A New Freedom Struggle For India

[saiyan0321]

why did we lose the battle of ideas that prepared the ground for a political defeat? Why has the entire spectrum of Hindu public opinion turned against secularism?

I repeat the battle was lost because the liberals were fighting at the field where they had neither support nor intelligence nor wisdom for the battle. India cannot have western secularism. The founding fathers were not fools and they did understand this fact and it was this gruesome fact that had Jinnah spend an entire political career asking for minority rights or special rights. By the secular definition. Jinnah, who was busy asking for government to make provisions for a muslim minority, does not seem very secular. A parliament that happily continues Muslim personal laws and introduces new and improves versions of personal laws all across the board does not sound very western secular. The liberal left of the Indian left to realize that the secular nature of India was very different from the secular nature of the western world. Where western secularism was based on exclusivity, the Indian subcontinent, home to nations and ethnicities and religions and sects, could not be ignored under an exclusive concept of western secularism i.e. like the Us first amendments. The founding fathers of India realized that they needed to follow the inclusive secular model if they were to keep India united and heck keep Indian government from having to face repeated revolutionary assaults.
The thing we need to study is whether the British Empire was secular? By all means and logic, people would say that yes since it was not a christian empire and a religious empire is a theocratic empire. If you are not a theocracy, are you western secularist?
The british empire, with its vast and large territories, understood one very important thing that if the central government is to remain in absolute power then it cannot ignore all those religions and sects and ethnicities so it also did what various empires in history did and what Indian government did which was to take upon themselves the burden of all religions and form an inclusive concept of secularism. The liberal left in India has failed to grasp that the greatest glue and the most localized version of secularism was an inclusive version where the government would pass various personal laws or laws which would impact only single society.

What @Indus Pakistan says when he points to examples of Japan or Turkey is the action of a strong dictator or autocracy or any form of 'no opposition' entity which brings forth western reforms that would forcibly bring about an exclusive nature of governance in that area where an effort would be placed to create a society where religion becomes an individual thing rather than a collective because when it becomes a collective, when it creates a collective identity then the government will struggle with exclusive nature of secularism and either they would pander to the theocratic majority i.e Pakistan and Islam or they would try to take a burden of treating all religions equally but they would be treated within the government and that is what we witnessed with India where it tried to take upon itself the burden of all religions and their personal laws. Religion in our region is a collective and a very strong collective thus we have demands for personal laws which the government has to fulfill after all f the government does not fill it with personal laws then it must fill with a single law that is enforced upon all individuals.
Let me give you an example. Sunni and Shia an example of a collective. Now if a country that has significant populations of Sunni, Shia and Hindu and Sikh, all having their own personal cultures and laws, passes a law that bypasses all their personal laws and enforces a set system, would those collective take it lying down? would they not rally and protest and burn tyres and shops? Now lets say a nascent state coming out of a fractured state is now on the cross roads where it has two options. Either give in to personal laws and treat all religions equally or make one code and bring all communities under it? How would you see that new state make which choice?

The collective will struggle and as time passed by the collective is very strong. Indian liberals need to understand this that foreign concepts cannot be exported especially in our areas which are so divided. They needed to fight the battle for inclusive secularism but fought for a garbled version. They need to decide which brand of secularism and what it will bring because if western secularism is the answer for liberal left then how is a Uniform Civil Code a negative thing in their eyes?

Pratap’s answer is attractive: “a new freedom struggle to salvage individual dignity and rights”

You dont need a new freedom struggle but to understand the old one. How and why it was fought and under what principles it was fought and what carried it far and whether it was abandoned or not? Why did the right rise and whether the rise of the right is because of the liberals that spoke of a religiously exclusive government yet supported religiously inclusive acts of the government? or is it because the inclusive nature of the government allowed for a majority entity to usurp through that inclusive nature of the government and are now bringing forth a majoritarian theocracy?

In the end the Indian liberal left must decide what path they are taking and stick to that path with utmost determination without compromise.

Ataturk was a great leader but he had alot of things going for him and even that powerful man had to place Islamic in the 1924 Constitution ( albeit he removed it in 1929 amendment or was it 1934 amendment, no i think it was 1929 amendment) nevertheless even that guy had to place it and Turkey was not that collective as we are. If the Ottoman government was dreaming of grand turkish ethnic state in World War I rather than an Islamic one, then you can imagine how religious or irreligious the Turkish bureaucracy and elites were. We dont have quarter of those things going for us and when i say us i mean both our nations.

