Not so secular India

[Bang Galore]

Why India Is Not A Secular State

The world community has rightly regarded Pakistan and Bangladesh as examples of theocratic states practicing policies of harsh discrimination against Hindus and other minorities. Sri Lanka’s Singhala-centric policies have generated gross discrimination against its Tamil citizens. Beyond India’s South Asian neighbourhood, numerous Islamic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia follow unjust policies toward minorities of all kinds that are an affront to civilized values everywhere and at all times. India in contrast is seen as a shining example of a secular state.

With the Republic Day just gone by, it is time to ask: But is India really a secular state?

I do not think so.

Political secularism may be defined as the separation of religious activities from those of the state, customarily referred to as "the separation of church and state" in the west. Secularism in theory then would mean that religion and state cannot occupy the same space. The state in its governmental capacity does not promote any religion or religious group, nor does it intervene in religious affairs. It cannot even be involved in interpretation or "reform" of any religion much less favour one over any other. This model of secularism may be characterized as maximum separation between state and religion except on manifest grounds of morality, health, and public order. Theoretical formulation, interpretation, and implementation of secularism have varied in several countries. In Indian context, the votaries of Hindutva equate it with appeasement of minorities, thus "pseudo-secularism." Apologists of Indian secularism call it "religious equi-distance, not non-involvement," meaning that Indian state is neutral between religions and religious communities.

I demonstrate that in practice, Indian state actually privileges Hinduism over other religions and religious communities. The Indian state is in fact the defender of the dharma for the following five reasons.

1: Constitutional Discrimination

Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." India’s constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it defines followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Article 25 (2) (b) (Explanation II) states: "the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion…"

Isn’t this the concern of Brahmin establishment to allow or disallow whoever they deem fit to enter a temple? Why should a secular state be concerned with the social welfare of only one religion? The motive of the constitution writers was obvious: to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to

(a) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any person domiciled in the territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

In other words, legally there is no such thing as a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh marriage, which is another attempt to deny other religions a distinctive identity and absorb them in the Hindu fold. The Office of the Registrar General that conducts the decennial census enumerates anyone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi as Hindu, most particularly in tribal areas, in pursuance of a policy of Hindu by default to inflate the religious majority.

Article 290A of the Constitution, which was added in 1956, provides for Kerala state funds to be paid for the upkeep of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories of former princely state of Tranvancore. What state but a denominational one would spend government funds to promote a particular religion?

[As an aside, a forest has been destroyed in arguing for a uniform civil code as opposed to Muslim Personal Law and the issue of Haj subsidy. But perhaps I can save those issues for a full discussion at a different time]

2: Legislative Discrimination

Although freedom of religion is granted under the constitution’s Article 25 (1), a Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation during the heyday of Nehru in 1954. Since then as many as 7 state legislatures (Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tripura) have passed laws severely restricting conversion from Hinduism to other religions while facilitating conversion to Hinduism.

In 1982, when a few hundred Dalits embraced Islam in Meenakshipuram, the central government took measures to curb conversions. No less than Indira Gandhi characterized conversions as a threat to national security.

Christian missions and churches have been under attack since decades, often with state complicity as demonstrated in August-September 2008 in Orissa and Karnataka.

Hundreds of mosques are in illegal possession nationwide including in New Delhi, where scores are occupied by the central government.

It was a Congress government that first locked up the Babari Mosque in 1949 by court order effectively converting it into a Hindu temple. What began under Nehru was successfully completed by Narasimha Rao in 1992 through the Mosque’s destruction under the very nose of army, paramilitary and police. It is ironic that the Indian state is ready to deploy army to flush out Sikh insurgents from Golden Temple and Muslim rebels from Charar-i Sharif, but not protect Babari Mosque from the Hindu mobs’ jack hammers.

The states of Gujarat and UP spent government funds to rebuild the Somanatha Temple around the same time when Babari Mosque was locked up. It was President Rajendra Prasad who inaugurated the rebuilt temple in 1951 amidst official fanfare.

3: Employment Discrimination

Article 16 (2) of the constitution prohibits discrimination in public employment on religious grounds. Yet there are numerous examples of outright discrimination. Per Presidential orders of 1950 and 1956 the beneficiaries of Scheduled Castes’ reservation can only be Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists but not Christians and Muslims. If an SC changes religion after obtaining employment or admission to school, he or she must forfeit job and withdraw from school as has happened in numerous instances. But if the SC reverts to Hinduism, he or she can resume his/her status as an SC as courts have ruled.

Discrimination in Army

Right after 1947, Kashmir’s predominantly Hindu army was absorbed in the national army; whereas Hyderabad’s largely Muslim army was disbanded, rendering nearly 20,000 jobless. The Indian army’s infantry regiments are still based on religion (Sikh regiments), or ethnicity (Gorkha) or caste (Rajput) or region (Garhwal) in which members of other faiths, ethnicities, and regions are barred.

