Not so secular India

[KS]

off topic young man. - got to learn. India never has been nor will it ever be secular.

As if your opinion matter. Duh.

 

[KS]

A- a certain segment of the Indian population sees the rise of India as a triumphant return of Hindu power?

Even if they saw that as one, nothing wrong in that as long as constitutional rights of other communities are not harmed.Personally I see Indian rise as a triumph of Indian culture surviving all odds and claiming its rightful place which it once occupied.

B- this view is becoming less fringe, and more acceptable in mainstream India?

Again there is nothing fringe in it AS LONG AS the constitutional rights of other communities are not harmed.

I don't dispute that the educated, liberal segment of the population still values secularism and is disproportionately influential in politics; what I am talking about are the trends.

The emerging trends are people are becoming aware of Indian secularism being faulty (in its anti-pathy towards majority) and clamor is increasing for equal treatment of all communities. IRRESPECTIVE of religion. What this entails is removal of all religion specific laws and introduction of a common civil code. One law for all Indians no matter what their faith be.

 

[harshad]

secularism means seperation of state and religion so i dont see any discrimination there
riots are not an instrument for judging a states secularism,if you think it is i pity your thinking
and after all the hindu ,rss stuff you talk about how many times did the bjp came into power in the past 60 years?

 

[Developereo]

There is no concept of Hindu "power".

So both your questions probably don't make any sense to Indians.

You are playing word games. Other Indians are more forthcoming.

Personally I see Indian rise as a triumph of Indian culture surviving all odds and claiming its rightful place which it once occupied.

But that's precisely the debate. Some people consider "Indian" culture to be exclusively Hindu. Anything Muslim is viewed as a symbol of foreign invasion. By extension, Muslims are viewed as a reminder of those invasions.

Again there is nothing fringe in it AS LONG AS the constitutional rights of other communities are not harmed.

But it's shifting the goalposts. Muslims are 'tolerated' as a foreign culture as long as they respect the Indian culture (i.e. Hindu culture).

The emerging trends are people are becoming aware of Indian secularism being faulty (in its anti-pathy towards majority) and clamor is increasing for equal treatment of all communities. IRRESPECTIVE of religion. What this entails is removal of all religion specific laws and introduction of a common civil code. One law for all Indians no matter what their faith be.

Well we all know the term "vote bank politics" is a euphemism for allegedly "Muslim pandering". This is the same debate in US, for example, about affirmative action. The rationale is that minority communities facing overt or covert discrimination must be afforded certain protections.

Your concept of equality for all would be applicable in an ideal world, but we all know people are not perfect. There is protection for Hindu castes also, because the government realizes how the real world functions.

 

[KS]

But that's precisely the debate. Some people consider "Indian" culture to be exclusively Hindu. Anything Muslim is viewed as a legacy of foreign invasion.

There is no doubt that Indian culture is by and large shaped by Hindu (Dharmic) beliefs..just like, for example, german culture bein shaped by christian values...but at the same time it cannot be denied that other religions have also added their bit to the local culture. Infact the pride of Indian culture (in this case Hindu culture) is open hearted tolerance to other religions throughout its history and its willingness to assimilate them be it Parsis from Persia or Jews from Baghdad or welcoming Thomas into Kerala or so.

So I dont see any harm coming to anyone even if its seen as a returning of a Hindu power.

And not everything Muslim is seen as a legacy of foreign invasion.

But it's shifting the goalposts. Muslims are 'tolerated' as a foreign culture as long as they respect the Indian culture (i.e. Hindu culture).

Let me not be politically correct.

Islam is infact alien to the sub-continent and there can be no two versions about it. But the people who follow it need not be alien and the least that is expected out of them is pride in the culture/heritage of their ancestors and not the invaders.

Note - this does not mean they should not have pride in Islam.

For example an analogy would be Pakistani muslims being proud of being Muslims, at the same time identifying themselves with Dahir and not Bin Qasim.