This is a great debate that you guys need to have immediately and with great haste and great wisdom and rather than mourn secularism death, utilize the intelligentsia to ask what form of secularism will work here and how it can be implemented and told to the masses?

 

[Dil Pakistan]

@ps3linux
@peagle
@Dil Pakistan
@Bilal9
@DalalErMaNodi

I cannot sufficiently express my appreciation for the way you have looked inside the soul of the article (so to speak). Your comments are such a welcome contrast to the wilderness around us; it is a relief to read them. I have some things to say, but later, and meanwhile, I am sad to have to point out that the really trashy comments were both of them made by an apparent Indian, one the usual mindless mumbling of a mantra that has no meaning whatsoever, the other a spineless reptilian effort at creating dissent.

More later, but thank you once again.

Those who know, and understand "real India"; knows her with reference to: culture, flourishing of languages, arts, creativity, music, and education (including scholars, academicians, writers).

I don't consider the current ruling group(s) as "real India".

 

[MilSpec]

A new freedom struggle for India must be based on a new nationalism. No short-cuts will do

Pratap Bhanu Mehta is right about death of secularism. But he doesn’t answer why the entire spectrum of Hindu public opinion turned against secularism.

YOGENDRA YADAV 19 August, 2020 2:05 pm IST

Brilliant answers. But what was the question? That is how I look back at the rich, furious and short-lived debate on secularism after 5 August. My quick reaction to Ayodhya Ram Mandir bhoomi pujan, in line with what I have written and spoken repeatedly, triggered some of these responses. While I was happy that the provocation finally succeeded in getting Pratap Mehta, among my favourite political commentators, to offer a brilliant response, I wasn’t sure if I could get him to address the real questions.

This is not academic nuance. The future of India depends on how we pose and answer these three questions about Indian secularism: What is the state of its health? Why did it reach where it did? And what is to be done now?

In my various interventions on this issue, I have suggested that the idea of a secular republic is now in dire state. In 2019, we crossed the Rubicon, and are now in a naked majoritarian state that still keeps the fiction of a secular constitution alive, as long as the judiciary does not take it seriously. In this sense, secularism is as good as dead. Over the years, I have got tired of just blaming the Sangh Parivar for this demise of the secular state. While repeatedly noting the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) criminal culpability and the anti-national credentials of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), I have also held the secular ‘establishment’ responsible for the present state of affairs. Specifically, I blame opportunistic politicians and deracinated intellectuals who passed off as guardians of secularism. The way forward, therefore, is not merely a political battle to vote out this government. We need to engage in a long-term cultural battle, where secularism must speak our languages and learn the language of religions and traditions.

Similar analysis
Pratap Mehta does not seem to disagree with the first part of my assessment, about the death of secularism. Suhas Palshikar has recently offered a similar reading. Shekhar Gupta disagrees, as he recounts the multiple times the death of secularism has been announced. That’s true. But isn’t it also true that big ideals like democracy and secularism die many deaths? Isn’t it our duty to record and dissect every time something dies in these foundational dreams? Shekhar thinks that what has died is just the opportunistic minorityism masquerading as secularism. It has, and no one should shed a tear. But is that all? Or are the rumours about everyday discrimination, lynching, the new citizenship law and the strange silence of the apex judiciary also wildly exaggerated? Is Shekhar waiting for the unlikely official declaration of a theocratic state before recognising the death of secularism?

Different diagnosis
Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s real objection is to my diagnosis that he finds it “historically problematic, philosophically dubious and culturally dangerous”. Strong words! He offers strong arguments as well: It is historically inaccurate to think that the problem of communalism arose in India due to a lack of theological or religious dialogue; it was and continues to be a political issue “born in the crucible of democracy and nationalism”. Similarly, the contest today is not about the nature of religiosity, but about the politics of “marginalising Muslims from the Indian narrative”. It is ethically wrong to allow politics to define true religion. It is a slippery cultural slope to grant that Hinduism and our languages have been neglected, because it gives in to the false victimology of Hindus.

Actually, I agree with Pratap. Almost. When I complain that secularists do not engage with the language of religion and traditions, I do not for a minute believe that such an engagement would have persuaded L.K. Advani not to undertake the rath yatra. I too tremble at the thought of political leaders deciding who is a true Hindu or a true Muslim. And yes, I have held myself back for long from public critique of secular ideas and practices lest it become fodder for the biggest propaganda machine of our times. But now, we have reached a stage where there is no option except honest public introspection.