While a bearded Sikh may become chief of the army staff as did Gen. J.J. Singh, a Muslim may not sport beard in any of the armed forces. Only Jhatka is served in army messes and langers forcing Muslims to become vegetarian. A Hanuman temple greets visitors upon entering virtually every cantonment in the nation, hinting non-Hindus that they don’t belong there. In their public addresses to the soldiers and officers, at least two army chiefs—Generals B.C. Joshi and Shankar Roy Chowdhury—have used references to Hindu scriptures to the exclusion of the Quran and the Bible.

4: Cultural Discrimination

There are numerous examples where Hindu culture is conflated with Indian culture. The ban on cow slaughter deprived thousands of butchers their livelihood even as it stole millions of poor their only source of inexpensive protein. Cow may be sacred to the upper castes, but not so to the Christians, Dalits, and Muslims. Food taboos of some higher castes do not end at beef. Beyond beef, eggs may not be sold publicly by court order as it offends some caste sensibilities. Nor can school children bring food of their choice if it offends Hindus.

Official functions of the government whether at the central or state levels often commence with Hindu ceremonies of lighting lamps, breaking coconuts, and recitation of slokas. There is no disapproval to the fact that functions of central and state ministries of education begin with Sarasvati vandana .

In September 1993, Air India took delivery of a Boeing 747 in Seattle, Washington where the Ramakrishna Mission performed a puja invoking Lord Ganesha. Ministers lay foundation stones of government buildings preceded by bhoomi puja ceremony as if the state belongs only to Hindus. In Vishakhapatnam, I witnessed a ship launch amid saffron-robed, ashen faced sadhus singing bhajans, a function nearly mistaken as a Hindu festival.

In a trip to the United States in 1984, AP Chief Minister N.T. Ramarao found nothing objectionable in spending government funds for distributing medallions with Sri Venkateshwara’s image among potential investors in his state.

A large stone image of a reclining Vishnu located at the entrance to the IGP’s headquarters in Bangalore is more fitting for a temple than a secular state’s police building. Almost every police thana in West Bengal has a Kali temple, none has a mosque in a state with nearly 30 percent Muslim population. Muslim police trainees in Andhra Pradesh,

School children in Gujarat, Maharashtra and numerous other states have been forced to perform Surya namaskar against their will. Government school texts in Hindi and regional languages assume all pupils to be Hindu as the contents are soaked with idioms, phrases, signs, symbols, and icons of Hinduism to the exclusion of material from other religions and cultures. Textbooks of history and social studies are replete with gross distortions of Indian history of all eras, ancient, medieval and modern, in which Muslims and Christians are invariably the villains, traitors and foreigners.

Until the advent of television in the 1980s, All India Radio was the main source of information and entertainment to middle classes. The government-controlled AIR began its programs with Vande Mataram, Mangala dhwani, Vandana, and Hindu lyrics. Rarely did AIR broadcast anything pertaining to Christian or Muslim cultures. Like the AIR, during its heyday, seldom does Door Darshan show any serials of Muslim or Christian character. When it broadcasted serials of historical or literary figures—Tipu Sultan, Ghalib—they were caricatured into modern stock characters stripped of their distinctive cultural identity.

5: Religious Pogroms

Finally no modern, secular democracy other than India experienced multiple, state-sponsored pogroms—that of Sikhs in 1984 and of Muslims in 2002. In both instances, the highest in the Executive branch of the government justified the pogroms: Rajiv Gandhi when his mother was murdered; and Narendra Modi when the train burned in Godhra.

For all these five reasons, India is not a secular state. It is in fact the defender of Hindu dharma.

www.outlookindia.com | Why India Is Not A Secular State

I think this should close the debate.......

Err.... Not so fast. We are not as gullible as you prefer. You deliberately left out a response to the article posted by you, simply because it is inconvenient to the argument proposed.
Therefore, it befalls me to add that article before as suggested by you, "we close the debate".

India, Secularism, Whatever
It is unfortunate that someone like Dr Omar Khalidi would indulge in such sophistry, selectively pick and choose dots to create an ugly picture and then present it as reality. It is the same methodology as is used by Islam-bashers to conclude that Islam equals terrorism...

Mohib Ahmad


India is not a secular country. India does not treat all its religions equally. For example:

India allows Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis to manage their civil affairs according to their respective religious laws. But it places restrictions upon how Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains can manage theirs. Indian Parliament even overturned a Supreme Court ruling to appease Muslims.
The Indian government annually subsidizes -- to the tune of Rs 413 Crore -- the annual Haj journey for Muslims to go to Saudi Arabia.
Andhra Pradesh government sponsors a Rs 2 Crore religious junket for Christians to Bethlehem.
Aligarh Muslim University is allocated an annual budget -- Rs 245 Crore -- that is one of the highest for any university in India. However it still allows the central university to retain its distinct Muslim character. All dining halls serve halal meat and no space is available for Hindu religious congregation. Same goes for Jamia Millia Islamia.
Indian Muslims can have multiple wives but people belonging to other religions can’t unless they convert to Islam. Indian Muslims can utter talaq three times and get over with it whereas others need to go through tedious court proceedings.

