Indians and Democracy/Secularism - can someone explain something to me?

[r3alist]

Now first things first, please dont take this as having a pop at india, I am just asking a query.


There is something that puzzles me a great deal about indians and their democratic and secularist epithet - they dont seem to understand or grasp the notion themselves imo.

I base this on the premise that 90% of the time, whenever india is mentioned in such a way that demonstrates india is not behaving in a secularist/democratic way they always bring pakistan into it and how crap pakistan is in such and such a way (not always unfairly so i should add).

But what on earth have pakistani affairs got to do with indian credentials as a credible and strong secular/democratic nation?

Is pakistan india's benchmark?

Why does pakistan need to be a factor in indian issues?


Then this leads me to my next query, why do indians get so defensive about any criticism.

Do they not understand that to be secularist and democratic is to invite and acknowledge faults in your society?

India has defined itself as a secular and democratic nation, therefore Indians should not become defensive when people discuss the strength of this system in India because that is the standard indians have loudly chosen to define themselves as - in fact indians should welcome genuine criticism because it can serve as a vehicle to improve its society - instead they rarely do, they just get very defensive and vitriolic - to me this screams out insecurity and a gaping lack of understanding about universal democratic/secular principles.

As such I have come to a conclusion that whilst india is still definitely a democracy it as an "immature" one whose people largely do not understand it or worse still they do not wish to fully understand and implement it, instead they use it as just an epithet to bolster its image rather than genuinely act upon and implement its universal principles - this is and can have a very dangerous effect imo.





I welcome your thoughts on this.

 

[MilesTogo]

secularism is a two way street. One can not be secular with a non-secular.

In my opinion, Muslims by virtue of Islam are non-secular. (you can have a different opinion). E.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So, Muslims don't have any right to demand Secular treatment.

If Muslims have their way they will make the entire sub-continent Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Actually, I will not be surprised if it happens in next 50-100 years.

Plus, not just India, Europe and USA are in a similar situation, although they have fewer Muslims to worry about. You can already see western legislators amending their laws to stop abuse of religious freedom. Latest in the series is a Switzerland female athlete being denied permission to wear head-scarf while playing.

Bad thing is we can't do that here in India.

Now first things first, please dont take this as having a pop at india, I am just asking a query.


There is something that puzzles me a great deal about indians and their democratic and secularist epithet - they dont seem to understand or grasp the notion themselves imo.

I base this on the premise that 90% of the time, whenever india is mentioned in such a way that demonstrates india is not behaving in a secularist/democratic way they always bring pakistan into it and how crap pakistan is in such and such a way (not always unfairly so i should add).

But what on earth have pakistani affairs got to do with indian credentials as a credible and strong secular/democratic nation?

Is pakistan india's benchmark?

Why does pakistan need to be a factor in indian issues?


Then this leads me to my next query, why do indians get so defensive about any criticism.

Do they not understand that to be secularist and democratic is to invite and acknowledge faults in your society?

India has defined itself as a secular and democratic nation, therefore Indians should not become defensive when people discuss the strength of this system in India because that is the standard indians have loudly chosen to define themselves as - in fact indians should welcome genuine criticism because it can serve as a vehicle to improve its society - instead they rarely do, they just get very defensive and vitriolic - to me this screams out insecurity and a gaping lack of understanding about universal democratic/secular principles.

As such I have come to a conclusion that whilst india is still definitely a democracy it as an "immature" one whose people largely do not understand it or worse still they do not wish to fully understand and implement it, instead they use it as just an epithet to bolster its image rather than genuinely act upon and implement its universal principles - this is and can have a very dangerous effect imo.





I welcome your thoughts on this.

 

[toxic_pus]

There seems to be only two queries in that post. 1) Why do Indians on this forum, refer to Pakistan when India is being criticized, and 2) why do Indians on this forum get defensive when they are criticized.

None of these two questions has anything to do with either democracy or secularism - not even remotely. The answer to the first question is that, bringing in Pakistan as a means of justification, is indeed a wrong approach to any debate. (Unfortunately you will notice the same trend from Pakistanis as well, where India is cited as a matter of justification). This approach to debate entails a logical fallacy. However, this reaction is not too difficult to guess. It arises from a perception that a country which doesn’t have democracy in any meaningful way or to the degree, that India has and doesn’t practice secularism, in any sense of the term, doesn’t get to question India’s credential on these matters. It is probably a feeling that a professor of physics would get, if a professor of history tries to criticize him/her regarding his/her understanding of quantum mechanics. That is all that there is to it. Just a logical fallacy.