Once the secularists face the truth of their defeat or even a ‘setback’ as Rajeev Bhargava puts it, they must ask: why did we lose this political battle? It is easy to blame the opportunistic and inept politics of ‘secular’ political parties on this score. The deeper question is: why did we lose the battle of ideas that prepared the ground for a political defeat? Why has the entire spectrum of Hindu public opinion turned against secularism? Pratap does not engage with this difficult question in his eloquent critique. When he does, I am sure he would agree with me that it is lazy to blame Right-wing propaganda alone. Custodians of secularism must take the blame for this.

Those who wrote history, those who wrote textbooks, those who shaped public opinion, those who presided over education – they all failed. People Like Us failed. We failed because we failed to connect. And we failed to connect to the commonsense of the ordinary Hindus, because we did not speak their language, literally and metaphorically. The social distance, cultural illiteracy and intellectual arrogance of the deracinated secular elite contributed a good deal to de-legitimisation of secularism. There is no avoiding this harsh conclusion.

Divergent readings
Pratap Bhanu Mehta thinks that I over-estimate the control of some Left-liberal scholars on Indian academia. I don’t. Their presence was limited to a few campuses, but they set the template for pretty much rest of India’s higher education in social sciences and the humanities. The NCERT books were more or less copied by most state boards. The Left-liberal establishment controlled the public and the private media until the 1980s. Pratap lists a number of illustrious Hindi writers who were secular in orientation. He is spot-on: I cannot think of even 10 non-secular Hindi writers of some repute in post-Independence India, a point recognised by Ashutosh Bhardwaj. I suppose the same is true of most Indian languages. But that is my point: bhasha intellectuals did not give up on secularism. The secular establishment gave up on non-English intellectuals, as did the media empires in the bhashas.

This may be a small difference. A more serious difference may arise if we go into the depth of how the secular establishment handled Hinduism. True, much of the sense of injury that the majority community carries today, in the midst of majoritarian stream-rolling, is manufactured. It is also true that seculars have been indifferent to all religions. Yet, today, we cannot afford to dodge the inconvenient question: was it not kosher in intellectual circles to mock at Hinduism more than any other religions? Is it not fashionable even today to reduce Hinduism to the worst feature of Indian society, namely the caste system? Doesn’t the secular response to Hinduism resemble the colonial response?

Pratap worries that a focus on intellectual Hindu-bashing might distract from the reality of Muslim-bashing on the streets. The trouble is that the two are connected. Ideological Hinduism-bashing has robbed secular politics of the cultural resources with which to combat Islamophobia and Muslim-bashing of the worst kind.

What’s the prescription?
All this relates to the final operational question: what is to be done? Pratap’s answer is attractive: “a new freedom struggle to salvage individual dignity and rights”. But it is unhelpful, because its passion barely conceals a deep pessimism. Yes, we need nothing short of a new freedom struggle. Yes, we must salvage individual dignity and rights. Yes, we must not keep playing religious hurts against one another. But how do we do that? How do we gather public support for this new freedom struggle? How do we regain legitimacy for the ideals of secularism? Even if the objective is to detach religion from politics, how do we get the public to endorse it? How do we shift the spectrum of public opinion?

Pratap’s sharp analysis doesn’t help me answer this all-important question of our times. There are no short-cuts. Older formulas of countering Hindu communalism with Bahujan majoritarianism or regional politics has not worked. We cannot depend upon electoral arithmetic to correct the excesses of democracy. A clever calculus of short-term political gains would, in fact, push the opposition parties towards playing the game on the BJP’s wicket, something that most opposition parties have started doing. This is not going to defeat the BJP. Even if it does, it won’t lead to salvaging the spirit of secularism. Movements on real-life economic issues are certainly the way forward, but these too require cultural and ideological acceptance.

There is no way except to take on the cultural and ideological acceptance of toxic majoritarianism. There is no way except to craft a new and more attractive nationalism. And for this, there is no way except what the RSS did for decades: enter into difficult dialogue with ordinary people. And for that there is no way except speak the peoples’ language. The battle to save the republic must involve popular debates in Indian languages that invoke and reinterpret our cultural traditions and religions, including Hinduism. Speaking religious language does not mean uncritically accepting whatever any religious text says or reiterating the lessons of piety or foregrounding religion as the issue of politics. What we call religion or traditions provide the alphabet of moral sensibility for most Indians.