One could go on and on in similar vein.

All the statements listed above are true. Therefore, I conclude that India is not a secular country -- rather it is, in fact, a defender of monotheistic religions, particularly Islam.

***

It is easier now to understand the fallacy of Dr. Omar Khalidi’s argument, such as it is, in his essay Why India Is Not A Secular State.

He selectively picks and chooses dots to create an ugly picture and then presents it as reality. It is as if Dr. Khalidi has come up with a checklist of carefully drawn items that he keeps checking till he reaches the conclusion that India is not secular. It is the same methodology as is used by Islam-bashers to conclude that Islam equals terrorism. It is the same exercise as is undertaken by Hindutva extremists to prove that the Indian state appeases Muslims. It is, therefore, unfortunate that someone like Dr. Khalidi, who has in the past produced important works like Muslims In Indian Economy and Khaki And The Ethnic Violence In India would indulge in such sophistry.

Dr. Khalidi quotes Hindu Marriage Act (1955) to buttress his claim for legislative preference shown to Hinduism. In reality, some of the biggest critics of the Act were conservative Hindus, including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), leaders. If the Act was just an attempt to co-opt Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists into the fold of Hinduism, as Dr Khalidi suggests, wouldn’t Hindu leaders have welcomed it with open arms? Dr. BR Ambedkar in fact resigned from the union cabinet in October 1951 apparently because of the stringent opposition to Hindu Code Bill (the precursor to Hindu Marriage Act). It was not until after the 1952 elections that Nehru became strong enough to push through the Bill again.

It is not by accident that all "Indic religions" have been slotted together under Hindi Marriage Act and those originating outside India were left out from its purview. It was a common-sense approach to take at that time and, if anything, it did not go far enough. If Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains think that they have been co-opted within the larger fold of Hinduism then its evidence is certainly hard to find. In an ideal situation, there would be one civil law for all religions as laws should be the same for all citizens. However the nation that had then recently seen, at the time of Partition, thousands die on the question of religion, did not want to push through a Uniform Civil Code on to a vulnerable Muslim community lest it were seen as an example of Hindu domination. Unfortunately, the issue has been communalised so much since then that it is difficult to even have a debate on it now. Eventually India will move towards a Uniform Civil Code and it will then have to thank the Hindu Marriage Act for paving the way.

Dr. Khalidi talks about the anti-conversion measures passed by various state governments. I have my concerns about such legislations, as do many other Indians. It is absolutely right that such laws infringe upon the freedom of religion. But the question of infringement on the right of an individual to choose a religion arises only because that individual right is enshrined in the constitution. These battles can be fought and will be won in courts.

Dr Khalidi also brings up the subject of reservations in jobs and educational institutions for Schedule Castes (SCs). It is another contentious issue -- those who convert to Christianity or Islam are denied benefits which were previously available to them. Personally, I am against reservations and I think India should be moving away from a reservation based system. However it is important to note that a similar clause for Scheduled Tribes (STs) does not exist and let's not forget that there are Scheduled Tribe Muslims as well in India.

Dr. Khalidi also makes much of General JJ Singh sporting a beard whereas Muslims servicemen are not allowed to do the same. It is interesting that Dr. Khalidi quotes the example of General Singh, a Sikh, and not any Hindu General to support his argument. Simply because there cannot be any Hindu General sporting a beard either, just as there won’t be a Muslim General with beard. Actually, by default, no one can sport a beard in Indian Armed Forces except for Sikhs. One could argue about the merits of this policy and whether it is biased in favour of Sikhs but it is hardly a case of the Indian state favouring Hindus and discriminating against Muslims, the basic premise of Dr. Khalidi’s essay. In Indian Navy, for example, anyone can sport a beard after taking permission from senior officers.

Cultural discrimination is a complex issue and not simply an issue of one religion being given preference over others as Dr. Khalidi presumes it to be. Does he cry foul when government-sponsored iftars are hosted? Or when Eid Milad-un-Nabi gets declared a national holiday by VP Singh? What about the Indo-Islamic Culture course that is a requirement at 10+2 level at Aligarh Muslim University?

His assertion that Door Darshan does not broadcast any serial of Muslim or Christian characters is blatantly incorrect. What about Alif Laila, Mullah Naseeruddin and Bibli Ki Kahaniyan? And to dismiss Tipu Sultan and Mirza Ghalib as stock characters! Oh please. Kaifi Azmi must be turning in his grave and Gulzar has a good case for litigation.

***

Dr. Khalidi in his article fails to understand the complexity of Indian society and the nature of the Indian state. Just as Dr. Khalidi can quote selective examples to prove India is not a secular state but predisposed towards Hinduism, other selective examples can be used to "prove" that indeed India is not a secular state but one predisposed towards Islam. This just goes to show that the reality lies somewhere in between. Unfortunately, Dr. Khalidi reduces the essence of secularism and tolerant Indian ethos to a checklist of randomly selected items.

