intercourse with people of its own religion itself, there is hardly any chance of such tolerance with people belonging to foreign faith and least could be expected with people who rejected their ancient faith and converted to a new one.

Right wing nationalist argument fails to define why the so preached tolerance could not prevent the decaying of scientific and intellectual advancements which India saw till the end of 10th Century. When Arab, Chinese or Persian chroniclers were travelling through expanses of India, learning Sanskrit to understand difficult mathematical equations or intricacies of Buddhist philosophies, Indian tolerance shied away from doing the same; however peaceful coexistence it was, it did not guarantee a State assurance that interests of minorities will be safeguarded nor does it essentially implies that Indian state was a secular one that time. The growing antagonism against the Buddhists during post Ashoka period proves otherwise.

So the ‘Indian historical tolerance’ fails to provide necessary reasoning for its claim that India does not need secularism as you had said in your post. The mentioning of Caste was merely an example how hollow the claims are that ancient tolerance was a necessary safeguard for alien faiths by a state. The reception of Islam, as it was in Africa, Middle East or Central Asia was not hostile in Punjab and Bengal. We can discuss it somewhere else because it may not be much helpful in the present context.

As far as my last paragraph is concerned, no it was not meant to emanate fear. I am sorry if it had implied so to you. The implication of that paragraph was an attempt to realize the gravity of the contemporary social and political India. Since 1857, Muslim aristocracy and educated elites though small in size went through an intellectual resurgence which was aware of the ongoing geographical turmoil all over the world especially in Turkey and Middle East. New countries were being formed up by the British for whom more autonomy for its colonial subjects was the only way to preserve its commercial and military interests in the world. United India during Nehru’s time was vulnerable to such balkanization and it did break no matter how fudgy the reason was.

When he got in charge his job was gruesomely difficult than any of the Indian prime ministers ever. And pressure was always been a conqueror for Nehru’s mind. For him it is best interest for the nation, not to offend a community (after such an unprecedented breaking up of a country on religious ground) which is always in a quasi-alienation state and he always saw an economic solution of the problem, rather than giving it a quick political cure like Uniform Civil Code. If Nehruvian policy saw UCC as a necessary measure to unite the nation but only after having a converging Muslim opinion, I think it is too early to call it dead now as you have concluded before. If the left or Centre had misused it for the last seventy years, Nehru could hardly be blamed for it because first twenty years after Independence is not equal to last twenty years of India you are living in.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The reception of Islam, as it was in Africa, Middle East or Central Asia was not hostile in Punjab and Bengal.

Can't say for Bengal. But Punjab's interaction with Islam has been bloody, violent and extremely disturbing.

So the ‘Indian historical tolerance’ fails to provide necessary reasoning that India does not need secularism as you had said in your post. The mentioning of Caste was merely an example how hollow the claims are that ancient tolerance was a necessary safeguard for alien faiths by a state.

So the counter argument is that secularism needs to be polio dropped to Indians to make them more tolerant human beings? Sorry, but such external inputs will not last, as the cracks now show clearly. Without internal correction, without social reform - social ills can't be addressed properly.

It is unnecessary to attach 'right-wing nationalist' terms to each paragraph. I am not quoting anyone as a liberal - stamped and final. Anyway here goes...

Right wing nationalist argument fails to define why the so preached tolerance could not prevent the decaying of scientific and intellectual advancements which India saw till the end of 10th Century. When Arab, Chinese or Persian chroniclers were travelling through expanses of India, learning Sanskrit to understand difficult mathematic equations or intricacies of Buddhist philosophies, Indian tolerance shied away from doing the same;

If you bring the timeline of 9th and 10th century - that was a period of turmoil, after Qasim's invasions unsettled the kingdoms here. There were scholars then also. After the 11th century it almost entirely dried up. Perhaps largely due to the physical destruction of countless places of worship, learning , Indian empires by Islamic hordes. The final nail in the Buddhist and in general Indian scholarly expression was the destruction of Nalanda Vishyavidyalay.

Let us for once, go back to your original statement (post#20) where you quite conveniently inferred that as India had been tolerant to alien faiths for centuries there is no need for a specific indoctrination for the state to aloof itself from religious affairs or giving same respect and treat them equally (the two diverging ideas of secularism as per Bhikhu Patel). I saw a fatal weakness in this logic and I am amused that you have made an attempt to hide that weakness again in your ‘rebuttal’ of my argument. Fundamental basis of my opposition of such view was that when a society that could not tolerate social coexistence or cordial intercourse with people of its own religion itself, there is hardly any chance of such tolerance with people belonging to foreign faith and least could be expected with people who rejected their ancient faith and converted to a new one.

