A New Freedom Struggle For India

[xeuss]

I do believe it is because two major factors. The diversity of religions in India and the fact that these religions are very collective. The diverse nature of religions with their own collective thought and collective sense of culture and legal history makes a western secular system very difficult to implement. In a western secular system, concepts of special inheritance laws or special marriage laws dont exist. The court in the western would wouldnt give weight to the community declaring that their personal religious law dictates that son gets twice of the daughter in residuary and the lone daughter cannot inherit all unless the deceased professes from the sect of Shia. They wouldnt but Indian courts had to give weight to this statement because the government had to give weight to these demands. A western secular concept has no room for religion anywhere.

To add another point to the earlier one I made. Secularism in the subcontinent also takes the meaning of using governing authority to control religion. This originated with the interference in religious customs during the British Raj. The Sati Regulation XVII of 1829, which first banned the immolation of widows, was intended to show that reform within religion was a duty of the state. This attitude has continued throughout modern India. From the framers of the constitution to the judicial edicts, the control of religion is an important concept that serves to curtail religious inspired cruelty.

The recent Supreme Court judgement on Triple Talaq was another such example. The debate was not whether it was permissible according to Islamic law, but that it was the duty of the state to intervene on behalf of citizenry to prohibit such "religious inspired cruelty".

 

[Shantanu_Left]

Not talking to you, so shush.


Gosh, these pseudo-Indians like to interject into everything.

This Sr. Nair something is also a Tipu Sultan-hater, and says very vile things about that great person. He also got me a "warning" from the mod's for defending my position. Quite a sneaky character.

Sher-e-Mysore Tipu Sultan was feared by the British more than any Indian rulers in last 300 years. But the Hindutvadi cowards will abuse him as usual.

 

[letsrock]

Freedom from india not for india

 

[masterchief_mirza]

So I get points for "steps" but not the correct answer?

But why fallacious? Is fascism not where we are at?

Welcome to the world of summary dismissal but with a gold star for effort - just the right amount of bait to keep the fish biting for that hook.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

But I usually have great discussions on many topics with @masterchief_mirza and a few other Pakistani users

Yes our discussions are rather frequent and usually quite pleasant. You're almost too squeaky clean to be honest. Perhaps I feel compelled to keep a close eye on Shantanu's shenanigans.

 

[fallstuff]

Just like the Pied Piper of Hamlin Modi is marching the average Hindu folks into an abyss. he was able to send the massage to them that it is ok to let their hate and stereo types out and it is ok to blame the Muslims for all the ills of the society. Only a pure Hindu life will lead to prosperity.

Just like Trump Modi is doubling down with the fascist belief that there are enough Hindu voters who will align to BJP ideals to keep him getting reelected.

 

[Longhorn]

​

If Nazi Germany and it's populace could be rehabilitated and reintegrated into modern human society, can the same not be repeated in the case of India ?



Would you call it cautious optimism or Foolhardiness / wishful thinking ?

You are absolutely right that the Germans were successfully integrated back into moderate society, but not before they had tried to carry their fascist ideology to it's logical conclusion of trying to occupy and subjugate it's neighbours and exterminate the people it considered to be responsible for their ills and then it itself had to be comprehensively defeated in war for it to relinquish it's cancerous ideology.
I'm sure you can see the parallel here.
India will return to a more moderate society but not before it has tried to push it's Hindu supremacist ideology as far as possible. You cannot show people a dream and expect them to abandon it without them pursuing that dream to it's logical conclusion. If the BJP continue in power they will continue to feed the monster. If the BJP are voted out then the monster fearing the loss of it's dream will react.
We have a saying in Punjabi to the effect that a fish will return but only after it has licked the stone.
In my opinion, things will get a lot more extreme in India before they get better.