It is obvious that there are major issues facing India that need to be addressed. However all those can be addressed within the Indian constitutional framework. Aftab Ahmad Ansari, an aircraftsman of Indian Air Force, might not have yet got permission to wear a beard but cases such as his will ensure that eventually India will implement a more balanced policy on the issue. Similarly on other thorny issues of religious conversions and reservations, a consensus will emerge when we start treating an individual as the only minority and get out of our preconceived majority-minority paradigm. Same goes for the Uniform Civil Code. It is easy for Dr. Khalidi to dismiss UCC and Haj Subsidy as an aside but those issues severely undercut his major premise that Indian state is predisposed towards Hinduism. And if that were the case, then surely the Indian state has done a very poor job at that with a Sikh Prime Minister and a Catholic leader at the top for the past 5 years!

It would have been too easy for Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists to conclude that United States was a racist country, wash their hands off and emigrate to Jamaica. In that case the world would have never seen Barack Obama. Indian Muslims, by any stretch of imagination, are not in the same discriminatory situation as blacks were in USA. The community would do well not to pay heed to Dr. Khalidi who, instead of encouraging them to strive for their rights, if and when denied, within a democratic set-up, is curiously bent on proving that they don’t have a chance anyway. Dr. Khalidi’s essay is an affront to all those Indians who are fighting for the rights of fellow Indians -- including those Indians who suffered in Delhi 1984 and Gujarat 2002 -- every day to make India a better country. It is an insult to millions and millions of Muslims -- like my grandfather -- who chose to stay in India because they believed in the idea of India.

When the French writer Andre Malraux asked Jawaharlal Nehru in 1958 about his "greatest difficulty since Independence," Nehru had replied, "Creating a just state by just means". He then added: "Perhaps, too, creating a secular state in a religious country."

Indian state is a work in progress but the foundations are right. The champions of modern Indian state fought hard to create a secular democratic state. India will remain secular as long as the people of India -- you, me, and everyone -- choose it to be. It doesn’t help a bit to start with a position that says India is not a secular country. It is the responsibility of all Indians to ensure it stays secular and Indian Muslims need to do their bit as equal stakeholders in the future of the country.

Mohib Ahmad is the founder of Indian Muslims Blog, a group blog dedicated to discussing issues concerning Indian Muslims.

www.outlookindia.com | India, Secularism, Whatever

 

[Kazhugu]

1: Constitutional Discrimination

Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." India’s constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it defines followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Article 25 (2) (b) (Explanation II) states: "the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion…"

Isn’t this the concern of Brahmin establishment to allow or disallow whoever they deem fit to enter a temple? Why should a secular state be concerned with the social welfare of only one religion? The motive of the constitution writers was obvious: to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to

(a) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any person domiciled in the territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

In other words, legally there is no such thing as a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh marriage, which is another attempt to deny other religions a distinctive identity and absorb them in the Hindu fold. The Office of the Registrar General that conducts the decennial census enumerates anyone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi as Hindu, most particularly in tribal areas, in pursuance of a policy of Hindu by default to inflate the religious majority.

Article 290A of the Constitution, which was added in 1956, provides for Kerala state funds to be paid for the upkeep of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories of former princely state of Tranvancore. What state but a denominational one would spend government funds to promote a particular religion?

[As an aside, a forest has been destroyed in arguing for a uniform civil code as opposed to Muslim Personal Law and the issue of Haj subsidy. But perhaps I can save those issues for a full discussion at a different time]

i dont see any constitutional discrimination.....hindus have hindu marriage law...muslims have muslim personal law and christians have teir own laws....

And if the buddhists,kjains and sikhs have no problem being lumped together with the pesky hindus why should a muslim have a problem about teir (sikh,buddist,jain) inclusion as hindus..?


Thirdly the line about kerala temples getting funds,,,are you aware thwn when muslim properties are not touched by the govt..most of the revenue generated by hindu temples goes to govt treasury...so the govt just hands what it gets....


first point..BUstED

2: Legislative Discrimination[/B][/U]

Although freedom of religion is granted under the constitution’s Article 25 (1), a Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation during the heyday of Nehru in 1954. Since then as many as 7 state legislatures (Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tripura) have passed laws severely restricting conversion from Hinduism to other religions while facilitating conversion to Hinduism.

In 1982, when a few hundred Dalits embraced Islam in Meenakshipuram, the central government took measures to curb conversions. No less than Indira Gandhi characterized conversions as a threat to national security.

Christian missions and churches have been under attack since decades, often with state complicity as demonstrated in August-September 2008 in Orissa and Karnataka.

Hundreds of mosques are in illegal possession nationwide including in New Delhi, where scores are occupied by the central government.