Tolerance is not absolute. If you compare tolerance in India with an ideal wishy washy tolerance where all is well, well, in that case India was equivalent to Nazi Germany...and the rest of the world was perhaps that on steroids. Or something similar.

State assurance that interests of minorities will be safeguarded nor does it essentially implies that Indian state was a secular one that time.

Never claimed that it was secular. Just that we had greater tolerance to foreign elements.

When Arab, Chinese or Persian chroniclers were travelling through expanses of India, learning Sanskrit to understand difficult mathematic equations or intricacies of Buddhist philosophies, Indian tolerance shied away from doing the same

Incorrect. Chinese and Arab chroniclers did come to India. What you miss is that the Indians also went to many foreign lands. The presence of Indian culture as far as Malaysia, Indonesia, not to mention the spread of Buddhism as a faith is testimony to this fact. It did die out after the 10th century, especially as the Sultanates came into being.

Since 1857, Muslim aristocracy and educated elites though small in size went through an intellectual resurgence which was aware of the ongoing geographical turmoil all over the world especially in Turkey and Middle East.

Why? Why on Earth would Indian Muslim elites find reason to torment Indians for actions in Turkey (yes I am pointing to the Khilafat Movement etc). Why would Indian Muslims kill fellow Indian non Muslims to show their displeasure? Why would this elite Muslim class prepare for Direct Action Days in the country? Why would Indian non Muslims bear the brunt of the 'resurgent' Indian Muslims?

United India during Nehru’s time was vulnerable to such balkanization and it did break no matter how fudgy the reason was.

Yeah, I give him credit for giving stability. In fact that was his only credit. But then he did not do it on purpose. It was a side effect, though a desirable one.

And pressure was always been a conqueror for Nehru’s mind. For him it is best interest for the nation, not to offend a community (after such an unprecedented breaking up of a country on religious ground) which is always in a quasi-alienation state and he always saw an economic solution of the problem, rather than giving it a quick political cure like Uniform Civil Code. If Nehruvian policy saw UCC as a necessary measure to unite the nation but only after having a converging Muslim opinion

Exactly. That the principle of Nehruism. The 'Muslim opinion' though being an absolute minority in post independence India was given a veto. The partition that left all communities dead somehow had different effect on Nehru. Perhaps, he felt that for a conflict to avoid, at least one side needs to be pacified. And as a Kashmiri, he naturally chose to appease the Muslims, the community that itself voted overwhelmingly (85%) to part the country in the first place! All the while the other communities who did not want a Partition were (again) not consulted!

Also UCC was not a political cure, nor is it now. It has been made into one. UCC is a social right, not a political agenda. A right that has been held hostage by Nehruvian remnants up to this day.

As for offending a community, it went like this - its ok if non Muslims are offended but not the Muslims. Nehru's personal hatred for Hinduism is also a documented fact. That may have been a driving force as well.

 

[scorpionx]

So the counter argument is that secularism needs to be polio dropped to Indians to make them more tolerant human beings? Sorry, but such external inputs will not last, as the cracks now show clearly. Without internal correction, without social reform - social ills can't be addressed properly.

It was not a counter argument of polio dropping. It was an argument to show the fragility of your assurance of State doctrine for equal treatment for all because of ancient tradition of peaceful coexistence. Secularism whether fit or not for a diverse archipelago of societies like India is for another debate.

It is unnecessary to attach 'right-wing nationalist' terms to each paragraph. I am not quoting anyone as a liberal - stamped and final. Anyway here goes...

It came repeatedly because secularism was denounced by you and only right wing quarters are fond of such views.

If you bring the timeline of 9th and 10th century - that was a period of turmoil, after Qasim's invasions unsettled the kingdoms here. There were scholars then also. After the 11th century it almost entirely dried up. Perhaps largely due to the physical destruction of countless places of worship, learning , Indian empires by Islamic hordes. The final nail in the Buddhist and in general Indian scholarly expression was the destruction of Nalanda Vishyavidyalay.

Again, this argument does not negate the fact that traditional Indian society preferred to disassociate itself from its foreign counterparts. If destruction of academic institution was the reason for intellectual stagnancy it can not explain why Indians failed to emulate their Arab and Chinese guests. Not sure what you tried to imply there. Its true that Buddhist philosophy did invade China and far east, but it was completely an one way route. Academic and scholarly flow was not inbound at all for Indians.

