I don't think any Indian Muslim ever lectured any Hindu over secularism. However, since secularism is a part of the constitution, that constitution must be upheld. Criticism of unconstitutional acts (related to secularism) by Hindus in power does not amount to criticism of Hinduism.
"secularism" was NEVER part of the Indian constitution until Indira Gandhi FORCIBLY inserted in into the constitution during EMERGENCY , when the entire opposition was in JAIL.
Even after that, "secularism" itself is NOT DEFINED in the constitution.
But it has come to mean every communal act of appeasement is now called "secularism". It has now come to mean Hinduphobia and moral cowardice.
Your main gripe (and many Hindus as well) arises from a misplaced sense of understanding of religion and secularism and its place within a modern state.
Who are you to declare someone else's Understanding "misplaced" ?
It takes a certain amount of Hubris just to make that claim.
A religious state by itself implies primacy of one religion over the other. All Hindu empires in the past did have some form of Hinduism (Shaivism/Vaishnavisim etc) as the primary state religion. Other religions and sects were either discouraged or denied equal space. You should read Arjun Appadurai's "Worship and Conflict" to understand how intertwined temples and kingship were in South India.
A "State religion" is not a "religious state".
It is pure rubbish to claim other religions were denied equal space especially since a host of other religions actively sought refugee and thrived when they were denied space in other abrahamic societies.
Jews, zorashtrians, syrian Christians, Tibetan buddhists, Ahmedias, Jains, sikhs, Bahaits etc.
Arjun Appadurai OTOH is a well known Hinduphobic American colonialist who claims postcolonial identity is created through globalization. This while the US is actively denying visa and entry to people from colonial pasts.
A secular state on the other hand, implies either no preference for any religion or equal preference for all religions.
RUBBISH. A secular state merely has to provide equal space to all religion / non religion and practices. To be secular there only needs to be no specific laws favoring the Hindu majority, nor can the Government control the expression of Hinduism.
Napal has learn from the sabotage of Hindu identity and secularism in India. It has now clearly defined its own secularism as "
religious and cultural freedom, along with the protection of religion and customs practised from ancient times'.
There is little doubt what that means for the ancient Dharmic religions.
India has never really made up its mind on what kind of a modern state it wants to be. While it professes separation between church and state, it has more than interfered and controlled religions within its domain. From control of Hindu temples to administration of Waqf properties, it has violated the principles of noninterference that typically accompany a secular state.
This too is a LIE perpetuated by those who seek to pervert secularism to make it act communal.
There was a lengthy debate in the parliament on this very topic when the constitution was being formed and Dr. Ambedkar was very clear on this topic.
On 15 November 1948 at the Constituent Assembly debate in Parliament, a member, Prof K.T Shah from Bihar moved an Amendment to the original Preamble statement. He insisted that the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist” be inserted into the statement. In a detailed reply,
BR Ambedkar justified why he did not include the words “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble:
Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State,
how the Society should be organised in its social (secular) and economic (socialist) side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.
If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow.
I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.
Then Ambedkar remarked, “
The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous.”
So while you may have a fair complaint regarding the current state of secularism in India, your directive towards Muslims as somehow responsible for this is clearly off the mark. We are victims of the same set up, and we see as much unfairness in this as you do. However, the current politics of the Sangh Parivar have cleverly directed all blame to the Muslims for this, using half truths and often blatant falsehood, and you have sadly, lapped it all up.
In a Hindu majority country, when things go wrong, the blame should rightly be put on the Hindus for their moral cowardice, laziness and dishonesty.
But that does not excuse the muslims for their communal behaviour and past which in turn