It was a Congress government that first locked up the Babari Mosque in 1949 by court order effectively converting it into a Hindu temple. What began under Nehru was successfully completed by Narasimha Rao in 1992 through the Mosque’s destruction under the very nose of army, paramilitary and police. It is ironic that the Indian state is ready to deploy army to flush out Sikh insurgents from Golden Temple and Muslim rebels from Charar-i Sharif, but not protect Babari Mosque from the Hindu mobs’ jack hammers.

The states of Gujarat and UP spent government funds to rebuild the Somanatha Temple around the same time when Babari Mosque was locked up. It was President Rajendra Prasad who inaugurated the rebuilt temple in 1951 amidst official fanfare.

all emo bs with no substantiative point to boot...

3: Employment Discrimination[/U][/B]

Article 16 (2) of the constitution prohibits discrimination in public employment on religious grounds. Yet there are numerous examples of outright discrimination. Per Presidential orders of 1950 and 1956 the beneficiaries of Scheduled Castes’ reservation can only be Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists but not Christians and Muslims. If an SC changes religion after obtaining employment or admission to school, he or she must forfeit job and withdraw from school as has happened in numerous instances. But if the SC reverts to Hinduism, he or she can resume his/her status as an SC as courts have ruled.

thats because indian reservation is caste based and there are no castes in islam and christianity ..duh....thats what you people claim while converting sc hindus...so live with it..

Discrimination in Army

Right after 1947, Kashmir’s predominantly Hindu army was absorbed in the national army; whereas Hyderabad’s largely Muslim army was disbanded, rendering nearly 20,000 jobless. The Indian army’s infantry regiments are still based on religion (Sikh regiments), or ethnicity (Gorkha) or caste (Rajput) or region (Garhwal) in which members of other faiths, ethnicities, and regions are barred.

While a bearded Sikh may become chief of the army staff as did Gen. J.J. Singh, a Muslim may not sport beard in any of the armed forces. Only Jhatka is served in army messes and langers forcing Muslims to become vegetarian. A Hanuman temple greets visitors upon entering virtually every cantonment in the nation, hinting non-Hindus that they don’t belong there. In their public addresses to the soldiers and officers, at least two army chiefs—Generals B.C. Joshi and Shankar Roy Chowdhury—have used references to Hindu scriptures to the exclusion of the Quran and the Bible.

the goc of sri nagar based northern command is one Gen.Hasnain.....again duh..

this is the flag in siachen army basecamp..

4: Cultural Discrimination

There are numerous examples where Hindu culture is conflated with Indian culture. The ban on cow slaughter deprived thousands of butchers their livelihood even as it stole millions of poor their only source of inexpensive protein. Cow may be sacred to the upper castes, but not so to the Christians, Dalits, and Muslims. Food taboos of some higher castes do not end at beef. Beyond beef, eggs may not be sold publicly by court order as it offends some caste sensibilities. Nor can school children bring food of their choice if it offends Hindus.

Official functions of the government whether at the central or state levels often commence with Hindu ceremonies of lighting lamps, breaking coconuts, and recitation of slokas. There is no disapproval to the fact that functions of central and state ministries of education begin with Sarasvati vandana .

In September 1993, Air India took delivery of a Boeing 747 in Seattle, Washington where the Ramakrishna Mission performed a puja invoking Lord Ganesha. Ministers lay foundation stones of government buildings preceded by bhoomi puja ceremony as if the state belongs only to Hindus. In Vishakhapatnam, I witnessed a ship launch amid saffron-robed, ashen faced sadhus singing bhajans, a function nearly mistaken as a Hindu festival.

In a trip to the United States in 1984, AP Chief Minister N.T. Ramarao found nothing objectionable in spending government funds for distributing medallions with Sri Venkateshwara’s image among potential investors in his state.

A large stone image of a reclining Vishnu located at the entrance to the IGP’s headquarters in Bangalore is more fitting for a temple than a secular state’s police building. Almost every police thana in West Bengal has a Kali temple, none has a mosque in a state with nearly 30 percent Muslim population. Muslim police trainees in Andhra Pradesh,

School children in Gujarat, Maharashtra and numerous other states have been forced to perform Surya namaskar against their will. Government school texts in Hindi and regional languages assume all pupils to be Hindu as the contents are soaked with idioms, phrases, signs, symbols, and icons of Hinduism to the exclusion of material from other religions and cultures. Textbooks of history and social studies are replete with gross distortions of Indian history of all eras, ancient, medieval and modern, in which Muslims and Christians are invariably the villains, traitors and foreigners.

Until the advent of television in the 1980s, All India Radio was the main source of information and entertainment to middle classes. The government-controlled AIR began its programs with Vande Mataram, Mangala dhwani, Vandana, and Hindu lyrics. Rarely did AIR broadcast anything pertaining to Christian or Muslim cultures. Like the AIR, during its heyday, seldom does Door Darshan show any serials of Muslim or Christian character. When it broadcasted serials of historical or literary figures—Tipu Sultan, Ghalib—they were caricatured into modern stock characters stripped of their distinctive cultural identity.

this is getting even more ridiculous.....

he is having a problem with air india doing a small puja for the boeings they took delivery and that shows india is not secular....

i guess he will not have a problem if they start everything with "bismillah e rahman......" because that will then become secular...

this is te problem with indian secularism-.....its takeen as anti-hinduism.. the more anti-hindu you are..the more secular you are considered to be...