Well we all know the term "vote bank politics" is a euphemism for allegedly "Muslim pandering". This is the same debate in US, for example, about affirmative action. The rationale is that minority communities facing overt or covert discrimination must be afforded certain protections.

Affirmative action or Muslim pandering or whatever - its only the words that change. Infact these type of actions discriminate in order not to discriminate. A better word for it is "reverse discrimination".

And I am dead against it except in cases of recorded history of overt discrimination.

Your concept of equality for all would be applicable in an ideal world, but we all know people are not perfect. There is protection for Hindu castes also, because the government realizes how the real world functions.

And how would you create a ideal world in the first place without trying for it ? There is protection for Hindu castes because there is recorded instances of they being deprived of their rights by other groups which was never the case of Muslims.

 

[Roybot]

Let me not be politically correct.

Islam is infact alien to the sub-continent and there can be no two versions about it. But the people who follow it need not be alien and the least that is expected out of them is pride in the culture/heritage of their ancestors and not the invaders.

Note - this does not mean they should not have pride in Islam.

For example an analogy would be Pakistani muslims being proud of being Muslims, at the same time identifying themselves with Dahir and not Bin Qasim.

We can't force someone to respect something/someone.

As long as Indians(Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Anyone) are loyal to India that should be good enough?

 

[KS]

We can't force someone to respect something/someone.

As long as Indians(Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Anyone) are loyal to India that should be good enough?

You are entitled to your opinions and me to mine.

Democracy ftw.

 

[Developereo]

There is no doubt that Indian culture is by and large shaped by Hindu (Dharmic) beliefs..just like, for example, german culture bein shaped by christian values...but at the same time it cannot be denied that other religions have also added their bit to the local culture. Infact the pride of Indian culture (in this case Hindu culture) is open hearted tolerance to other religions throughout its history and its willingness to assimilate them be it Parsis from Persia or Jews from Baghdad or welcoming Thomas into Kerala or so.

So I dont see any harm coming to anyone even if its seen as a returning of a Hindu power.

And not everything Muslim is seen as a legacy of foreign invasion.

The case of Muslims is special because, unlike Jews, Christians and Parsis, the Muslims are
a) a significant minority, and
b) were in a position of dominance for a while, which has left a bad taste in some people's mouth.

Just in this forum, there were people justifying the destruction of Babri masjid as an example of "erasing" the symbols of Muslim invasion. The suggestions were to continue doing the same to other sites until some vague milestone was reached. Still other cases involve renaming cities to their pre-Mughal names. The debate amongst these circles is not whether this should be done at all, but the extent of this "reversal". It is a slippery slope; once you start and mob hysteria takes over, who will have the guts to stop it?

Let me not be politically correct.

Islam is infact alien to the sub-continent and there can be no two versions about it. But the people who follow it need not be alien and the least that is expected out of them is pride in the culture/heritage of their ancestors and not the invaders.

Note - this does not mean they should not have pride in Islam.

For example an analogy would be Pakistani muslims being proud of being Muslims, at the same time identifying themselves with Dahir and not Bin Qasim.

Of course all minorites should be respectful of the majority culture. All Indian Muslims I have met have been fully respectful of Hinduism and proud of India's ancient history. But the majority also has to accept them as a part of "Indian culture" instead of seeing them as a lingering symbol of foreign invasion.

Also, if you accept some of the claims of India being a "continuation" of Indus Valley Civilization, then various aspects of Hinduism also came from "foreign lands" (i.e. Pakistan). Where do you draw the line about what is indigenous and what isn't?

There are strains of Islam and Islamic thought and culture which are fully indigenous to the subcontinent. Why are they any less indigenous than aspects of Hinduism which were influenced by outsiders?

Affirmative action or Muslim pandering or whatever - its only the words that change. Infact these type of actions discriminate in order not to discriminate. A better word for it is "reverse discrimination".

Well, this is the same debate happening in the US and UK, using the same terminology. Again, the rationale in these countries -- and maybe India also -- is that such policies will no longer be needed once there is sufficient representation of said minorities in positions of power and influence.