You can quarrel with words, but not with the alphabet. You must use the given alphabet to create your own new words. A commitment to the idea of India must involve resistance to the idea of a majoritarian India. Yet, a new idea of India cannot be forged out of a phoney, imitative cosmopolitanism that pretends to outgrow nationalism. It must be grounded in those aspects of our traditions that allow us to build a just future. That remains the principal challenge for secular politics. We could begin by looking for a word for ‘secularism’, other than dharma nirpekshata or panth nirpekshata, which has some resonance in our languages.

Pratap suspects that I am looking for the key where the light happens to be. And he is right. I have put the spotlight of causal reasoning and future responsibility on those who swear by the ideal of a secular India, for it is pointless to keep blaming those who have no investment in this ideal. We must focus on what was wrong with us and how we can do things differently. Unlike a political analyst, a political activist must search for keys where the light is.

https://theprint.in/opinion/new-fre...edium=push_notification&utm_campaign=ThePrint

In my various interventions on this issue, I have suggested that the idea of a secular republic is now in dire state. In 2019, we crossed the Rubicon, and are now in a naked majoritarian state that still keeps the fiction of a secular constitution alive, as long as the judiciary does not take it seriously. In this sense, secularism is as good as dead.

The devil lies in the details, Or God is in the details depending on which stable is more secular these days. The Bolded part by is the contention of Dr Yogendra Yadav, Someone with the public palatability strong enough that even a RaGa could defeat him in an election in Haryana, and that is being generous. And no this is not shooting the messenger but to indicate how far Traditional Opinion Makers (TOM henceforth) are from the ground reality.

2019 Rubicon? Modi's re-election; In the backdrop of URI attacks what were your options, A Party led by a leader that can take the fight to the opposition (as claimed) or the coalition of establishment politicians who could at best conjure up a Dossier? We as a nation crossed a different a Rubicon, then what Mr Yadav proposes. Not of the entire nation going Hindtuva lock stock and barrel, but an absolutely incompetent opposition that was Thrown at Mr. Modi that did more damage to its own credentials than whatever Mr Modi could.

Revisiting our TOM's and their Idea of Secularism, enshrined in the Constitution (Post 42nd amendment of course in 76); Was India Secular before 2014, or,1991, or 1976, or 1947, or 1646? Or the reading of secularism in the context of where the term originated and implanted of Indian civilization a primary mistake that our TOMmy chacha not willing to even explore?

And Indian citizen being "Secular" because it's enshrined in the constitution and the agency that executes its will (Judiciary, Executive and Legislative) is akin to saying an Indian citizen doesn't commit murder every day when he wakes up is because of Section 302 of the IPC. Our TOM's forget that discrimination and distinction is a social construct, not of a recent making and something that today's opposition has benefitted from over the last 7 decades. And still, culturally most of India, remains Sarv Panth Samabhav demonstrated every day by the 1/6th of this planet.


BJP's election strategy has evolved far ahead of what the TOM's can comprehend. This is quite evident from the change in society at large. Today's Icons have changed, ways to achieve what is perceived as success has changed and BJP as an organization has adapted to it. It can outflank and outmaneuver its opposition at will. This is not just because they are good at social engineering, and ensuring they can get the basics of electioneering right, but because of our TOM's who haven't spend a day in 2nd and 3rd tier cities to understand what the ground realities are.

BJP has cracked the current code: Staying true to its Core Ideology, Controlling Inflation to the Tee (@Joe Shearer we have discussed this before and not many have identified this mantra of BJP), And outflanking opposition (not just congress). BJP is 24/7 election mode, Modi's Ayodhya image, just the image itself got him 40% of his core votes for the next Lok Sabha.

In closing remarks, this pandering our ToM's do where they assume that the electorate is dumb, and they are the chosen ones who embody the divine intelligence has bitten them twice and they still haven't learned their lesson. Here our writer admonishes the Establishment politicians of Ideological Hindu Bashing all the while referring to the group divergent to his political leanings as "Toxic Majority", truly represents the essence of the disconnect these TV Leaders have from the rest of India.

 

[xeuss]

In my various interventions on this issue, I have suggested that the idea of a secular republic is now in dire state. In 2019, we crossed the Rubicon, and are now in a naked majoritarian state that still keeps the fiction of a secular constitution alive, as long as the judiciary does not take it seriously. In this sense, secularism is as good as dead.