5: Religious Pogroms

Finally no modern, secular democracy other than India experienced multiple, state-sponsored pogroms—that of Sikhs in 1984 and of Muslims in 2002. In both instances, the highest in the Executive branch of the government justified the pogroms: Rajiv Gandhi when his mother was murdered; and Narendra Modi when the train burned in Godhra.

For all these five reasons, India is not a secular state. It is in fact the defender of Hindu dharma.

and justice is being served...like the recent judgement convicting 31 hindus for their role in the riots..some defenders of hindus india is....

 

[Kazhugu]

Err.... Not so fast. We are not as gullible as you prefer. You deliberately left out a response to the article posted by you, simply because it is inconvenient to the argument proposed.
Therefore, it befalls me to add that article before as suggested by you, "we close the debate".

oh man..why do you have to give him such a rude wake up call...oh wait...that mohib ahmed will be branded as a false flag who is actually Mohan lal..

 

[ashokdeiva]

So I see, some states have a anti stand against conversion, its because of this we are not secular.
Come on guys, the reason why anti conversion came to the picture is not to abuse the law that were writen earlier.
The Dalits were given reservation, but when they get converted to Christianity they are deprieved of that privilage as Christians are FC in India, also the ignorance of uneducated Dalits are actively exploited by teh Christian missionaries by using appeasing words of conversion.
Does a Hindu or a Muslim go and convert people door step to door step, no. this happens only in some sections of forign funded missionaries.
If that is allowed then India will lose its identity as a nation of different religion which is why the law to stop conversion by christian missionaries.
if the christian missionaries do the same in Pakistan I am sure they will be judged by the swords.

 

[Tshering22]

I don't see why we have to keep explaining our stand. India is constitutionally secular but culturally Dharmic country. We are the host civilization with the world's oldest civilization. If someone misuses our benefits that we give, naturally there will be retaliation. No two words about it. Only escapists and cowards would demand an "explanation" for such retaliation which is not unilateral in nature.

 

[Kazhugu]

If someone misuses our benefits that we give, naturally there will be retaliation.

just to lighten the mood....

we r mean, nasty and tired. we eat concertina wire and piss napalm and we can put a round in a flea's rear at 200 meters -

 

[ashokdeiva]

 

[alphamale]

@ superkaif. the article posted by u is the personal view of only one man.

the constitution of india do not term buddhists, jains & sikhs as hindus. they term all these religions as one group i.e dharmic religions. same as islam, christanity & Jewish religions are called abrahmic religions. the article is also wrong in respect that few states have banned or restricted conversion from hinduism which is entirely incorrect. any person in india anywhere in india can convert to any religion. also not only non hindu religious sites are under govt but many hindu religious sites are also under the govt. regarding building of temples is concerned then not only temples but other religious structures are also constructed in india. it is not like only hindu temple are given priority.

the other matter is reservations on caste bases. only Hinduism is the religion in india where caste system is practiced. all other religions do not have a concept of caste system so how can they be given reservation based upon castes.
the other matter is Kashmir army vs Hyderabad army. it had nothing to do with religion. kashmir army fought alongside india so that's why it was absorbed in indian army whereas Hyderabad army fought against india. the matter should be clear to u now.

the other matter is sikh keeping beard vs muslim keeping beard. i want to tell u that for sikhs keeping beard or all body hair is mandatory acc to their religion. which is not the case with muslims. any army person other than sikhs is not allowed to keep long beards. it is not only against muslims. also jhatka as well as halal meat is served in army. as far as temple at entry point is concerned then ministry of defence do not relese funds for any religious place. those temples are made my soldiers on their own that's why they are smaller in size in every army area. besides temples there are also mosques, gurudwaras & churches. a temple at the entry does not mean u have to worship there. no one force others to do so. the other matter is naming of regiments on ethnic lines. this was done by british, indian army did not started that concept.

as far as cow slaughter is concerned then it is not banned all over india. in many states cow slaughter is allowed. plus selling eggs openly is no problem in india, only a fool could have written that. there are also many things in india which are banned which could hurt the sentiments of other religions. it is not one way road.

performing religious rites before starting anything is not the policy of Indian govt. only few politicians or high officials do that that too in their private affairs.

the other matter is education system in india. in india 95% of education system has nothing to do with religion. not all muslim rulers are described as villains. only those are shown in bad colors who indeed were bad. also surya namaskar is confined to just 5-6% schools in india.

the article posted by u do not show the real face of india.

