SECULARISM- "India Style"

[Swati Shukla]

Secularism hmmmm, this term is confusing one when it comes to india. on one side if u talk abt rights & development of minorities then it is called secularism but if u talk same abt hindus then it is thread to secularism. infact if u suffix the word hindu with anything then it is anti secular. while on other side there are other type of ppl who are ok with secularism but they want that hindus should always have upper hand in every term when it come to secularism.

Supreme court says that hinduism is way of life. it dose not belongs to any religion. hinduism is as secular as anything. but according to the secularism certificate issuing authority i.e. congress and marxists, anything related to hinduism is communal. being hindu is communal.

 

[Wounded-Monk]

Cho takes a few liberties here and there. He conveniently forgets that we are a heterogeneous country. Unity in diversity might be a good theory but in practice, it sometimes falters.

Ayodhya - The problem isnt that the Ram temple cannot be built. The problem is that you cant go on correcting history by destroying archaelogical property. If we go on that path, where does it end?

That is a very convenient argument actually.......

Guess you missed what this thread was designed for....

 

[Nalwa]

Supreme court says that hinduism is way of life. it dose not belongs to any religion. hinduism is as secular as anything. but according to the secularism certificate issuing authority i.e. congress and marxists, anything related to hinduism is communal. being hindu is communal.

I am no fan of any political party secular or otherwise. I also agree that the term 'Hinduism' can be used in a broader than religious sense. But if there's a well accepted religious definition of it, then lets just stick to it rather than clubbing all Indic religions as Hinduism. Its offensive and belittling to be told that your religion is just a part of a larger religion.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

That is a very convenient argument actually.......

Guess you missed what this thread was designed for....

Enlighten me please.

 

[alphamale]

I am no fan of any political party secular or otherwise. I also agree that the term 'Hinduism' can be used in a broader than religious sense. But if there's a well accepted religious definition of it, then lets just stick to it rather than clubbing all Indic religions as Hinduism. Its offensive and belittling to be told that your religion is just a part of a larger religion.

.

i m a hindu but i completely agree on this part that hinduism should not be imposed on other indic religions. every religion should be recognized & respected individually even though we find traces of hinduism in other indic religions.

 

[Nalwa]

i m a hindu but i completely agree on this part that hinduism should not be imposed on other indic religions. every religion should be recognized & respected individually even though we find traces of hinduism in other indic religions.

Exactly. Unlike some across the border I am not in any way ashamed that my ancestors were/could have been Hindu. Much to the contrary, I appreciate the centuries of learning and perspectives that Hinduism has collected and which has enriched my religion and my culture. But at the same time I would like to be known as a Sikh without some one trying to remind me that my way of living and my religion is just an extension of the Hindu religion and has none or little significance on its own. And this is my primary bone of contention with the Hindutva lobbysts.

 

[Wounded-Monk]

Enlighten me please.

Hmm... There you are:

In particular --> Ayodhya - The problem isnt that the Ram temple cannot be built. The problem is that you cant go on correcting history by destroying archaelogical property. If we go on that path, where does it end?

Are we supposed to believe that we should take a broad and generalized approach towards such problems as you mentioned that unity in diversity in only good in theory and hence when it come to practice there has to be some preferential treatment as exceptional case for some community (muslims in particular) without exception.........

 

[KS]

Ayodhya - The problem isnt that the Ram temple cannot be built. The problem is that you cant go on correcting history by destroying archaelogical property. If we go on that path, where does it end?

It ends with Ayodhya.

Because the constitution (Places of Worship Act 1991) guarantees the status-quo of all religious sites as they stood on Aug 15 1947, except Ayodhya,which is constitutionally recognized as a disputed site..

Act not to apply to Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid.

5. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or
place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid
situated in Ayodhya in the State of Utter Pradesh and to any suit,
appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of
worship.​

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/bills/1991/1991-37.htm

 

[Wounded-Monk]

I am no fan of any political party secular or otherwise. I also agree that the term 'Hinduism' can be used in a broader than religious sense. But if there's a well accepted religious definition of it, then lets just stick to it rather than clubbing all Indic religions as Hinduism. Its offensive and belittling to be told that your religion is just a part of a larger religion

Hmm as far as my understanding goes the religion you are particularly concerned about....i.e. Sikhism...the gurus of that time were disappointed with the practices in the Hinduism of that time....hence they kind of restored the original teachings for the betterment of society in the form of teachings that we understand as religions today.....though I dont understand why it is offensive to you but if you want to be left alone as such, we should be happy not to poke our nose in the affairs that you infer as belittling....I think we do be have a consensus to that idea.....

 

[Nalwa]

It ends with Ayodhya.

Because the constitution (Places of Worship Act 1991) guarantees the status-quo of all religious sites as they stood on Aug 15 1947, except Ayodhya,which is constitutionally recognized as a disputed site..