Why? Why on Earth would Indian Muslim elites find reason to torment Indians for actions in Turkey (yes I am pointing to the Khilafat Movement etc). Why would Indian Muslims kill fellow Indian non Muslims to show their displeasure? Why would this elite Muslim class prepare for Direct Action Days in the country? Why would Indian non Muslims bear the brunt of the 'resurgent' Indian Muslims?

Please understand the context here. Nehru lived in this world and his acts were influenced by the contemporary affairs, not the one you or I live in.

Exactly. That the principle of Nehruism. The 'Muslim opinion' though being an absolute minority in post independence India was given a veto. The partition that left all communities dead somehow had different effect on Nehru. Perhaps, he felt that for a conflict to avoid, at least one side needs to be pacified. And as a Kashmiri, he naturally chose to appease the Muslims, the community that itself voted overwhelmingly (85%) to part the country in the first place! All the while the other communities who did not want a Partition were (again) not consulted!
Also UCC was not a political cure, nor is it now. It has been made into one. UCC is a social right, not a political agenda. A right that has been held hostage by Nehruvian remnants up to this day.
As for offending a community, it went like this - its ok if non Muslims are offended but not the Muslims. Nehru's personal hatred for Hinduism is also a documented fact. That may have been a driving force as well.

Sorry, 'appeasement of Muslims because he was Kashmiri' sounded little blunt and I would not like to comment on it. As far as collective concurrence towards partition of India is concerned, Muslim majority areas in United India did show little enthusiasm for it. So the 'overwhelming' support to part the country sounds ridiculous especially when Hindu Mahasabha and the Sangh's role in partition and their propositions in princely states were equally atrocious if not more. By your logic, these people deserve much and much less respect than they are getting today. If Nehru was flawed then, sorry to say his ideological opponents were even worse.

 

[indushek]

It was not a counter argument of polio dropping. It was an argument to show the fragility of your assurance of State doctrine for equal treatment for all because of ancient tradition of peaceful coexistence. Secularism whether fit or not for a diverse archipelago of societies like India is for another debate.


It came repeatedly because secularism was denounced by you and only right wing quarters are fond of such views.


Again, this argument does not negate the fact that traditional Indian society preferred to disassociate itself from its foreign counterparts. If destruction of academic institution was the reason for intellectual stagnancy it can not explain why Indians failed to emulate their Arab and Chinese guests. Not sure what you tried to imply there. Its true that Buddhist philosophy did invade China and far east, but it was completely an one way route. Academic and scholarly flow was not inbound at all for Indians.


Please understand the context here. Nehru lived in this world and his acts were influenced by the contemporary affairs, not the one you or I live in.


Sorry, 'appeasement of Muslims because he was Kashmiri' sounded little blunt and I would not like to comment on it. As far as collective concurrence towards partition of India is concerned, Muslim majority areas in United India did show little enthusiasm for it. So the 'overwhelming' support to part the country sounds ridiculous especially when Hindu Mahasabha and the Sangh's role in partition and their propositions in princely states were equally atrocious if not more. By your logic, these people deserve much and much less respect than they are getting today. If Nehru was flawed then, sorry to say his ideological opponents were even worse.

In a way Nehru carries the baggage of his successors. Strange but true because the collective mis doings of Congress go back to him as he started the dynasty.

 

[scorpionx]

In a way Nehru carries the baggage of his successors. Strange but true because the collective mis doings of Congress go back to him as he started the dynasty.

Exactly my point. The new generations today hardly have any knowledge about him, his economic and governance policies in detail and blame him for the crime his successors did to this country. Last thing Nehru wanted was a dynastic politics. Indira had little chance to become a PM if Lalbahadur Shastri did not died of an untimely death. And it was she who started making Congress a family business. His economic policies, conveniently termed as a failed one by his critics was influenced by the contemporary business class like the Birlas (irony!!) which were approved by 23 out of 24 leading industrialists then including the Tatas!! Nehru may have thousands of faults but his critics here are failing to realize his difficulties.

 

[Parul]

Nope baby....
India is getting stronger and more secular. Ppl 're not easy to fool anymore.Gandhis and nehrus are all gone and nobody is ready to shoulder their legacy.
Secularism is an inseparable part of India and those who dream of dividing India would be the ones leaving it.

Yes, in 1947 those who wanted to divide India were sent to Moon; they weren't and in near future; History is going to repeat itself.

 

[Levina]

Yes, in 1947 those who wanted to divide India were sent to Moon; they weren't and in near future; History is going to repeat itself.

dream on baby
My country is far more stronger than you think.No communal force can kill it so soon...
All the redundant laws 're getting abolished now India will actually be shining.
btw you said you're foreigner so I guess...well this debate should end here.peacefully!!