 

[DARKY]

Ive been to UP mostly, lucknow, Agra.. and a small stopover in Dehli..
It was open, there was little communal problem.. except that you found no beef...Muslims bought from Muslims, and Hindus dealth with Hindus.. the newer generation seemed to be mixing it up.. but not that much.
There were still cases of me having to identify myself as a muslim at a chai stop near rae bareli so I could be given tea in the disposable cup...instead of the glass one(thank god I did not mention I was Pakistani)..
Saw some saffron wrapped jogi or whatever preaching dharmatma(or something to do with your asambhav..cant recall) in front of a mosque and I distinctly heard him get very upset at the mosque's fairly small speaker calling the Azaan.
I have relatives there, compared to them.. the side of the family that is in Pakistan is literally bathing in gold.
These people are very patriotic, they love India.. but do mumble it out about the time they needed to run away from a Hindu superiority gang that happened some time ago


As mentioned by Developero.. its not the secularism of most Indians in doubt..
its political motivations that keep that peace in a delicate balance.
Rapes, murders dont translate into the non-existence of secularism..
What does is when the state is being run by folks who believe in the superiority of a single religion over all others, and that religion's right to being the sole inheritor of the land.

Lucknow... is the place from a BJP leader became MP 5 times perhaps.... even though it has a fairly high percentage of Muslim population.
You can find people mixing with each other a lot there.... Muslims mostly there are business people who generally own cloth and saree shops... or tailor shops along with bakery and carpenter shops...
Beef is common there and you can find that in your walk around any big mosque in the evening.... being sold by street hawkers.

Agra... Is a place where Muslims are generally confined to the urban areas... since the place is generally a Jat+yadav land... Population Mixing would be difficult to find there however people tend to mix more in Aligarh even though its also a Jat land... If you Know Jat people then you would understand the need for separation... and Beef would be hard to find there however you can still get that in any crowded Muslim locality...

Delhi.... go to Okhla or old delhi.... for good quality beef... although you can find beef in every nook and corner... people are mixed and deal more here among themselves.

Barelly... again a Jat land... about tea stall incident... you should be happy since they never wash the glass properly... However you don't see such difference most of the places....

Since you have been to U.P.... here the simple picture I can give you of the state... the eastern part is of Bhojpuri speaking people mixed with Muslims.... people deal with each other... However keep a little distance... thanks to the politics played... generallyIf you are sitting on a Train to Varanasi... you'll come across Pandits(brahmins) who are blad having big tilaks talking **** about Muslims... If you try to correct them they start shouting on you... a typical mirror image of their Muslim counterpart the Mullah group.... as you go beyond Lukhnow to enter Barelly you can see the differences clearly... which is more so in places like Moradabad and Muzaffarnagar.... as for parts like agra.. etawah etc... The speaker thing is kind of BS that happens all over India... there are Mosques competing with each other for the loudest voice and so does temples but the problem arises when they start competing among temple and mosque.... but thats the beauty of U.P..... BTW Muslim gangs are also very strong in Eastern U.P and Azamgarh... google for Mukhtar Ansari for example... He is from Mau.

 

[Developereo]

AND DEVELOPEREO, the dunniest thing is that u were online at that time, reading all this...and had nothing to reply back, so u kept shut!

now i request u to plz get back to topic which is about "INDIA'S SECULARISM",and read my posts, and then comment....

Try not to be so sensitive. There are a lot of posts in a lot of interesting threads and I don't get to read each one.

As for your posts which you reposted, these are mostly personal observations and your personal feelings. No one is denying that there are secular Indians. The debate here is whether people like you will be able to stem the rise of Hindu nationalism which rejects secularism.

maan....thr s no discrimination....all govt/public secctor jobs are got through open merit based entrance tests whose results r open tp be verified through rti...and as for the govt schools....anyone can get a seat....provided they r willing to send their child to school....

dont post canrds for de sake of argument.....

Sachar found that access to government education itself is uneven, and Muslims fare worse than average.

arrey baba....two circles is a muslim website..nothing wrong with that...but obviously it will be in favour of muslims...try putting a more neutral link...you wont accept me quoting rss website or vhp website..will u ?

Yes, but their claims were borne out by Sachar. The result was a series of measures by the state government and, as I wrote, the conditions have improved.

and I find that yet again, developereo has very conveniently taken leave when he couldn't reply back. and then he will come back after 2 hours and once again start a fight...

Ever heard of time zones?

 

[Bang Galore]

As for your posts which you reposted, these are mostly personal observations and your personal feelings. No one is denying that there are secular Indians. The debate here is whether people like you will be able to stem the rise of Hindu nationalism which rejects secularism.

I don't really understand where you want to go with this "secular individuals" stuff. Individuals are mostly liberal or conservative & cannot real be described as secular, which is more of an attribute of a state. The point is not whether individuals are communal or whether a community lags behind due to a number of factors & not even whether a part of that lagging is caused by discrimination by individuals or groups but whether the state itself is a direct party to that discrimination & whether such treatment is sanctioned under law. There is only so much any state can do, communal people exist everywhere. What you must appreciate is what Nehru said - "the greatest challenge is to create a secular state in a deeply religious country". If you look at India dispassionately, you will be forced to admit that whatever the failures & I have no doubt that there are many, a framework for a better future does exist & is profoundly secular.Sometimes, it is necessary to credit the intention even if the facts don't always reflect that.