Once you use force and destroy it, the damage has already been done. To a Muslim, it wasnt just a case of a few people correcting history, it was much more than that. It was a sign that things could go bad on something similar in the future. Who's to allay his fears? For a minority guy, in a country like ours with a history of religious strife, Babri Masjid was much more than the destruction of an old mosque.

 

[Nalwa]

Hmm as far as my understanding goes the religion you are particularly concerned about....i.e. Sikhism...the gurus of that time were disappointed with the practices in the Hinduism of that time....hence they kind of restored the original teachings for the betterment of society in the form of teachings that we understand as religions today.....though I dont understand why it is offensive to you but if you want to be left alone as such, we should be happy not to poke our nose in the affairs that you infer as belittling....I think we do be have a consensus to that idea.....

The origins of Sikhism, causes and effects are a different topic in itself. But you'd agree that it would irk somebody if told repeatedly that your religion is just an extension of an other religion or worse still a sub-segment. Its translates into being told that you guys did nothing special and just re-hashed what was already known and practiced. That is what I meant by "offensive and belittling". And this feeling comes with being a minority person. I can understand if you don't identify with this feeling.

 

[Nalwa]

Hmm... There you are:

In particular --> Ayodhya - The problem isnt that the Ram temple cannot be built. The problem is that you cant go on correcting history by destroying archaelogical property. If we go on that path, where does it end?

I dont know the answer to that. All I know is that you cant rectify something that happened 400 years ago. Its simply wrong.

 

[KS]

Once you use force and destroy it, the damage has already been done. To a Muslim, it wasnt just a case of a few people correcting history, it was much more than that. It was a sign that things could go bad on something similar in the future. Who's to allay his fears? For a minority guy, in a country like ours with a history of religious strife, Babri Masjid was much more than the destruction of an old mosque.

See the 1992 Mosque demolition can't be seen in isolation of just that day -Dec 6.

Many factors culminated into that fateful day starting with the intransigence of the Muslim leaders to the decades of peaceful overtures by the Hidu leaders for building a Ram Temple. The Shah Bano case which was an open,brazen attempt at appeasing the Muslims , then subsequently the Opening of the Shilanyas in Ayodhya, the fateful insurgency in Kashmir and the horror stories of the treatment of Hindu Pandits by Pak-backed radicals everything played a role.

I agree that the mosque should not have been destroyed the way it was, though it is my firm conviction that the place should have a Ram Temple as it is one of our most sacred sites and ASI excavations have already proved that there was indeed ruins of a temple beneath the mosque.

The Muslim leaders if they have voluntarily agreed to have given the site, there would have been a huge huge rapprochement in Hindu-Muslim relations given the bitter history and our genuine bitterness in having our temples plundered,burnt,demolished through out history. But unfortunately it was not to be and this combined with various other events that time led to that demolition.

Even now it not all lost -

• Both communities agreeing to the Allahabad court verdict (which was fair and equitable in my opinion),
• building a Ram Temple at the proposed site and
• simultaneously punishing those responsible for the demolitions on Dec 6 1992 , thus giving a sense of justice to both Hindus and Muslims can solve this issue.

Will better sense prevail ?

I dont know the answer to that. All I know is that you cant rectify something that happened 400 years ago. Its simply wrong.

What you say is true for those that are dug recently.Maybe Kashi or Mathura.

Ayodhya issue was never let off and was constantly in debate for all those 4 centuries and that is why even the constitution recognized it as a disputed issue.

It needs a closure.

 

[alphamale]

Once you use force and destroy it, the damage has already been done. To a Muslim, it wasnt just a case of a few people correcting history, it was much more than that. It was a sign that things could go bad on something similar in the future. Who's to allay his fears? For a minority guy, in a country like ours with a history of religious strife, Babri Masjid was much more than the destruction of an old mosque.

i want to add that babri demolition was a massive blow to hindu muslim unity. after babri demolition many muslims lost their faith in india which resulted in terrorism from their side. but now that is history & india has regained muslim faith.

 

[Wounded-Monk]

I dont know the answer to that. All I know is that you cant rectify something that happened 400 years ago. Its simply wrong.

Your argument is valid....but what I ask is to be provided for an exceptional treatment (as I put it before)...for this case in particular...

Is that too much to ask for.....????

Hmm even if just for argument's sake......????

 

[KS]

i want to add that babri demolition was a massive blow to hindu muslim unity. after babri demolition many muslims lost their faith in india which resulted in terrorism from their side. but now that is history & india has regained muslim faith.

Actually to be blunt, Hindu-Muslim relations for the most part were just restive, waiting for an opportunity to explode.

Though I must add that it is our duty as Indians to rectify it.