The Importance of Being Secular

[Gabbar]

Well, I think Communists its starting to reveal him true identity. Communist I think it is the right time to come out clean and admit who you realy are.

 

[afriend]

well my friends if that is secularism i guess PAKISTAN is secular too we have DANIESH KANERIA a HINDU and ex Christian YOUSUF YOUHANA....and a SIKH in the ARMY....so i guess PAKISTAN IS A SECULAR COUNTRY.....the minute an indian says PAKISTAN is secular i am ready 2 take ur word for india being secular....

the truth of the matter is no country in the world is SECULAR.....every country has RELIGIOUS Connotations....the sooner we admit it the better it will be for us....

Well zob, i dont think the objective of the this thread is to compare indian with pakistan, but to highlight how politicians use religions for thier own benfit.. and e.g of filim industry and sports teams where given to high light the fact that, we can live without asking a persons religion. You can see many inter caste marriages in flim industry.. nobody cares what a persons religion is. If the entire nation have to think that way, first politicians should not see religions as a political vote bank, and indian burocractic system have to do away with the identification/recrutiment/reservation based on religion and caste.

Now if you can be constructive and give your thought on how we can achieve a true secularism then it would help this thread.

 

[afriend]

Only then India can become truly secular when India is a communist country. It is only the communists who are as educated as can understand the connotation of secularism. And India without being a communist country has no other way around.

Well communists ideolegy have been outdated, atleast in this present times.. and i am talking from the perspective that i recieve from my home state. It was relevant during the 1950's and 60's where poor where exploited, but now they are holding on to euthopian thoughts and are hampering the growth of my state. Communism brings in an authoritarian style of functioning which is not good for free thinking. However their ideolgy of equality for all is a good thing we can carry forward. However the over emphasis on this equality for all have been used currently to humilate those who achieved success through hard work and sheer determination... kerala becoming a consumer state is the perfect example on how successful the communists have been in keeping away investment from kerala..!!!

However i cannot deny the fact.. that communists are responsible for the present secular nature of my home state kerala.. you dont find any discrimination based on religion...!!! But as any thing their ideolgies have to be reformed to accomodate the change that is happening around them..!!!!

 

[toxic_pus]

If Communist is a communist, then I'm Pope Benedict XVI.

Btw, do pay a visit to Kolkatata, during Durga Puja. You will love to see how your fellow comrades are organizing and enjoying to their heart's content, this HINDU religious festival.

O, one more thing, I guess you have never heard of Mr Subhash Chakroborty, the transport and sports minister of West Bengal.

Linkey
Am sure that you have never heard of his famous comment ..."first a Hindu and a Brahmin and then a Communist"

 

[Jako]

@communist,communism never endorses any religion,be it islam or hinduism.........both have their many short comings for becoming the religion for communism.........though communism may sound outdated and awkward to some,it can be the best medicine for a truly secular and united India.........but communism in india has been polluted by certain leaders and policy makers(viz...subhas chakrabarty etc)........and the foreign policy mentioned by the TF in their manifesto should have been far better,but still it is a better alternative to the weak congress and the communal bjp........thnx

 

[Torpedo]

Why did you refer to Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam?

Well, Samajwad means communism (in Hindi).

I can't claim anything, as I never understood what they think they really are.

 

[Zob]

your courts are run by the islamic laws...aren't they?
as far as the representation of the minorities is concerned...pakistan is no way secular....one sikh...one hindu one..'EX'-catholic?
how many hindus do you have in your army?
name 10 famous hindu/sikh pakistanis...

FATEH i was answering to this u convinently forget what u guys say....i think i am tired of giving u proof in every thread that INDIA IS NOT SECULAR.....u tell me if i can prove in pakistan 10 hindu prime minsters or sikh we become secular and that doesn't apply to INDIA....great look who is bias

like i said before in another thread INDIA has the largest minority of MUSLIMS and yet no ARMY CHEIF,RAW CHIEF, PRIME MINSTER IS MUSLIM......so my examples of a skih a hindu and our chief justice stand for secularism.....all i keep arguing is admit it that INDIA is NOT SECULAR.... i don't care if it is a prosperous growing nation GOOD FOR U...but stop calling urself SECULAR!!!