Sachar found that access to government education itself is uneven, and Muslims fare worse than average.



Yes, but their claims were borne out by Sachar. The result was a series of measures by the state government and, as I wrote, the conditions have improved.

You prove my above point here. Justice Sachar was asked to report by a government which worried about the state of a section of its people. You can hardly quote the Sachar report & rubbish India's commitment to "equality for all" at the same time. The fact that measures are being taken to address the shortcomings show that the intent to be fair exists in the Indian state.

 

[Kazhugu]

Sachar found that access to government education itself is uneven, and Muslims fare worse than average.

huh...then blame the parents who dont send their children to study....how can the state be responsible for them....rhe state gives various incentives to all...but its ultimately left to the parents to enroll the children in school....

now let ,me tell what the problem with many muslim families...they bear six to seven children when they are barely able to raise two..because their local mullah told hem that children are allah's gift...now unable to concentrate on all of them ...they send them to work instead to school...while comparitively in christian,hindu jain families its mosly 2 children and if they are well off three...so they are able to afford education and this cycle continues...

let me tell you two things muslims (most of them) need to do to develop - understand the importance of education and secondly get rid of the victimhood complex....actually the second applies to all muslims worldwiide..

finally....sachar is not holy god that all he said is correct..

Yes, but their claims were borne out by Sachar. The result was a series of measures by the state government and, as I wrote, the conditions have improved.


sachar and govt did jackshit dude.....if any thing is developing its due to individual efforts,,,
Ever heard of time zones?

 

[Vinod2070]

Ive been to UP mostly, lucknow, Agra.. and a small stopover in Dehli..
It was open, there was little communal problem.. except that you found no beef...Muslims bought from Muslims, and Hindus dealth with Hindus.. the newer generation seemed to be mixing it up.. but not that much.
There were still cases of me having to identify myself as a muslim at a chai stop near rae bareli so I could be given tea in the disposable cup...instead of the glass one(thank god I did not mention I was Pakistani)..
Saw some saffron wrapped jogi or whatever preaching dharmatma(or something to do with your asambhav..cant recall) in front of a mosque and I distinctly heard him get very upset at the mosque's fairly small speaker calling the Azaan.
I have relatives there, compared to them.. the side of the family that is in Pakistan is literally bathing in gold.
These people are very patriotic, they love India.. but do mumble it out about the time they needed to run away from a Hindu superiority gang that happened some time ago

Your family has obvilously been among the lucky few.

On an average, an Indian earns more than a Pakistani (about 40% higher and rising) and ana verage Indian Muslim is richer and better educated and is less likely to be the target of a violent attack than a Paksitani Sunni Muslim (let alone a Pakistani Hindu, especially doctor, or Ahmedis or Shia or Mohajir or tribal in Karachi and so on).

As mentioned by Developero.. its not the secularism of most Indians in doubt..
its political motivations that keep that peace in a delicate balance.
Rapes, murders dont translate into the non-existence of secularism..
What does is when the state is being run by folks who believe in the superiority of a single religion over all others, and that religion's right to being the sole inheritor of the land.

Sounds suspiciously like a state to our West.

Won't you say?

 

[Kazhugu]

Your family has obvilously been among the lucky few.

On an average, an Indian earns more than a Pakistani (about 40% higher and rising) and ana verage Indian Muslim is richer and better educated and is less likely to be the target of a violent attack than a Paksitani Sunni Muslim (let alone a Pakistani Hindu, especially doctor, or Ahmedis or Shia or Mohajir or tribal in Karachi and so on).



Sounds suspiciously like a state to our West.

Won't you say?

i think he specifically meant the mohajir families that left india and settled there and not all pakistanies....ofcourse i would agree to that...

the rich and educated made all the noise about minority safety/rights, got their country and immediately left behind the poor and uneducated to fend for themselves...

 

[Vinod2070]

Very well said. The weird psycho babble and even weirder theories about how a billion indians conspire to portray an artificial image is awesome. They speak as if they attended one of our midnight secret meetings, but they did not as i took roll call and only one billion showed up, nobody from the neighborhood

Seriously, are we bothered with pakistan being a perfect islamic state? Pakistanis should be. And yes, they do claim islam to be the better systems, so all they have to worry about is their own system perfection and automatically thats better than our secularism, perfect or inperfect. But their keen interest in india's secularism, mental gymnastics, deep denial, ingrained hatred, weird theories and basically offering apologies for murders, from ilm ud din to dawood to kasab to qadri, only goes to show how condemned they are. Indeed the curse you speak of is evident.

Crux of the matter.

This obsession is interesting but also useless and self destructive.