I agree that discrimination of any kind is wrong; I am just presenting the reasons being debated in these countries.

And I am dead against it except in cases of recorded history of overt discrimination.




And how would you create a ideal world in the first place without trying for it ? There is protection for Hindu castes because there is recorded instances of they being deprived of their rights by other groups which was never the case of Muslims.

I don't want to get into details of Muslim discrimination; there have been enough thread on the matter. Briefly, the Sachar commission among others found that Muslims were disadvantaged. I accept that the reasons are complex, including cultural attitudes favoring trade v/s education, but the commission found that there was discrimination even after taking these factors into account.

 

[KS]

The case of Muslims is special because, unlike Jews, Christians and Parsis, the Muslims are
a) a significant minority, and
b) were in a position of dominance for a while, which has left a bad taste in some people's mouth.

I don't know how point one makes them special.

The second reason, the only ones it has left a bad taste is the a section of Muslims themselves who are not able to come to terms to with their loss of power. This has created an sense of insecurity among them and to make up for this insecurity they (a section) have become even more radical and isolationist. Something like how after 9/11 Muslims all over the world became even more religious as a form of assertion.

Just in this forum, there were people justifying the destruction of Babri masjid as an example of "erasing" the symbols of Muslim invasion. The suggestions were to continue doing the same to other sites until some vague milestone was reached. Still other cases involve renaming cities to their pre-Mughal names. The debate amongst these circles is not whether this should be done at all, but the extent of this "reversal". It is a slippery slope; once you start and mob hysteria takes over, who will have the guts to stop it?

Ram Janmabhoomi is a special case which should have been dealt peacefully by the Muslim leaders who should have returned it voluntarily to the Hindus and Hindu leaders who should not have become impatient. The amount of significance it holds for two communities cannot be compared. Again this is what I said by the "bad taste in the mouth". The Muslims had lost their power in North India and this (refusal to hand over the land) was a chance to show that they still had power. It became an ego issue on their part. That blanket refusal to even consider Hindu plea, the Shah Bano case and later the Pandit genocide created a climate where the removal of Babri became inevitable.

Ram Mandir should be built there,there is no alternative to that, but a more peaceful approach would have been welcome. Something like Hindus offering to build a mosque nearby at their own cost and labour.

An if people think the names of certain places need to be changed to better reflect the local culture, all power to them. Democracy does not forbid that. And this name chnage was not only for the Mughal places but even for places named by the British - Madras -> Chennai, Bombay -> Mumbai etc.

As it implies it is not about Muslims alone, it is about everything.

Of course all minorites should be respectful of the majority culture. All Indian Muslims I have met have been fully respectful of Hinduism and proud of India's ancient history. But the majority also has to accept them as a part of "Indian culture" instead of seeing them as a lingering symbol of foreign invasion.

It has to be a two way street ,yes.

Also, if you accept some of the claims of India being a "continuation" of Indus Valley Civilization, then various aspects of Hinduism also came from "foreign lands" (i.e. Pakistan). Where do you draw the line about what is indigenous and what isn't?

FYI, 'Pakistan' i.e., present day lands under the control of Pakistan were historically considered to be a part of Bharat and so your post is wrong.

There are strains of Islam and Islamic thought and culture which are fully indigenous to the subcontinent. Why are they any less indigenous than aspects of Hinduism which were influenced by outsiders?

Again I have answered that previously itself. Islam - as an ideology is completely alien to the subcontinent. So there can never be a question of it being indigenous to the SC. The people following it may not be. But the idealogy is.

Well, this is the same debate happening in the US and UK, using the same terminology. Again, the rationale in these countries -- and maybe India also -- is that such policies will no longer be needed once there is sufficient representation of said minorities in positions of power and influence.

That rationale is wrong then. The crutches should be given to only those who were explicity discriminated against. For example Dalits in India or Native Indians in US.