 

[shukla_swapnil]

FATEH i was answering to this u convinently forget what u guys say....i think i am tired of giving u proof in every thread that INDIA IS NOT SECULAR.....u tell me if i can prove in pakistan 10 hindu prime minsters or sikh we become secular and that doesn't apply to INDIA....great look who is bias

like i said before in another thread INDIA has the largest minority of MUSLIMS and yet no ARMY CHEIF,RAW CHIEF, PRIME MINSTER IS MUSLIM......so my examples of a skih a hindu and our chief justice stand for secularism.....all i keep arguing is admit it that INDIA is NOT SECULAR.... i don't care if it is a prosperous growing nation GOOD FOR U...but stop calling urself SECULAR!!!

Zob Sir,

I guess that since Pakistan is not a secular nation, the education system has taught a false defenition of Secularism. If you sir look up the word secularism in any non-Pakistani dictionary, and for that you need to not only open up your eyes but mind as well, the defenition clearly states that :

Secularism is the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

Nowhere is it menioned that cheif of your spy agency or Army has to be from the largest majority for you to be declared a secular state. Although their are several instances of several individuals from minority community holding key govt. positions, it was not because there was some sort of turn based system to have them in those positions but they reached there by merit and abilities. We as a secular nation do not see them as a muslim president, A sikh Prime Minister or a Christian Raw cheif but as an Indian President an Indian Army Cheif and an Indian Raw Cheif.

This reference to them as Indian instead of their communities makes us Secular.

As per the definition of Secularism, out govt. does not promote any single religion and that makes us secular.

Our Govt exist saperate from any Religion and that makes us Secular.

I rest my Case.

Regards,

 

[Zob]

SHAULA THIS ONE IS FOR U BRO.....U SAID RELIGION SHOULD BE DIFFRENT FROM RELIGION and i know this will bore u FATEH AND TOIX PUSS

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.


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.

 

[Zob]

all i keep saying is no country is a true communist or a true SECULAR country........so why claim such things

 

[shukla_swapnil]

SHAULA THIS ONE IS FOR U BRO.....U SAID RELIGION SHOULD BE DIFFRENT FROM RELIGION and i know this will bore u FATEH AND TOIX PUSS

Though I dont understand the concept of religion being different from religion??? but will try to xplain the issue.

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…"

Please read the full text of the concerning section of the constitution to understand its true meaning. Taking things out of context is not a correct technique. Here is the section for your reference:

Article 25 Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law -
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu reli- gious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II: In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

How does it in effect undermine the rights of any religious minority is beyong my understanding. Just getting excited and worked up on the mention of the H word (Hindu) does not suffice.

To further explain:

Secularism under the Constitutional Framework of India - Author - Tarun Arora

Collective Freedom of Religion- Religious denominations as well as individuals have certain important rights spelt out under Article 26. The term ‘religious denomination’ has not been defined under the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the definition given in Oxford Dictionary, that defines as ‘a collection of individuals classed together under the same name a religious sect of body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name.’ The Supreme Court in number of cases held that Arya Smaj, Anandmarga, Vaishanave, The followers of Madhawacharya and other religious teachers, though not separate religions, yet these are separate religious denomination and enjoys the protection under Article 26 of the Constitution.

The right under Article 26(a) is a group right and is available to everhy religious denomination. Clause (b) of Article 26 guarantees to every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The expression ‘matters of religion’ includes ‘religious practices, rites and ceremonies essential for the practicing of religion.’ An important case that involved the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion was Venkataramana Devaru Vs. Stae of Mysore . In this matter, Venkatramana temple was belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahman Community. The Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, supported by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, threw open all Hindu public temples in the state to Harijans. The trustees of this denominational temple refused admission to Harijans on the ground that the caste of the prospective worshipper was a relevant matter of religion according to scriptural authority, and that under Article 26(b) of the Constitution they had the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The Supreme Court admitted that this was a matter of religion, but when it faces conflict with Article 25(2) (b), it approved a compromise arrangement heavily weighted in favour of rights of Harijans and a token concession to the right of a religious denomination to exercise internal autonomy
Further Article 26© and (d) recognize the right of a religious denomination to own, acquire and administer movable and immovable property in accordance with law. However it was held in Surya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. that this guarantee did not imply that such property was not liable to compulsory acquisition under the U.P. Abolition of Zamindari Act. Similarly in Orissa, land reforms resulted in the expropriation of a village and surrounding agricultural land dedicated to the maintenance of a Hindu deity. Since compensation was paid, the High Court held that there was only a change in the form of the property.
Article 30 deals with another aspect of collective freedom of religion:

(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

The object behind Article 29 & 30 is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, which constitute the essence of secularism in India.

Negative Freedom of Religion: Individual and State
The second component of secular state, the concept of citizenship is based on the idea that the individual, not the group is the basic unit. The individual is confronted by the state which imposes duties and responsibilities upon him; in return the state guarantees rights and grants privileges to the individual. The sum of these individual- state relationships constitutes the meaning of citizenship. There are numbers of provisions dealing with citizen’s relations with state in social spheres. The provisions based on non discrimination in political functions have also been dealt with under the Constitution.

Neutral Freedom of Religion: State & Religion
Separation of state and religion is the third principle of secular state that preserves the integrity of the other two relationships, freedom of religion and citizenship. Here one must be conscious about the relationship of the religion and the state. The institution of religion came in existence prior to state. It came into being to establish a social order in ancient times because at that time there was neither any law nor any institution like state was in existence. The main purpose of institution of religion was to regulate the activities of individual on the basis of religion and religion was the supreme law. The institution of state came too much later- so in present scenario, the society is based on the delicate balance maintained between both of these institutions namely state and religion. Both are independent in their spheres and it must be so, Because centralization of powers in one agency would lead to anarchism. Once the principle of separation of state and religion is abandoned, the way is open for state interference in the individual’s religions liberty, and for state discrimination against him if he happens to dissent from the official creed.

Earlier religion was considered superior to state, because it played an important role in regulating actions of human beings and it was the way for human beings towards the god but in present scenario, it must be kept in mind that the first role is being played by the state and as regards to the relation of individual with god, the domain is totally free. The religion has become subordinate in these days and the state is the main unit of the society. So there are number of important areas in which state interference in religious matter is permitted by the Constitution.

Is India a Secular State
Looking at the various constitutional provisions, the answer is ‘Yes’. The ideals of secular state have clearly been embodied under the Indian Constitution and the provisions are being implemented in substantial measure. But the circumstances after independence have posed a challenge before secularism of India for a number of times. Sometimes it is also alleged that by Uniform Civil Code, the existence of minorities in India is in danger or it is an assault on the identity of minorities. India being still a traditional society that contains not one, but many traditions owing their origin in part to the different religions that exist here. While India carries with it many traditions it has managed to retain the secular character of its polity, while in many countries especially from the third world, a secular authority has crumbled in face of conflicting traditions. In sum up, it may be submitted that it is beyond the scope of this paper to outline the implications of the conceptual failings of secularism in India; nonetheless we must attempt to raise issues and questions for continuing study of the problem. Clearly the judiciary in India is a significant site where contests under the banner of secularism have been taking place over the last fifty and odd year. Though the judiciary is trying to strike the balance in a harmonious way but the people of India should not forget the dream of framers of the constitution and the ancient philosophy of ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhavah’.

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.

again quoting: Secularism In India -- A Brief Study - By Kamaluddin Khan | TwoCircles.net
It is amazing that some Christian leaders assert that the word 'propagates' in Article 25(1) gives them a fundamental right to convert people of other faiths into Christianity, by any means. The Supreme Court while examining the MP and Orissa Acts in 1977 held that "if any such right to convert be conceded, such right would belong to every religion, so that there would inevitably be a breach of public peace if every religious community carried on a campaign to convert people belonging to other faiths, by the use of force, fraud, inducement or allurement f-he state was, therefore, constitutionally authorized to maintain public order by prohibiting and penalizing conversion (including attempt to convert) if force, inducement or allurement was used by the person on persons advocating conversion in any particular case".

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of both he MP and Orissa Ads, after rejecting every plea raised on behalf of the Christian parties.

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.