The devil lies in the details, Or God is in the details depending on which stable is more secular these days. The Bolded part by is the contention of Dr Yogendra Yadav, Someone with the public palatability strong enough that even a RaGa could defeat him in an election in Haryana, and that is being generous. And no this is not shooting the messenger but to indicate how far Traditional Opinion Makers (TOM henceforth) are from the ground reality.

2019 Rubicon? Modi's re-election; In the backdrop of URI attacks what were your options, A Party led by a leader that can take the fight to the opposition (as claimed) or the coalition of establishment politicians who could at best conjure up a Dossier? We as a nation crossed a different a Rubicon, then what Mr Yadav proposes. Not of the entire nation going Hindtuva lock stock and barrel, but an absolutely incompetent opposition that was Thrown at Mr. Modi that did more damage to its own credentials than whatever Mr Modi could.

Revisiting our TOM's and their Idea of Secularism, enshrined in the Constitution (Post 42nd amendment of course in 76); Was India Secular before 2014, or,1991, or 1976, or 1947, or 1646? Or the reading of secularism in the context of where the term originated and implanted of Indian civilization a primary mistake that our TOMmy chacha not willing to even explore?

And Indian citizen being "Secular" because it's enshrined in the constitution and the agency that executes its will (Judiciary, Executive and Legislative) is akin to saying an Indian citizen doesn't commit murder every day when he wakes up is because of Section 302 of the IPC. Our TOM's forget that discrimination and distinction is a social construct, not of a recent making and something that today's opposition has benefitted from over the last 7 decades. And still, culturally most of India, remains Sarv Panth Samabhav demonstrated every day by the 1/6th of this planet.


BJP's election strategy has evolved far ahead of what the TOM's can comprehend. This is quite evident from the change in society at large. Today's Icons have changed, ways to achieve what is perceived as success has changed and BJP as an organization has adapted to it. It can outflank and outmaneuver its opposition at will. This is not just because they are good at social engineering, and ensuring they can get the basics of electioneering right, but because of our TOM's who haven't spend a day in 2nd and 3rd tier cities to understand what the ground realities are.

BJP has cracked the current code: Staying true to its Core Ideology, Controlling Inflation to the Tee (@Joe Shearer we have discussed this before and not many have identified this mantra of BJP), And outflanking opposition (not just congress). BJP is 24/7 election mode, Modi's Ayodhya image, just the image itself got him 40% of his core votes for the next Lok Sabha.

In closing remarks, this pandering our ToM's do where they assume that the electorate is dumb, all the while they embody the divine intelligence has bitten the twice and they still haven't learned their lesson. Here our writer admonishes the Establishment politicians of Ideological Hindu Bashing all the while referring to the group divergent to his political leanings as "Toxic Majority", truly represents the essence of the disconnect these TV Leaders have from the rest of India.

Your criticism of the ToMs is well deserved, but you allude that BJP's success is because of its 24x7 electioneering, and nothing else. BJP wins votes because it panders to anti-Muslim sentiments that exist within the Hindu society.

If you remove the anti-Muslim sentiments within the Hindu society, BJP would struggle to win elections, even with the best of campaigns and 24x7 electioneering.

The opposition fails for primarily one reason. They are not principled enough to stick to one ideology and most are easily co-opted. Most political parties today (Congress included), now think that in order to remain relevant and get votes, they must display some form of Hindu majoritarianism. Sadly, what people like @Joe Shearer want is a principled party that will stick to one ideology.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

I want India to go back to the way it was and Indians to be more like the Indians of the past, the ones I knew and grew up with.

We all do. We all miss the India pre-2014, lol. Sadly it may never return.

Let's wait for Modi to die first of COVID-19.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

I see Nehru as a faded version of Kemal Ataturk. Where both were in awe of western progress only Ataturk managed to tear the old order in Turkey which revolved around Islam and plant anew a European secular republic. Including trimmings that go with it. Dress code, script, to large degree western culture, football, western laws, western music. He literally ripped the Ottoman Islamic tradition and replaced it with a western nation.

Nehru while in awe of west as much of not more than Ataturk could nbot quite go as far as him. Thus Nehru only managed to apply a western veneer on top of the age old India. Over the last 70 years that veneer has bewgan to come off and India is merely resorting to it's own roots. It's for a lack of better word going "desi".