 

[fatman17]

I try my best to avoid any discussion on religion and it's linkages, just because I don't have any kind of a grip on this subject. I didn't consider myself as a devout Muslim at anytime of my life until 2012 when I performed the holy pilgrimage, and since then I say my prayers regularly, fast, do nice things (in my view ), but I continue to ask myself, am l a devoted Muslim and I don't have a answer to my question! To me religion is not the business of the state. Religion is personal , between my God and me. There are 24 hours in a day and l spend probably an hour and a half each day in Allah's Glory. am l devout? My views on many issues swing between liberal, moderate and conservative. Was Jinnah a devoted Muslim?, even though he founded a country for Muslims and yet he urged the Muslims of Pakistan to ensure that the minorities don't lose their rights of life and liberty. Pakistan went from the Republic of Pakistan to the lslamic Republic of Pakistan after the passing away of the great Jinnah, our Quaid e Azam. Pakistanis remained secular until 1970, and then everything changed. The constitution, the army, the establishment, the politics. The mullahs had taken over. A minute minority which continues to wag the dog until today.

I really enjoyed reading this, the writer has come fairly close to my views on secularism, and dare I say India.

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

Very rarely is the BJP and RSS agenda recognized in a separate format, he has done it reasonably well, BJP exists, not only because it has the support of RSS and other Hindutva groups, but it also exists because those Hindu groups have communicated with the Hindu Individual and listened to his/her perceived or actual grievances.

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.

This is not a simple debate/discussion, but nuances are important and most important of all is the acceptance of the reality of who/what we are, once we do that, I believe we shall have a peaceful future.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Those are very encouraging thoughts. Is any Indian taking notes?

This whole dam' debate has caught fire in a way that I never dared to hope! Thanks for your contributions. Why can't you be like this ALL the time?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Those are very encouraging thoughts. Is any Indian taking notes?

I'm going to copy and paste it into a Word document for careful reading later; this thread is 'chewy', if you know what I mean. There have been things said, including things that I oppose but have to concede their strong logical foundations, like @saiyan0321 has written, and other posts that were so fundamental - I dare not single out posts, that is above my pay-scale - that a quick reply is almost impossible.

Where were these johnnies hiding all this while, when we were grappling with the most obnoxious variety of troll? I think it was to some major extent our fault, the fault of those of us who didn't reproduce articles that would truly engage people, those people simply not interested in argy-bargy, but deeply engaged with the mind and the spirit. By that I am referring equally to social consciousness as to religious consciousness (? <= was that grammatical?).

 

[Joe Shearer]

On the whole, I agree with you, people from S-Asia are quick to take offense at even the slightest misunderstanding.

I FEEL SO STRONGLY THAT PEOPLE TAKING OFFENCE AT THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE MEDICALLY EXAMINED AND THEN TRIED. I'M FED UP WITH THEM.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

This whole dam' debate has caught fire in a way that I never dared to hope! Thanks for your contributions. Why can't you be like this ALL the time?

I enjoy the trolling, name-calling, and verbal abuse whenever the occasion comes.

But that's like only 5 percent of my total posts. 95 percent of my posts are on-topic, and pleasant. As @masterchief_mirza just described me, I'm too "squeaky clean." That's true: I'm like that in real life as well. Rarely unpleasant (like Dr. Jekyll).

But at some stage, the inner brute (Mr. Hyde) takes over. I never start it, but always like to finish a brawl.

What good is the Internet if you can't abuse a few strangers from time to time!

 

[Joe Shearer]

So I get points for "steps" but not the correct answer?

But why fallacious? Is fascism not where we are at?

LOL. You are being very wicked.

I feel - being deeply 'committed'; remember the bacon and eggs example - that there is more to be said. This thread has run away and now has a life of its own, and some really exciting discussion is going on. Keep involved in that, and ignore me for the time being; we can always talk about it later.

About your question: we are not yet fascist, the constitution has not been amended and while we are dangerously far down the road, we haven't reached it yet.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't know if one is allowed to say what they want in a private discussion, I'm just not familiar with it, but certainly, there are no barriers from my side.

Oh, absolutely, although that was the guiding principle in insaniyat, when we first started that. Gorki and I had the devil of a time persuading Bloody Civilian that he could be open and frank - we had just gone through trial by fire in PakTeaHouse - and there would be no hard feelings. When he opened up - Good Lord, what a huge sea of knowledge!

In private discussions, I feel we should have no inhibitions, and should say whatever we might feel comfortable saying to each other when sitting face to face.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I joined with an explicit intention not to share my bio, except things that won't create a picture of who I am, I enjoy arguing/discussing the point, not the person.

Completely agree.

It has been different for some of us, for very good reason. Reasons that don't matter here.