The second question is however, a bit more interesting. Unfortunately, like the first one, it arises out of flawed understanding of democracy. The basis of democracy is plurality of thoughts, which necessitates freedom of expression. Freedom of expression means that, just as one is free to air his thoughts in the public domain, one, in doing so, also subjects his thoughts to intense scrutiny. It is this back and forth exchange of ideas and thoughts, through arguments and counter arguments, that makes it a dialogue, which, again, is the basis of plurality. Otherwise, it will be a monologue – quite inimical to plurality, and therefore to democracy.

In a democracy, therefore, just as you have the right to criticize, similarly, the person being criticized, has an equal right to present his case as well, or in your words be ‘defensive’ of his point of view, particularly if he is of the opinion that the so called ‘genuine’ criticism is mostly dissemblance. There is nothing in democracy that stops a person from ‘defending’ oneself. In fact, it is one of it’s virtues.

Your assertion that India and Indians ‘should not become defensive’ when India is being ‘genuinely’ criticized, because, ‘India has defined itself as a secular and democratic nation’ is only partially correct. Because India professes to uphold plurality, it should welcome, and not stifle, all criticism. However, it doesn’t mean, that India, or for that matter any other democratic society, shall have to accept every criticism at face value, without examining its merit, just for the sake of being, and appearing to be, democratic.

 

[vsdoc]

toxic_pus bhai, that was a wonderful post. Couldn't have said it better even if I tried.

We Indians are open to introspective reflection. What we find frankly a bit over the top is moralistic holier-than-thou preaching by Pakistanis on issues they should be the last people in the world qualified to speak about or debate.

I think this should solve your confusion r3alist.

Cheers, Doc

 

[r3alist]

Thank you for your responses.

It arises from a perception that a country which doesn’t have democracy in any meaningful way or to the degree, that India has and doesn’t practice secularism, in any sense of the term, doesn’t get to question India’s credential on these matters. It is probably a feeling that a professor of physics would get, if a professor of history tries to criticize him/her regarding his/her understanding of quantum mechanics. That is all that there is to it. Just a logical fallacy.

This is infact not very correct at all.

Firstly you imply that being a "democracy" implies some moral higher ground and is a elitist club thus makes it immune from crticism from anybodyelse other than democracies - well thats a fairly nonsensical point, democracy/secularism is a universalist principle,it does not exclude anybody, a democracy is meant to promote open discussion from everywhere, as much as you dislike it you have no perogatove(moral or whatever) to ignore pakistani's (or whoever), its part and parcel of the way you have chosen to define yourself - i thought indians would understand this by now.

I see a big discrepancy between what some indians loudly and often preach and then what they say in regards to other issues.

Just recently the americans criticised indians on their treatment of christian/muslim minorities, so do you accept their criticism as valid?
I have not exactly gauged a welcoming reaction to this.

If you adhere to this universalist principles you actually take concern on whats happening on the ground, the vast majority of indians seem not to, they are either defensive or flippant, on the other hand they are also very keen and eager to loudly define themselves as democratic/secular.

Thus this to me clearly shows either a lack of understanding of what it is they preach or no desire to adopt and practise what they preach. So really it seems that indians are merely happy to append the democratic/secular epithet to their title not because they embody or believe it, but because they can derive benefit from it, usually some claim to moral high ground.

Your assertion that India and Indians ‘should not become defensive’ when India is being ‘genuinely’ criticized, because, ‘India has defined itself as a secular and democratic nation’ is only partially correct. Because India professes to uphold plurality, it should welcome, and not stifle, all criticism. However, it doesn’t mean, that India, or for that matter any other democratic society, shall have to accept every criticism at face value, without examining its merit, just for the sake of being, and appearing to be, democratic.

Yes i agree, however i said genuine criticism that is real and not just mud slinging.

"examining its merit" should not include weighing yourself up against pakistan - but thats what we see alot of the time.

 

[r3alist]

toxic_pus bhai, that was a wonderful post. Couldn't have said it better even if I tried.

We Indians are open to introspective reflection. What we find frankly a bit over the top is moralistic holier-than-thou preaching by Pakistanis on issues they should be the last people in the world qualified to speak about or debate.