In Pakistan we have been hurtling toward "desi" soon after the British left. The only differance is in Pakistan the desi iteration has a Muslim flavour to it whereas in India it has a Hindu vibe to it. Actually both countries are finding their natural form.

Wow, I can't give a positive rating. But this is one post that deserves it.

@Joe Shearer -- Can you do the honours please? These are perfectly my thoughts. I really love this post.

 

[MilSpec]

I repeat the battle was lost because the liberals were fighting at the field where they had neither support nor intelligence nor wisdom for the battle. India cannot have western secularism. The founding fathers were not fools and they did understand this fact and it was this gruesome fact that had Jinnah spend an entire political career asking for minority rights or special rights. By the secular definition. Jinnah, who was busy asking for government to make provisions for a muslim minority, does not seem very secular.

May be off-topic, But why didn't Jinnah make similar arrangements for the Minorities in his own state?
Or even now would an elected Government of Pakistan make similar arrangements in its constitution based on it's own founding principals. Can Pakistan apply the fourteen points in its own context today?

>In the Central Legislature, Minority representation shall not be less than one third.
>No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three fourths of the members of any community in that particular body oppose it as being injurious to the interests of that community.
>No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Minority ministers.
Just asking?

 

[saiyan0321]

May be off-topic, But why didn't Jinnah make similar arrangements for the Minorities in his own state?
Or even now would an elected Government of Pakistan make similar arrangements in its constitution based on it's own founding principals. Can Pakistan apply the fourteen points in its own context today?

>In the Central Legislature, Minority representation shall not be less than one third.
>No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three fourths of the members of any community in that particular body oppose it as being injurious to the interests of that community.
>No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Minority ministers.
Just asking?

The 14 points would have needed an amendment in the constitution of 1935 which meant that they were constitutional in nature and when Jinnah was alive, Pakistan didnt have a constitution. Pakistan had not even started on a legal framework. The first constitutional work started with liaqat ali and his Objectives Resolution. Whether Jinnah would have made similar arrangements or not is something we will never find out. He was pro minority so i expect that his constitutional framework would have had additional safeguards for minorities however whether they would have been as encompassing as the 14 point resolution or they would have been less or whether they would even have been or not is a historical fact that is lost to us.

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

@niaz
@fatman17
@SQ8

@Arsalan
@AgNoStiC MuSliM
@saiyan0321

@Jungibaaz
@Chak Bamu

@peagle
@ps3linux
------------
@T90TankGuy
@Nilgiri
@Syama Ayas
@Krptonite
------------
@DalalErMaNodi
@Bilal9

Congress is wasting so much money to spread propaganda against BJP.
BTW why you tagged so many non Indians on Indian internal issue? Just because it suits on their line?
Intentions!

 

[saiyan0321]

r even now would an elected Government of Pakistan make similar arrangements in its constitution based on it's own founding principals. Can Pakistan apply the fourteen points in its own context today?

No. The elected government wouldnt make such a concession since for all its worth, Pakistan is an Islamic state and while it is also home to personal laws i.e. Christian and Hindu personal laws, it is by no means, in any sense of the word a secular, be it inclusive or exclusive in terms of religious diversity, state thus Pakistan will not make any grand concessions to its minorities at the expense of the majority 97%.

The fourteen points spoke of two major factors. Minority rights which largely covered the points and provincial rights and Pakistan has largely provided for the latter since we do have provincial autonomy and we are a form of a federation and in the latter we have also done work and we must also understand that there lies great difference in a minority that is 3% and a minority that was so large that it covered enough space for a very large nation

 

[MilSpec]

No. The elected government wouldnt make such a concession since for all its worth, Pakistan is an Islamic state and while it is also home to personal laws i.e. Christian and Hindu personal laws, it is by no means, in any sense of the word a secular, be it inclusive or exclusive in terms of religious diversity, state thus Pakistan will not make any grand concessions to its minorities at the expense of the majority 97%.

The fourteen points spoke of two major factors. Minority rights which largely covered the points and provincial rights and Pakistan has largely provided for the latter since we do have provincial autonomy and we are a form of a federation and in the latter we have also done work and we must also understand that there lies great difference in a minority that is 3% and a minority that was so large that it covered enough space for a very large nation

Understandable in today's context. But your minority figures were much larger before 72, and autonomy was something that could have changed a lot. but thats to discuss at a later day.