I don't want to get into details of Muslim discrimination; there have been enough thread on the matter. Briefly, the Sachar commission among others found that Muslims were disadvantaged. I accept that the reasons are complex, including cultural attitudes favoring trade v/s education, but the commission found that there was discrimination even after taking these factors into account.

Sachar committee is in itself one big political drama.

Kudos Mr Khursheed, Sachar can only hold Muslims back | Firstpost

 

[Developereo]

I don't know how point one makes them special.

By special, I meant different from Christians, Jews, Parsis, etc.

The second reason, the only ones it has left a bad taste is the a section of Muslims themselves who are not able to come to terms to with their loss of power. This has created an sense of insecurity among them and to make up for this insecurity they (a section) have become even more radical and isolationist. Something like how after 9/11 Muslims all over the world became even more religious as a form of assertion.

That is simply false. There have been examples of RSS sanctioned textbooks that clearly promote a continuing distrust and hatred of Indian Muslims based on Mughal history.

It is the Hindus who are obsessed with the Mughal conquest and are determined to "reclaim" their heritage.

Babri is a special case which should have been dealt peacefully by the Muslim leaders who should have returned it voluntarily to the Hindus and Hindu leaders who should not have become impatient. The amount of significance it holds for two communities cannot be compared. Again this is what I said by the "bad taste in the mouth".

Yes, the only community with the bad taste is the Hindus. The Muslims are happy to let the past be and move forward. It is the Hindus who demand restoration of past "wrongs". Where does it end?

The Muslims had lost their power in North India and this (refusal to hand over the land) was a chance to show that they still had power. It became an ego issue on their part.

Again this obsession with the past; this determination to hold the Indian Muslims hostage until they redress the wrongs of the Mughal past.

That blanket refusal to even consider Hindu plea, the Shah Bano case and later the Pandit genocide created a climate where the removal of Babri became inevitable.

Ram Mandir should be built there,there is no alternative to that, but a more peaceful approach would have been welcome. Something like Hindus offering to build a mosque nearby at their own cost and labour.

Case in point. It was a Hindu demand to "reclaim" the site -- just one amongst many. This furphy about "Hindu plea" is silly. It was an uncompromised demand -- bloodily enforced.

An if people think the names of certain places need to be changed to better reflect the local culture, all power to them. Democracy does not forbid that. And this name chnage was not only for the Mughal places but even for places named by the British - Madras -> Chennai, Bombay -> Mumbai etc.

As it implies it is not about Muslims alone, it is about everything.

No, it is about Hinduism and the need to reassert Hindu identity upon everything.

FYI, 'Pakistan' i.e., present day lands under the control of Pakistan were historically considered to be a part of Bharat and so your post is wrong.

That, too, is an old debate: how long, in historical terms, was IVC ever part of ancient empires based in modern-day India? Even the most ardent Akhand Bharat advocates do not claim that the area of the IVC was under control of such empires in the heydey of the IVC.

The IV civilization itself was never part of the core Bharati empires. At best, these geographical regions were briefly conquered, long after the IVC itself disappeared, only to be lost again shortly. Like Gandhara in Afghanistan.

The influence of the IVC happened when the IVC itself was outside the rule of Bharat; when these people were driven off by invaders from the (north) west.

Again I have answered that previously itself. Islam - as an ideology is completely alien to the subcontinent. So there can never be a question of it being indigenous to the SC. The people following it may not be. But the idealogy is.

We are not talking about the religion per se but the cultural aspects. Many of these are fully indigenous.

That rationale is wrong then. The crutches should be given to only those who were explicity discriminated against. For example Dalits in India or Native Indians in US.

Sachar committee is in itself one big political drama.

Kudos Mr Khursheed, Sachar can only hold Muslims back | Firstpost

You are dismissing data that doesn't suit your views. You assert that there is no discrimination and you dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

 

[KS]

That is simply false. There have been examples of RSS sanctioned textbooks that clearly promote a continuing distrust and hatred of Indian Muslims based on Mughal history.

If stating history as it is , is promoting distrust so be it.

People deserve to know what really happened , not white washed ones. That is their fundamental right.