I think this should solve your confusion r3alist.

Cheers, Doc

That is infact a confused response, if the criticism is valid or real then it should be regarded as such, you just admitted that you are not prepared to listen to someone who criticises and happens to be pakistani, thus you demonstrate my point.

 

[rubyjackass]

But what on earth have pakistani affairs got to do with indian credentials as a credible and strong secular/democratic nation?

Is pakistan india's benchmark?


Why does pakistan need to be a factor in indian issues?

No. No. It dont.

Then this leads me to my next query, why do indians get so defensive about any criticism.

Methinks we have people who act as alarmists and warn about the adngers we are falling into. And then there are people who are satisfied with the kind of democracy and secularism we have. But everyone agrees that we are still building.
You never saw one guy who raises a debate? You did not notice the thread started by Skeptic?(I don't think that thread has place on this forum though) This is a PDF so may be you don't find that much discussion on the topic. But if you go to some Indian forum, you will find a lot of soul searching.

It is not difficult to explain why Indians get defensive if others raise the issue saying outright that India is not secular, not withstanding the motives of these others. It gets especially irky when these people shout their mouths out without even knowing about India. Ex: Naxalite issue.

You should understand that democracy and secularism are India's only heritage that is well taken care of. In this country where we don't give importance to our ancient monuments and historical places leaving them in a pathetic state, they are things that are indeed worth preserving especially from people who are hell bent on undermining if not destroying them.

Do they not understand that to be secularist and democratic is to invite and acknowledge faults in your society?

India has defined itself as a secular and democratic nation, therefore Indians should not become defensive when people discuss the strength of this system in India because that is the standard indians have loudly chosen to define themselves as - in fact indians should welcome genuine criticism because it can serve as a vehicle to improve its society - instead they rarely do, they just get very defensive and vitriolic - to me this screams out insecurity and a gaping lack of understanding about universal democratic/secular principles.

As such I have come to a conclusion that whilst india is still definitely a democracy it as an "immature" one whose people largely do not understand it or worse still they do not wish to fully understand and implement it, instead they use it as just an epithet to bolster its image rather than genuinely act upon and implement its universal principles - this is and can have a very dangerous effect imo.

I welcome your thoughts on this.

You should visit some Indian forum or look at a good Indian newspaper. You will find people with each others' collars in their hands.

On a different note this is the kind of secularism I want to see in India:
DAWN.COM | Columnists | Going Jinnah?s way(Read the part about Iftars)

When there is no need or use for such *** kissing, then India is secular.

 

[vsdoc]

Yes i agree, however i said genuine criticism that is real and not just mud slinging.

That my friend is the entire crux of the issue on defense.pk

Genuine criticism we can take and debate.

Flaming, holier-than-thou hypocrisy, mud slinging, ivory tower babble from people who love throwing stones in glass houses is what we have an issue with.

And yes, as free citizens of a democratic country, we judge which category the responses from the other side fit into, and respond accordingly.

You and other pakistanis may not agree and profess genuine motives, but we are all adults here and have seen enough of the world - both real and cyber, to know a flame from a genuine post when we see one.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

That is infact a confused response, if the criticism is valid or real then it should be regarded as such, you just admitted that you are not prepared to listen to someone who criticises and happens to be pakistani, thus you demonstrate my point.

Please do not twist and misconstrue my words and append motives that are not there.

For clarification, please refer to my reply above to another of your statements.

Cheers, Doc

 

[nitesh28]

well everything in the orignal post is true.

But

pakistan is referred in every statement because it is the pakistanis who raise these issues most often.

secondly Indian democracy and secularism is not perfect i agree but that is something to be debated inside indian society. it will evolve with time.

we may have some flaws in our secularism and democracy but atleast we have something and are respected worldwide for it.

no need to take advice for pakistan "what do pakistanis know about democracy and secularism when they dont have any themselves."

