What's new

A New Freedom Struggle For India

Indian leaders of 40s selected the wrong governance model for vastly diverse, culturally and religiously different sets of populations ... and this model has failed so terribly with Hindu extremist ideology set firmly gunning for even a bigger disaster.

'United States of India' model would have been much better. But it's too late. End is in open sight.
 
. .
I must stress after having travelled widely in Pakistan my ideas have only been reinforced. My respect for the army has risen even higher, my disgust of the mullah risen even higher and I see only modernism or what is often called westernization [incorrectly] as the way forward for both Pakistan and India. The more the better. If you look at non European societies that have succeeded like Japan, China, Turkey, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea etc the have only been able to achieve thart by massive social and political re-engineering of their societies with adoption of European ideas.

@Joe Shearer
 
.
I literally have no idea what Yogendra Yadav has done in life that he is given so much space by the media. Mostly, I have found him talking crap, and this article does little to dispel that notion.


Like many Indians who detest the direction of the country, Yogendra Yadav is no exception. However, whenever solutions are offered, they show a glorious lack of the basic understandings of politics and governance.


One of the major flaws that everyone makes, is when they reduce the current climate in India to some adjective of “secularism”. For the right wing, it is a famed “pseudo” word, and for the rest, it is simply any word that is not “pseudo”.


The article thinks that society has turned away from secularism, that if corrected, will manifest itself into the larger political scene. Secularism is therefore reduced to an individual concept. The problem with such a thought process is that secularism was never intended to be an individual concept. It was a tool for governance. It was intended to provide political and legal equality when governing over a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. By reducing secularism to an individual concept, these intellectuals fail to grasp that an individual can never be secular (he can be tolerant). Therefore, how can the onus of the revival of secularism lie within an individual?


The BJP came to power by preying on the naked prejudices against Muslims that exist within Hindu society. Since it is not fashionable to say the same, Indian society has chosen to blame the Congress and secularism for this. Even this article cannot bring itself to call out the hate that has led to where we are. These same prejudices provide the cheerleaders that celebrate every action that emerges from their leaders.


That brings us to the second issue. The issue of governance. As the BJP consolidates its power by every trick possible, from weakening institutions to buying elected officials to subverting dissent, the question has to be asked, how did secularism (or the lack thereof) bring us to this?


India does not have a problem with secularism. It has a problem with fascism.
 
.
In modern times congress which was supposed to be the voice and representation of modern secular hindu somehow or the other was not so secular, despite that it was caught off guard by RSS /BJP propaganda and once the propaganda took root among Indian Hindus then it was a race between both parties to prove which is more Hindu. Sad.

Since independence, Congress positioned itself to represent every possible spectrum of India. From the right wing Hindu to the left wing socialist to the believing Muslim to the poor farmer to the strong-leader-loving fascists. The lack of an effective opposition allowed this to be possible.

Note my line above - the lack of an effective opposition allowed this to be possible - and how it relates to the present day scenario. In the coming years, the BJP will become like the old Congress party, dominating every political spectrum (except the Muslims).
 
.
I see Nehru as a faded version of Kemal Ataturk.

And THIS is why Saiyan said what he did. You lazy bounder. Good God, the entire post is worth the price of entrance. Really, you ought to be lynched by public subscription for staying aloof.

@saiyan0321

Just look at that post, the effortless ease.
 
.
In India, on the other hand, the idea of secularism is for the government to treat all religions equally even if it contradicts the democratic ethos of the country. Such congruities cause conflicts as we can readily see. Reservations also based on religion has also caused problems.

You are right, we need to shoot this 800 lb gorilla before we get down to the real hard work. This crap of treating all religions equally inevitably leads to the religion of the majority overshadowing every one else's creed, and then all the others get upset that they aren't getting proportional exposure.

I don't know about religious reservations; caste reservations, yes.
 