It is the Hindus who are obsessed with the Mughal conquest and are determined to "reclaim" their heritage.

We have long moved on. And I dont see what heritage we lost.

Yes, the only community with the bad taste is the Hindus. The Muslims are happy to let the past be and move forward. It is the Hindus who demand restoration of past "wrongs". Where does it end?

Well I don't think we can agree on this because of our respective faiths. We (Hindus) are well within our right to demand our most holy places that were sacked and plundered by foreign invaders be returned to us.And unless the Muslim themselves dont identify with the foreign invaders more than with the local culture (as you claimed they do) I dont see any reason for their hesitation.

If we Hindus were in a mood to 'reverse' every wrong that was done then there would have been no Muslims left in India. The demand is the bare minimum - a site that is our most holiest, a site on which a previous temple existed and which was demolished to build a victory monument be returned. By any stretch of imagination, I dont see how it is wrong.

Again this obsession with the past; this determination to hold the Indian Muslims hostage until they redress the wrongs of the Mughal past.

No one is holding the Muslims hostage. They themselves are a hostage to their identity and more frankly they (many I have met especially those from North India) suffer from an identity crisis as to who they really are. Not from a political or a nationality pov, but from a spiritual,cultural pov.

And blaming the Hindus for that is the most dis-ingenious one. Why ? Already explained.

Case in point. It was a Hindu demand to "reclaim" the site -- just one amongst many. This furphy about "Hindu plea" is silly. It was an uncompromised demand -- bloodily enforced.

Nothing wrong in it. It was an abandoned victory monument that was built on the site of one of our most holiest places. It is but atural we demand it be returned to us. Nothing out of world in that.

And yes, I already said there can be no two views on whether the Ram Mandir should come up there or not. Its only a matter of how it should come that is open to debate.

No, it is about Hinduism and the need to reassert Hindu identity upon everything.

Your personal view and you have the right to that. I may not agree with it.

That, too, is an old debate: how long, in historical terms, was IVC ever part of ancient empires based in modern-day India? Even the most ardent Akhand Bharat advocates do not claim that the area of the IVC was under control of such empires in the heydey of the IVC.

The IV civilization itself was never part of the core Bharati empires. At best, these geographical regions were briefly conquered, long after the IVC itself disappeared, only to be lost again shortly. Like Gandhara in Afghanistan.

The influence of the IVC happened when the IVC itself was outside the rule of Bharat; when these people were driven off by invaders from the (north) west.

You are getting confused. Ancient Bharat was the landmass between the four boundaries of Himalayas up North, Myanmar on the East, Indian Ocean down south and Hindukush on the West

There is nothing like 'core' bharati and 'not-so-core' Bharati. Anything within the above mentioned features was considered Bharat.

I might even include Gandhara - Queen Gandhari in Mahabharatha and Shakuni (uncle of Kauravas) were from Gandhara.

I see only the Pakistanis distinguishing the IVC from Indian culture for ,whatever reason. But historian world over dont think so.

We are not talking about the religion per se but the cultural aspects. Many of these are fully indigenous.

Culture is strongly influenced by religious practises.

You are dismissing data that doesn't suit your views. You assert that there is no discrimination and you dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to disprove the data given there.

 

[DARKY]

By special, I meant different from Christians, Jews, Parsis, etc.



That is simply false. There have been examples of RSS sanctioned textbooks that clearly promote a continuing distrust and hatred of Indian Muslims based on Mughal history.

RSS is not India... there are far worse Muslim groups like SIMMI, IM etc... in the Muslim community.

It is the Hindus who are obsessed with the Mughal conquest and are determined to "reclaim" their heritage.

If that were so... you not be seeing so many Monuments from the Mughal era standing tall.... neither emperors like Akbar bebg respected so much.

Yes, the only community with the bad taste is the Hindus. The Muslims are happy to let the past be and move forward. It is the Hindus who demand restoration of past "wrongs". Where does it end?

Again a few does not represent the whole.... If that were so then whole Muslim Community should be considered as Terrorist and sent to Guantanamo.