 

[Reddy]

We indians are not apologetic/defensive about our democratic/secular ideals. There are no doubt problems with implementation of those ideals, which we are trying to address.
If some one is just hell bent on mudslinging just for the sake of it, then it raises an issue with the indian members.
We are all for constructive criticism on issues relating to India - Democracy / secularism / Minority rights / Poverty.
Some pakistani members seem to overjealous in their presentation of pakistan showing it as heaven on earth and India as hell on earth for muslims, which is totally wrong I must say.
Yes Indians practice a simplistic approach to democrary ( but still better than a dictatorship / religious leaders leading their countries )
Yes Indian muslims have some problems - but it is mostly to do with their lack of education ( Indian govt. could well do more ) But they are not the only community facing problems - There are more poor Hindus facing larger problems.
Yes we have loads of poor people - all religions included Hindus/Muslims etc.
Yes people face discrimination but it is more to to with Rich Vs. Poor

constructive criticism is welcome

 

[r3alist]

That my friend is the entire crux of the issue on defense.pk

Genuine criticism we can take and debate.

Flaming, holier-than-thou hypocrisy, mud slinging, ivory tower babble from people who love throwing stones in glass houses is what we have an issue with.

And yes, as free citizens of a democratic country, we judge which category the responses from the other side fit into, and respond accordingly.

You and other pakistanis may not agree and profess genuine motives, but we are all adults here and have seen enough of the world - both real and cyber, to know a flame from a genuine post when we see one.

Cheers, Doc

I think most sensible people know what is a wind up attempt and what is "real" - that is not the reserve of indians.

Also you consistently refer to the "other side"?

Why the infatuation? Would you have a different approach to responding should a frenchman make a criticism? or a bengali?

What of the americans who criticised india? Are they right in saying what they said but the pakistani's who said the same thing are wrong?

Or do pakistani not have a right to say anything, period.

This is not a very enlightened approach.

When you say "genuine criticism" you are very likely saying that you hold the right to decide what you want to acknowledge and what you do not - this is not genuine introspection.

As long as whats said is "real" then it does not matter who brings it up, atleast it should not matter, but it seems to.

 

[r3alist]

constructive criticism is welcome

from what i have gathered, constructive criticism is more like "criticism i dont mind hearing"

Why not something along the lines of - as long as its true then its valid to consider?

 

[vsdoc]

Yes r3alist, ofcourse its different for an Indian when it comes from a Pakistani versus from any other nationality.

We dont live in a vacuum my friend.

We are India and Pakistan ...... and all that it implies historically.

Do you honestly expect anything different?

Or have you seen anything different from your side of the fence to cause you to expect any different from us?

Dichotomy?

Cheers, Doc

 

[toxic_pus]

This is infact not very correct at all.

Firstly you imply that being a "democracy" implies some moral higher ground and is a elitist club thus makes it immune from crticism from anybodyelse other than democracies - well thats a fairly nonsensical point, democracy/secularism is a universalist principle,it does not exclude anybody, a democracy is meant to promote open discussion from everywhere, as much as you dislike it you have no perogatove(moral or whatever) to ignore pakistani's (or whoever), its part and parcel of the way you have chosen to define yourself - i thought indians would understand this by now.

-snipped-

"examining its merit" should not include weighing yourself up against pakistan - but thats what we see alot of the time.

Which part of "bringing in Pakistan as a means of justification, is indeed a wrong approach to any debate" and "logical fallacy" do you not understand.

I see a big discrepancy between what some indians loudly and often preach and then what they say in regards to other issues.

Just recently the americans criticised indians on their treatment of christian/muslim minorities, so do you accept their criticism as valid?
I have not exactly gauged a welcoming reaction to this.

In India, there is a constant process of debate in the media, print as well as electronic, regarding these issues. That these reports are able to trigger such introspection in public arena, is more than an indication that these reports are 'welcome'. I do not know how much more 'welcoming' a 'reaction' has to be to qualify your parameters of 'welcoming reaction'. You forgot to give the parameters.

If you adhere to this universalist principles you actually take concern on whats happening on the ground, the vast majority of indians seem not to, they are either defensive or flippant, on the other hand they are also very keen and eager to loudly define themselves as democratic/secular.

Thus this to me clearly shows either a lack of understanding of what it is they preach or no desire to adopt and practise what they preach. So really it seems that indians are merely happy to append the democratic/secular epithet to their title not because they embody or believe it, but because they can derive benefit from it, usually some claim to moral high ground.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I have already argued that what you call is 'defensive', is pretty much within the democratic parameters.

Yes i agree, however i said genuine criticism that is real and not just mud slinging.

The problem is with the word 'genuine'. How does one separate the wheat from the chaff, particularly on a forum, where dissemblance is the name of the game.