 

[Parul]

The only reason I bought up this Marriage Act thing is as it shows Indian Constitution is Discriminatory. Therefore, it can't be a Secular Country.

Another vital thing - lest I forget.

Secularism does not mean your community gets a special marriage law. That is appeasement. I don't want to see any religious marriage laws at all. Secondly the largely similar Hindus and Sikhs were clubbed together only to differentiate other totally different non Indian religions. Having a separate religious law does not mean you are in a Secular State.

Also you can marry according to any religious ceremony. The Special Marriage Act provided for all the needs that you talk about anyway. You want to marry by Jain laws? Answer is the Special Marriage Act. Want to marry according to Aramaic Law? Special Marriage Act. Buddhist Law? Special marriage Act... and so on. So no, there is NOTHING TO STOP YOU from following your religious laws AT ALL.

And you know what? I want all these Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu religious acts to go and replaced with one single Act that will just recognize a marriage, regardless of the religious ceremony undertaken.

I hope in near future, Muslim Marriage act is applied to Hindus. Hindus can marry according to their Rituals. However, when they'll go abroad and their Wives-Daughter has to apply for JOb etc and require to show their Marriage Certificate. Your Passport would show you as Hindu, but your Marriage Certificate would show you Muslim. Then only Hindus would understand this.

 

[Parul]

dream on baby
My country is far more stronger than you think.No communal force can kill it so soon...
All the redundant laws 're getting abolished now India will actually be shining.
btw you said you're foreigner so I guess...well this debate should end here.peacefully!!

Been living here for 7 years now and seen how stronger and secular it is. The Secularism is going to kill it, not Communalism.

I'm yet to see any redundant law getting abolished.

Ya ya, I too hope India Shines.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

but your Marriage Certificate would show you Muslim. Then only Hindus would understand this

LOL. Nothing like that is possible if I marry with the Special Marriage Act. In fact for me personally, that is the only choice.

Btw - I like your signature.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Secularism whether fit or not for a diverse archipelago of societies like India is for another debate.

Bingo. Sure, that's fair enough. Let's debate. Let's put it up for a poll. Like a democracy. We shall see, shall we not? @Sidak

It came repeatedly because secularism was denounced by you and only right wing quarters are fond of such views.

Yes, true. But I don't represent right wing thought here. I speak only for myself. You can use your arguments to attack mine but not general right wing discourse in its entirety.

If destruction of academic institution was the reason for intellectual stagnancy it can not explain why Indians failed to emulate their Arab and Chinese guests.

Chinese interaction was far less as compared to the Arabs or more accurately Turks, Persians and Afghans. With respect to them, well, they came as invaders, and self respecting Indians died, escaped or lived as well as they could. Of course several Indians successfully emulated the 'Arab' 'guests' (I loved the way you termed Arabs as guests) In fact some where so successful that the after effects are evident today.

Nehru lived in this world and his acts were influenced by the contemporary affairs, not the one you or I live in.

Exactly. Even after an unilateral call for Direct Action, most of the curbs were placed on non Muslims to prevent Muslims from going on a rampage again. Reminiscences of the Nehru Era contains thorough description about how he went about actively curtailing 'Hindu thought' in India. Some of the statements may even put Pankaj Mishra to shame.

So the 'overwhelming' support to part the country sounds ridiculous especially when Hindu Mahasabha and the Sangh's role in partition and their propositions in princely states were equally atrocious if not more. By your logic, these people deserve much and much less respect than they are getting today.

No. Let me assure you, Jinnah did a great job in ridding India of a great many number problems. I congratulate Nehru for being to stubborn during the Cabinet Mission as well. In fact with time the Hindu Mahasabha (the Sangh was not really there and RSS was against the partition) seems to be the one party with foresight. They were just like Jinnah - they were opportunists, pro Hindu. Only difference being that Hindu Mahasabha failed to do any Direct Action Day. Secondly the right wing party of choice for general Hindus was still Congress. You must be aware of the right wing faction of Congress that thrived upto the early nineties. Hindu Mahasabha was mostly a fringe, as their electoral strength also proved time and again. So cherry picking HM to beat us all won't work, sorry.

 

[Levina]

Been living here for 7 years now and seen how stronger and secular it is. The Secularism is going to kill it, not Communalism.

Oops by that logic I would've become UAE citizen by now.... thankgod I'm not
A proud Indian would remain proud of India anywhere in this world...lolzzz

I'm yet to see any redundant law getting abolished.

Oops hon ...2012 marriage act should be a reminder.

Ya ya, I too hope India Shines.

brace up!!!