.
But for me, the biggest issue of India is not religion but caste. The issue of caste runs much deeper and is more pernicious and religion, in my opinion. In Modi's India, it's not only religious minorities that have been attacked, but countless Dalits as well. This is the shame of India.

Totally, completely agree.

Religion is just an excuse to shirk getting to grips with the real issue. And there is ONLY one.
 
.
In India, on the other hand, the idea of secularism is for the government to treat all religions equally even if it contradicts the democratic ethos of the country. Such congruities cause conflicts as we can readily see. Reservations also based on religion has also caused problems.

This falls under the realm of practice versus principle.

In practice, India has never been a secular state. When it comes to secularism, there are only two western concepts that it has implemented - no state religion and no religious education in state schools. Beyond that, the state has more than interfered in the religion and religious practices of every Indian.

Democracy and secularism are two different concepts that do not need each other to exist. Therefore, flaws in the practice of one, should not affect the other.

The real question that we should be asking is how does a flawed practice of secularism in India lead to fascism? It doesn't. Fascism emerges from other factors, but we are too ashamed to say it, so we blame secularism for it.
 
.
I must stress after having travelled widely in Pakistan my ideas have only been reinforced. My respect for the army has risen even higher, my disgust of the mullah risen even higher and I see only modernism or what is often called westernization [incorrectly] as the way forward for both Pakistan and India. The more the better. If you look at non European societies that have succeeded like Japan, China, Turkey, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea etc the have only been able to achieve thart by massive social and political re-engineering of their societies with adoption of European ideas.

@Joe Shearer

Let me put it to you that the Macaulayite model didn't penetrate beyond around 2% of the population; they became the leaders of social and political change initially, right through the period from the 1880s to independence, and led their respective nation-states until around 30 or 40 years ago.That is when the 98% started asking why it couldn't have a go and running things themselves, and that, in India at least, is what led us to this rocky place.

From 1947 to 2020, the 80% of India of 300 million people who lived in the villages flooded into the cities, that originally had around 60 million people (20%), so that today 40% of 1,200 million are in the cities. That's from 60 to 480. 420 million NOT exposed to western ways came into the cities, picked up those elements that helped them to learn English and get jobs, and elbowed aside the earlier elite and took up dominant, majoritarian positions.
 
.
The BJP came to power by preying on the naked prejudices against Muslims that exist within Hindu society. Since it is not fashionable to say the same, Indian society has chosen to blame the Congress and secularism for this. Even this article cannot bring itself to call out the hate that has led to where we are. These same prejudices provide the cheerleaders that celebrate every action that emerges from their leaders.


That brings us to the second issue. The issue of governance. As the BJP consolidates its power by every trick possible, from weakening institutions to buying elected officials to subverting dissent, the question has to be asked, how did secularism (or the lack thereof) bring us to this?


India does not have a problem with secularism. It has a problem with fascism.

Interesting, eloquent even, but fallacious. But thank you for a very intelligent analysis. I am NOT being condescending, just appreciative.
 
.
Let me put it to you that the Macaulayite model didn't penetrate beyond around 2% of the population; they became the leaders of social and political change initially, right through the period from the 1880s to independence, and led their respective nation-states until around 30 or 40 years ago.That is when the 98% started asking why it couldn't have a go and running things themselves, and that, in India at least, is what led us to this rocky place.

From 1947 to 2020, the 80% of India of 300 million people who lived in the villages flooded into the cities, that originally had around 60 million people (20%), so that today 40% of 1,200 million are in the cities. That's from 60 to 480. 420 million NOT exposed to western ways came into the cities, picked up those elements that helped them to learn English and get jobs, and elbowed aside the earlier elite and took up dominant, majoritarian positions.
Precisely. This is exactly what happened in Pakistan but earlier then India. Partly because urbanization rates are higher in Pakistan. Partly because of geo-politics and govrenment policies. And where the veneer was 2% in India. In Pakistan it was 1% or even lower because of the shallow British influence which only began to permeate after 1849 annexation.