I agree that Babri Demolition was a shameful and illegal act, but thats what it was Illegal. (NOT LEGAL / APPROVED BY CONSTITUTION). If it really was an unsecular state why has the temple construction stalled? It should be a very easy decision for a Hindu state.

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.

At the same time reconstruction of Jama Masjid was also happening which you conviniently forgot to mention.

 

[shukla_swapnil]

Regarding Employment Discrimination- the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Dalits) are down trodden and most oppressed class of India from the ancient time. Dalits were not allowed to read and learn in Pathshalas(schools) and were not allowed to participate any social gatherings.They were the working class and will ploughing fields and growing paddies and corns but were given lower shares by the upper strata Hindus.They cleaned the society by scavenging but they were considered dirty. This is until now more or less.They are until now very undeveloped and educationally very back ward as a whole.But exception is there.The chief writer and the editor of Indian constitution was from this class who was allowed to sit at the back side far from the upper class pupils.There are job reservation for the Dalits in India. But any one who converted to Christian or Moslem will be given the same status of Scheduled castes and tribes ? In Quran there is no castes mentioned.Neither is mentioned in Bible.

You mentioned wrongly that there are reservation for Sikhs.Is there any news papers of India which publishes any Job Vacancy indicating reservation for Sikhs? I have never seen and no one will ever see.

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 time this hapened, Constitution was not even in place so irrelevant. Secondly, In 1947 the Indian political situation was boiling.The country was divided into two parts on the 'black' two nation theory which was a big kick to the back bone of the subcontinenet.Hindus including Sikhs and Muslim were migrating to each other's land but not all. At the time of partition the Muslim Hyderabadis had relatives in newly formed Pakistan (until now) and the majority of Hyderabadi as a princely state were not liking to join India rather liking Pakistan.Hyderabad's army might not be taken in 1947.

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.

Show me one instance in Quran which mentions having beard is "MANDATORY" for one to be a muslim. It is preferred but not mandatory. In Sikhism it is. Even Hindus have Sadhus growing Beard but in Army they are not allowed.

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.

I did not feel jealous or disheartened for this.There are Sikhs Regiment but no Hindu Regiment.Is it a discrimination? Who prevents a Muslim from joining a Gharwal regiment say as you mentioned. The purpose for having these regimet is to ensure understanding between the troops. What is the point of having a Tamil speaking soldiers with a Punjabi Soldier. If they dont even understand language, how are they supposed to communicate.

A Hanuman temple greets visitors upon entering virtually every cantonment in the nation, hinting non-Hindus that they don’t belong there.

I dont know how many cantonments have you been to in India, they generally do not accomodate too many Pakistanis. NOT TRUE.

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.

Maybe their knowledge of Islamic/Christian scipture was not so strong. I dont think they were selected for their respective position based on their knowledge of Quran or Bible.

adapted from: http://dailyalochona.blogspot.com/2009/02/mukto-mona-reply-to-why-india-is-not.html

 

[shukla_swapnil]

PS: Please refrain from copying and Pasting from autors without giving them(Omar Khalidi) due credit.

 

[Zob]

shuakla writing something down in the constitution or having some symbolic puppets of the minority doesn't make a country SECULAR adhering to those codes is secularism or giving equal rights is secularism. LIKE I SAID EARLIER THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT IS SECULAR OR COMMUNIST

Yahoo! Groups

Babri mosque demolition case hearing postponed again. (31-AUG-05) UNB - United News of Bangladesh

IF your arguments fail to uphold what u state in ur constitution then u r not secular.....

just sit back and think one thing do u have an example in secular india where muslims destroyed HINDU TEMPLES ....and if they did how swift was the judgement is it still pending......

the indian ideology is of AKHAND BHARAT.....the EMBLEM of INDIA is that of ASHOKA'S INDIA....ashoka who after the war of KALINGA got so fed up of bloodshed that he converted himself to buddhism and left his throne.

all indian missiles have been named after hindu idols PRTHVI ...after PRTHVI RAJ CHAUHAN...AGNI fter the GOD OF FIRE....TRISHUL the weapon carried by GANESHA.......

RAW has been made on the ideology of CHANKYA who was a BRAHMAN hindu....

i am sorry mate SECULARISM DOESN'T EXSIST anywhere in the world.....