 

[Longhorn]

Indians will have to put in the hard yards and remove the vile exclusionist who now find themselves in power, cleanse every facet of their society of these beings and introspect & redefine who and what makes an Indian and more importantly what it means to be Indian.



The alternative to this is an endless abyss of Darkness, no less and no more.


As we speak, Indian society falls deeper into this boundless chasm of hatred, anarchy and majoritarianism.


The liberal Indian civil society needs to seize control of India, away from these vile pseudo Indians.


In this endeavour, they have my full support, irrespective of whether it matters, the sentiment stands.


I want India to go back to the way it was and Indians to be more like the Indians of the past, the ones I knew and grew up with.

Not possible.
It's not a tap you can turn on and off.
The BJP and the likes of Modi can be voted out of office but the millions of minds, most of them very young and impressionable, that have been poisoned and converted to the Hindu majoritarian ideology and dream are not going to be deflected. Their goal is a Hindu rashtra which they see as a panacea for all their ills, whether they be historical, economic, cultural or political.
The seed is planted and the genie is out of the bottle. The seed will grow but the genie is never going back into the bottle, with all the inherent dangers and pitfalls that holds for India, Hindus and the region in general.

 

[saiyan0321]

Understandable in today's context. But your minority figures were much larger before 72, and autonomy was something that could have changed a lot. but thats to discuss at a later day.

Indeed. That topic is one that requires much indepth discussion and yes in east Pakistan it could have worked but then again the 1962 Constitution did not have space for the rights of people themselves much less minority ones.

 

[Dil Pakistan]

The 3-pages so far, have a lot of information and knowledge.

I will try and say something different, but related to the topic.

There is one more relevant issue that is driving India in this direction; and the associated emerging geopolitics related to this issue.

The issue is the paradigm of New World Order - NWO, with international forces dictating and squeezing the states to fall in line.
NWO, per se, was a concept of unipolar world. A single power ruling the world, with layers of different powers under the "super power".
It is now apparent that India, at some point, decided to become an American ally. From this I conclude that the "super power", in return for some favours, had offered India a higher position on the table. India did accept that position on the table. The evidence is that she is not hesitant to side with US, against China, even if it is at the cost of Russia (a long standing ally).

Now! this alignment (of India) brings with it changes in military strategies, political strategies, societal changes etc., by default.
It is not just a "chance" that three aircraft carrier battle groups are stationed in SCS.
It is not just by chance that Chinese forces are knocking at the door in the North-East of India.
And it is not by chance that there is concentration of Pakistani and Indian forces in Gilgit, Kashmir and Siachen areas.

It is important to factor this in, because, if India has to enter into a "new freedom struggle" (which is the title of this thread), then she will not be at odds just with her internal forces.
The external forces will not spare her either.

 

[xeuss]

I repeat the battle was lost because the liberals were fighting at the field where they had neither support nor intelligence nor wisdom for the battle. India cannot have western secularism. The founding fathers were not fools and they did understand this fact and it was this gruesome fact that had Jinnah spend an entire political career asking for minority rights or special rights. By the secular definition. Jinnah, who was busy asking for government to make provisions for a muslim minority, does not seem very secular. A parliament that happily continues Muslim personal laws and introduces new and improves versions of personal laws all across the board does not sound very western secular. The liberal left of the Indian left to realize that the secular nature of India was very different from the secular nature of the western world. Where western secularism was based on exclusivity, the Indian subcontinent, home to nations and ethnicities and religions and sects, could not be ignored under an exclusive concept of western secularism i.e. like the Us first amendments. The founding fathers of India realized that they needed to follow the inclusive secular model if they were to keep India united and heck keep Indian government from having to face repeated revolutionary assaults.

Like many Indian secularists, you also seem to allude that we are unable to govern effectively because religion is too significant for most Indians. Therefore, you conclude that secularism (as implemented in the Western world) and India is mutually incompatible.

I disagree.

Western secularism did not take shape because Americans or Europeans of the time were apathetic toward religion, but because they were religious.

So why do we assume that the same cannot happen in India as well? I know why it did not happen. It was because the Nehruvian system of governance (inherited from the British Raj) wanted to dominate all aspects of political life. You cite Jinnah and Muslim separatism to purportedly show why the sub-continent cannot be secular, but that misses the mark, because wasn't that exactly what they were fighting against? A Nehruvian system of governance that would dominate the Muslims.