Again this obsession with the past; this determination to hold the Indian Muslims hostage until they redress the wrongs of the Mughal past.

There were many wrongs and rights done in each era... and name me one Muslim in India who is being held as hostage.... for any thing which was done by Mughals in past...

Case in point. It was a Hindu demand to "reclaim" the site -- just one amongst many. This furphy about "Hindu plea" is silly. It was an uncompromised demand -- bloodily enforced.

Yet not enforced... No temple at the site....

No, it is about Hinduism and the need to reassert Hindu identity upon everything.

Do we need to reassert any identity upon anything ??... why not ask yourself.

That, too, is an old debate: how long, in historical terms, was IVC ever part of ancient empires based in modern-day India? Even the most ardent Akhand Bharat advocates do not claim that the area of the IVC was under control of such empires in the heydey of the IVC.

The IV civilization itself was never part of the core Bharati empires. At best, these geographical regions were briefly conquered, long after the IVC itself disappeared, only to be lost again shortly. Like Gandhara in Afghanistan.

The influence of the IVC happened when the IVC itself was outside the rule of Bharat; when these people were driven off by invaders from the (north) west.

IVC happened in India... wonder what they teach in Pakistan but the land beyond Hindukush or Indus was Hindustan, India or Bharat.

We are not talking about the religion per se but the cultural aspects. Many of these are fully indigenous.

The culture Changed with time and have had its effect on outsiders even who have blended to Indian culture with time... and thats have happened from ancient times... Mughals did nothing exceptional.

You are dismissing data that doesn't suit your views. You assert that there is no discrimination and you dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

Thats for Indian Muslims to decide.... you are a No one.

 

[Vinod2070]

My 2 cents:

India had the option to declare itself a Hindu nation at independence. The logic of partition strongly favored this option.

Our founders chose to follow secularism and that is the current state. The Indian state has no religion and does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

This is the current state and Indian people have every right to see if they want to change this. As of now, there is no indication of that happening.

Pride in our indigenous culture is a good thing. It is going up and there is a cultural awakening happening. It is a very positive development as far as we are concerned.

We don't associate Indian Muslims with the acts of the invaders. Indian Muslims were never the rulers (for that matter nor were the Muslims who are indigenous to the lands now called Pakistan or Bangladesh). Same as Christian converts are not thought of as British, nor do their loyalties lie with them.

We expect all Indians to take pride in indigenous culture. This is separate from their chosen way of worshiping God. That doesn't matter.

---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

Babri masjid (or the disputed structure as some call it) has not been there for over two decades now.

There has not been worship in that structure by the Muslims for over 5 decades now.

Why don't Pakistani Muslims (who never had anything to do with it anyway) move on?

 

[KS]

We don't associate Indian Muslims with the acts of the invaders. Indian Muslims were never the rulers (for that matter nor were the Muslims who are indigenous to the lands now called Pakistan or Bangladesh). Same as Christian converts are not thought of as British, nor do their loyalties lie with them.

A very important point.

The rulers in all cases were either Turks, Turko-Mongols or Afghans.Cultures alien to the SC.

Linking their acts with Indian Muslims doesn't make sense. More so some 'confused' Indian Muslim identifying with them.

 

[Vinod2070]

You didnt answer my question. How do you come to the conclusion that India is not secular. Do understand that a country being secular or not is a legal/constitutional status and not an outcome of a debate.

The intention of the whole thread (and several other threads by the same OP, all about Indian secularism and Hindus) is very clear.

Repeating like a parrot that India is not secular, that it should be divided in multiple parts by China for not treating its minorities well and so on is all that has been done.

Pakistan and Muslims claiming to talk of minority rights and secularism is funny indeed. If they really cared for such things, they will not be able to show their faces to the world.

Obsession with Indian secularism and not on the extremism in their own Islamic societies is really interesting when we don't even care about their opinions on the issue.

They just have a compelling need to justify their separation every day.

Every bloody day! That is the curse....