 

[shukla_swapnil]

shuakla writing something down in the constitution or having some symbolic puppets of the minority doesn't make a country SECULAR adhering to those codes is secularism or giving equal rights is secularism. LIKE I SAID EARLIER THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT IS SECULAR OR COMMUNIST

Yahoo! Groups

Babri mosque demolition case hearing postponed again. (31-AUG-05) UNB - United News of Bangladesh

IF your arguments fail to uphold what u state in ur constitution then u r not secular.....

just sit back and think one thing do u have an example in secular india where muslims destroyed HINDU TEMPLES ....and if they did how swift was the judgement is it still pending......

the indian ideology is of AKHAND BHARAT.....the EMBLEM of INDIA is that of ASHOKA'S INDIA....ashoka who after the war of KALINGA got so fed up of bloodshed that he converted himself to buddhism and left his throne.

all indian missiles have been named after hindu idols PRTHVI ...after PRTHVI RAJ CHAUHAN...AGNI fter the GOD OF FIRE....TRISHUL the weapon carried by GANESHA.......

RAW has been made on the ideology of CHANKYA who was a BRAHMAN hindu....

i am sorry mate SECULARISM DOESN'T EXSIST anywhere in the world.....

That is exactly my point my friend you dont know what is Secularism and are prejudiced that no Secular nation can ever Exist. We can not have a discussion when you are closed to accepting any other argument. I am just trying to understand your arguments and what explainations are you seeking:

First you questioned that We dont have people from minority in the highest positions. Which position you consider highest: President, Prime Minister, Army Cheif, Raw Cheif, Cheif Minister. All these positions were filled in by people from minority. Once names of people holding these positions were mentioned, The stance Changed

Then you questioned the integrity of constitution and spirit of Secularism in the same. I tried my best to clarify and you seem to understand it.

Now you have come up with these random questions. I know very well even if answers are provided to these, you wont be satisfied. Anyways here are the answers

1. How would Muslims demolishing Hindu Temples prove that India is Secular. However If demolition of temples satisfy you, then you can refer to the thread mentioning 300 temples demolished by Narendra Modi in Gujrat.
BJP demolished 300 temples in Gujarat says congress candidate | TwoCircles.net
If you want to learn about an issue please try reading neutral sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayodhya_debate

2. Emblem of India is Ashok Chakra and Ashoka is not known in India as a warmonger but as a person who devoted his life to peace. If he was a Buddhist, so what. Do you want us to discriminate against minorities?

3. "Akhand Bharat" is not ideology of india. Show me one valid link to back up your claim.

4. Prithvi Raj Chauhan was not Indian Idol, He's a late Indin King also the words Prithvi means EARTH, Agni means FIRE and trishul is a weapon used in Ancient India.. If reference was to GOD then it would me Prithvi MATA, Agni DEV and Trishul was not a properiety of Ganesh, You can see not only others like Shiva, Kali Maa and Vishnu with them, they are even old warriers who used this weapon.

Developer and Cheif Architect of the Missile Program was Also a MUSLIM(Minority)

5. RAW is not Based on CHANKYA. This is a new twist provided courtsy Communist on this Forum. And of all of us he seems to be most impressed by the virtue of chanakya.

Anyways wat is wrong with Chankya I mean he was a philosopher with his theory on Diplomacy. Would India be secular only if RAW worked like Changez Khan??? Read up more about Chanakya here: Chanakya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS: Stop mentioning "LIKE I SAID EARLIER THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT IS SECULAR OR COMMUNIST" . We know exactly what you said earlier and it is merely point of discussion and not the conclusion of this discussion.
You mention EQUAL RIGHTS, what are the rights not given to Minorities in India. Please mention.

It has always been maintained that there are certain segments in society which create michief and cause communal tension. Try as they may to disrupt the spirit of Secularism here but they will never be successful. Example: there are terrorists in Pakistan does that make Pakistan a terrorist State, I think not. There are issues and cases when justice has not been metted out to Minorities but so has been the case with Hindus as well. So many Hindu murders go unsolved. Kasmiri Pundits are living as refugees. If extremist Hindu Organization was active it was nabbed by police and they are being dealt with.


Regards,