In summary masses of village people poured into cities and squeezed the elite from the British era. They brought with them their desi minds. And you see the results today. In Pakistan the masses are herded around Islam. In India around Hinduism. Right wing religious parties began to gain ground in Pakistan and now you see that happening in India as well.

Figure-4-Year-wise-urbanization-change-in-South-Asia.png
 
.
In essence, most of us in South Asia are secular by nature, we wish to get along with everyone, but as a grouping, we are a conservative lot, be it ethically, religiously or any other(ly).

Kudos. This is what I always like to say...I rarely meet any South Asian who isn't secular in the sense you described. Be it Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan etc. At least the ones I choose to hang out with. I wouldn't hang out with a racist/rabid communal person for all the money in the world.

Great thing said. But then you made a complete U-turn in the next point itself.

And, it is secularism and the dogmatic pursuit for that secular utopia that has delivered India the present form of Hindutva or Hindu reality.

That's being unduly pessimistic. India's Founding Fathers had the true vision of a secular state, that is why any call to add the word "Hindu" in the constitution was rejected.

The current ascent of Hindutva, and the poisoning of so many Indian's minds, while a sad chapter in the history of the 73-year old Secular Republic, might eventually pass. This is what us liberals hope for: we're praying for the day Narendra Modi dies of natural causes (which might be sooner than expected).

I personally am secular (although I hate this term, for one group it implies something good, for others, it implies all bad, but it is a usable label so I'll use it), but I have no issue with accepting that as a group most of us are not secular as a grouping, once we accept that, we strangely enter into an actual secularism reality, because each feels comfortable with their identity and not threatened, once that comfort factor kicks in, the need to hate the OTHER disappears gradually.

A person's identity is very important to them. South Asians can be simultaneously secular, and a very religious bunch. I hardly come across any South Asian who is not living his or her religion on a daily basis: in other words, the entire Subcontinent are a very Godfearing bunch.

It is the complete opposite with many Europeans, and even Americans. A Bible-basher in some fundamentalist church of Utah or Missouri might preach fervently from the pulpit, but ultimately God is just another revenue source for many of them, as we see with the Mormons and other wealthy church groups in the USA. Bringing up God in any argument is considered a faux pas in Western culture, whereas in South Asia, invoking God is the ultimate argument to settle all arguments.

I have met Arabs, Iranians, and many other people of Islamic nations who weren't religious in the sense South Asian Pakistanis would be. Many Maghrebis of Morocco & Tunisia, the Jordanians etc., enjoy alcohol like just Westerners do. Religion is not the centre of their lives like it is for S. Asians.

I agree that we have to recognize and respect these groupings as you put it.
 
.
Secularism as a leading philosophy won't survive without religious secularism.. It is a slow process often face violent resistance by religious forces but gradual and natural process ..Secularism eventually will win ..
 
.
In a earlier post I said after my travels in Pakistan my appreciation for the army [with all it's flaws] has risen whereas my disgust of the mullahs has increased. The reason is simple and it has little to do with Islam per se.

The army in Pakistan is the strongest manifestation of westernism and it's entire DNA isa rooted in British soil. RMC Sandhurst in England is it's birthplace. The army is as British as can be along with it's uniforms, horse riding, gentleman gymkhanas, golf etc. And it unsurprisingly is what keeps Pakistan functioning and preventing it from slipping into another Somalia or Afghanistan. In my district I two changes that interested me. Guns are not seen in the public space. The army has come hard on gun ownership and there are stiff penalties. Also 'agencies' have come hard on religious groups. There has been palpable improvement in law and order which all is driven by the army. Thank god for that.

The mullahs and their mobs are manifesatation of local or desi traditions warping or using religion affording the mullahs political power. They have used religion to corral together the poor masses who then are sold this warped belief. Instead these masses should have been leveraged by left wing political movements to bring change and redistribution of power/resources.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom