Secularism is not against Islam

[Contrarian]

Good post man

 

[alamgir]

You expect that they would legalise Sharia here?
Cuz that would be against secularism. The state stays away from religion. They dont tell muslims that if they pray, they will be fined. They dont say that the PM, or President CANNOT be Muslims, they dont say our army chief is not a muslim, and i can pull all sorts of nonsense $hit in othe Islamic countries that do this. So yes indeed, India is secular.

INDIA IS SECULAR BIGGEST JOKE......
Hate & Violence Against Muslims


11. Muslims are subjected to hate speech, whose target is not only their personal dignity but their holy book and religion and Prophet of Islam. But the sad part of the story is that hate mongers are never brought to justice. A good example of such impunity is provided by an extreme Hindu xenopholic leader Bal Thackeray. Following are excerpts from his editorials of Marathi language paper Saamna during the time when Mumbai was engulfed in communal riots.



v December 5, 1992: “Which is this minority community? The Muslim traitors who partitioned the country and have’t allowed us to breathe ever since”.

v December 8, 1992: “Muslims should draw a lesson from the demolition of babri Masjid, otherwise they will meet the same fate as Babri Masjid. Muslims who criticize the demolition are without religion, without a nation”.

v December 9, 1992: “Pakistan need not cross the borders and attack India. 25 crore Muslims in India will stage an armed insurrection. They form one of Pakistan’s seven atomic bombs”.

v January 8, 1993: “Muslims of Bhendi Bazar, Null Bazar, Dongri and Pydhonie, the areas we call mini Pakistan... must be shot on the spot”.



11.1 The Govt. of Maharashtra did not initiate any legal proceedings against him under S 153 (A) of the IPC. Some public spirited individuals and the organisations filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court for direction to the Government to prosecute Bal Thackeray. The High Court took a long time to hear the case and finally dismissed the petition on the ground that much time (2 years) had passed and it was unwise to “rake up” old issues all over again. The petitioners went in appeal to the Supreme Court which also swiftly dismissed their special leave partition on the ground that since the High Court had declined to take action, it was not wise nor in the public interest for the Supreme Court to do so.



11.2 Eminent jurists in India including Nani Palkhiwala, H.M. Seervai, Fali S. Nariman and Soli J. Sorbjee expressed shock and dismay over both the dismissals by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Here is the reaction of Sorabjee who is now the Attorney General of India.



Soli J. Sorabjee: “It is extremely unfortunate that the judiciary has not intervened in this case where the law has been openly flouted and communal hatred spread by Bal Thackeray through his mouthpiece Saamna. History teaches us that unless these pernicious tendencies are scotched they grow to become unmanageable monsters later on. The argument that a prosecution of persons responsible for spewing hatred would rake up past events is totally misconceived because there has been no rethinking or regret by the authors of the writings and there is every likelihood of such actions being repeated”.27

This episode presents a glimpse of how the judiciary in India has failed to come to the rescue of the victim Muslim minority in its hours of suffering.



12. One of the manifestations of extreme intolerance against Muslims on the part of aggressive religio-political Hindu nationalists and prejudiced and discriminatory attitude of the personnel of law-enforcement has been the periodic riots and pogroms targeting Muslims causing loss of life, property, honour and destruction of their places of worship. Tens of thousands of such riots have occurred in India since Independence. The number of major riots easily runs into hundreds.



12.1 This writer visited Jabalpur in 1961 and lived there for a month providing relief to the victims of first major anti-Muslim riots. I met the boy who had turned insane for having witnessed from a tree top the ghastly scene of all members of his extended family getting shot dead, while trying to escape from their torched house. Insanity was also the fate of a mother, a leaf-gatherer, whose only infant was snatched from her breast and trampled upon by Hindu rioters, who were avenging the death by suicide of a Hindu girl who had conceived from an illicit love (not rape) with a Muslim boy. Hundreds of Muslim girls were raped.



12.2 In 1969 this writer again visited Ahmadabad and lived for a month where a major riot had been engineered taking a toll of about 3000 lives. Inquiry report of Ajeet Bhattacharjea revealed lack of direction from the political bosses as the major source of massive loss of life and property. When Ajeet Bhattacharjee confronted a cabinet Minister with this and asked why was the police given the direction to be soft on rioters, the Minister admitted to having done so for fear of losing the coming elections to the Jana Sangh (Hindu Party).28



12.3 The 1978 Aligarh riots revealed a more disturbing feature than earlier inaction of police. The PUCL & DR Report found the PAC targeting Muslims, shooting to kill them in the name of controlling riots.29 This connivance, complicity and active participation of the administration and the police in riots with a view to teaching the Muslims a lesson acquired alarming proportions during 1980s and 1990s.



12.4 The following are some of the findings related to the role of the police and other agencies of law-enforcement system.



The following extracts from the Justice D.P. Madon Commission Report on Bhiwandi, Jalgaon & Mahad (1970) riots reveal the biases in the police:



“Para 103.148 Discrimination was also practised in making arrests and while Muslims rioters were arrested in large numbers, the Police turned a blind eye to what the Hindu rioters were doing. Some innocent Muslims were arrested knowing them to be innocent. Some innocent Muslims who went to take shelter at the Bhiwandi Town Police Station were arrested instead of being given shelter and protection”.30



About Jalgaon riots of 1970 the Commission makes the following observations:



“104.34 The real reason for the inadequacy of the measures taken by the authorities was the communal bent of mind of some officers and the incompetence of the others”.



“3. No attempts were made to check the rioting and arson at Joshi Peth, though fifty-four Muslim houses were set on fire there and the flames could be seen even from a distance of two miles”.



The Commission reported the following findings about the communally biased working of the Special Investigation Squad constituted to investigate riot cases in Jalgaon:



1. Para103.165 “The working of the Special Investigation Squad, Bhiwandi, is a study in communal discrimination.

2. The officers of the Squad systematically set about implicating as many Muslims and exculpating as many Hindus as possible irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty”.



12.5 The Sixth Report of the National Police Commission (1981) also takes note of biased and partial behaviour of the police thus:



“We also heard of stringent criticism from many responsible quarters that the police do not often act with impartiality and objectively. Several instances have been cited where police officers and men appear to have shown unmistakable bias against a particular community while dealing with communal situations. Serious allegations of high handedness and other atrocities, including such criminal activities as arson and looting, molestation of women etc. have been levelled against the police deployed to protect the citizens”. 31



12.6 Mr. N.C. Saxena IAS, who as Joint Secretary of the NCM inquired into the 1982 Meerut riots reported that “the District Administration right from the very beginning perceived threat to public peace only from Muslims and therefore, they chose to take onesided action in pursuance of their thinking, observations and the reports which were received by them from the intelligence machinery. The orders from the senior officers in the district to the police could be summarised in one pharase: “Muslims must be taught a lesson”. The PAC and the police faithfully implemented this policy. Looting and arson, in this context, was considered legitimate and necessary, and was therefore ignored”.32



12.7 The Amnesty International’s Report on Allegations of Extra Judicial Killings by the PAC In and Around Meerut, 22-23 May, 1987 makes the following observation about the PAC : Members of the PAC have repeatedly been accused of carrying out their duties in a partisan manner when employed to control rioting between the Hindu and Muslim communities. On a number of occasions PAC members themselves are said to have participated in violence directed against members of the minority community, including unprovoked and indiscriminate killings.33



12.8 The following are some of the conclusions of the NCM study on riots carried out in 1983 to find out the attitudes of district and police officers during riots:



“Muslims are excitable and irrational people who are guided by their religious instincts. Hindus, on the other hand are law abiding and cooperate with the police in controlling communal violence.

“State Government attaches a great deal of importance in ensuring quick control of rioting. Since Muslims are aggressive, therefore, in order to control violence, it is necessary that Muslim mobs must be taught a lesson through arrests, firing and third degree methods”.



12.9 Mr. V.N. Rai senior police officer presently holding the rank of I.G., BSF, who worked for a year on his dissertation “Perception of Police Neutrality During Hindu-Muslim Riots in India” reports in his published dissertation (1996)34 the following:



(a) Police behave partially during most riots. In all the riots discussed in this study, they did not act as a neutral law enforcement agency but more as a “Hindu” force.

(b) Perceptible discrimination was visible in the use of force, preventive arrests, enforcement of curfew, treatment of detained persons at police stations, reporting of facts and investigation, detection and prosecution of cases registered during riots. Muslims suffered in all of the above mentioned areas.

(c) An average policeman does not shed his prejudices and predetermined beliefs at the time of his entry into the force, and this is reflected in his bias against Muslims during communal violence.

(d) The inimical relationship between police and Muslims make them overreact in a confrontation-like situation



12.10 Justice B.N. Srikrishna makes the following observations in his Report on Bombay riots (1992-93):35



“1.6 The Commission is of the view that there is evidence of police bias against Muslims which has manifested itself in other ways like the harsh treatment given to them, failure to register even cognizable offences by Muslim complainants and the indecent haste shown in classifying offences registered in “A” summary in cases where Muslim complainant has specifically indicated the names and even addresses of the miscreants. That there was a general bias against the Muslims in the minds of the average policemen which was evident in the way they dealt with the Muslims, is accepted by the officer of the rank of Additional Commissioner, V.N. Deshmukh. This general police bias against Muslims crystallized itself in action during January 1993. (Ch.II)



“1.29 The built-in-bias of the police force against Muslims became more pronounced with murderous attacks on the Constabulary and officers and manifested in their reluctance to firmly put down incidents of violence, looting and arson which went on unchecked”. (Ch.II)

“1.11 The response of police to appeals from desperate victims, particularly Muslims, was cynical and utterly indifferent. On occasions, the response was that they were unable to leave the appointed post; on others, the attitude was that one Muslim killed, was one Muslim less. (Ch.IV)

“1.13 Police officers and men, particularly at the junior level, appeared to have an inbuilt bias against the Muslims which was evident in their treatment of the suspected Muslims and Muslim victims of riots. The treatment given was harsh and brutal and on occasions, bordering on inhuman, hardly doing credit to the police. The bias of policemen was seen in the active connivance of police constables with the rioting Hindu mobs on occasions, with their adopting the role of passive onlookers on occasions, and finally, in their lack of enthusiasm in registering offences against Hindus even when the accused were clearly identified and post haste classifying the cases in “A” summary”. (Ch.IV)

“1.14 Even the registered riot-related offences were most unsatisfactorily investigated. The investigations showed lack of enthusiasm, lackadaisical approach and utter cynicism. Despite clear clues the miscreants were not pursued, arrested and interrogated, particularly when the suspected accused happened to be Hindus with connections to Shiv Sena or Shiv Sainiks. This general apathy appears to be the outcome of the built-in prejudice in the mind of an average policeman that every Muslim is prone to crime”.(Ch.IV)



12.11 As in Ahmadabad (1969) the ruling party’s Ministers were more interested in their political survival than in saving innocent lives through impartial law enforcement, in all other riots including the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the police does not consider itself a professionally independent body accountable to law, but a subordinate body which is to carry out policies of those who wield power, based on cynical calculation of political survival and consolidation.



13. The two decades (1980s and 1990s) after the incident of mass conversion of lower caste Hindus to Islam at Meenakshipuram in South India (1981), have witnessed the rise of militant Hindutva for consolidation of Hindus as a nation with the slogan earlier given by Veer Savankar for Hinduisation of polity and militarisation of Hinduism. The period witnessed competitive politics of Hindu communalism between the Congress and the BJP and its Parivar.



This has been also the phase of the rise of caste based political mobilisation of backwards, making upper caste Hindus develop a sense of siege within, and hence its aggressiveness against Muslims and now Christians. Under the same forces of competitive Hindu communalism the Sikh were taught the most bloody lesson in 1984, which witnessed State supervised genocide of Sikhs in Delhi & other places.



13.1 The period witnessed worst carnages involving Muslims including Moradabad (1980), Meerut (1982) Nellie (Assam) 1983, Hashimpura, Meerut (1987), Bhagalpur (1989). And Blood baths occurred at a large number of places in 1990 in the wake of Rathyatra and shilanyas and again at the time of the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992.



All of them are attributable to Hindu politics of hate and revenge against Muslims and Islam for their supposed sins of 1000 year of Hindu-Muslim encounter in India including partition of the country. But the success of the politics of hate and revenge has depended entirely on the fragility and malfunctioning of the institutions of rule of law i.e. the administration, the police and the judiciary. Given the politics of hate and revenge, given the partisan role of the police and the administration as well as the communal prejudices and biases against Muslims in officers and personnel who man the law enforcement machinery, as noted by national and international human rights organisations and including official Commissions of inquiries and given the negligible representation of Muslims in the police and other wings of this machinery, and given the fact that the judiciary has failed to come to their rescue by delivering speedy justice, the lot of Muslims can very well be imagined.



13.2 The story of the cold blooded killings of Muslims (of Hashimpura (Meerut) and of the adjoining village of Malliana by the U.P.’s Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) on 22-23 May 1987 and the manner the criminal justice system has been dealing with the case as well as the callousness of the people towards the case needs to be retold here. About the gruesome killings of Hashimpura the Amnesty International Report says:



“On 22 may several hundred men from the Hashimpura area of Meerut were seen being taken away in several trucks by PAC members. Witnesses said most were taken to local police stations but several dozen in the first two or three trucks were reportedly taken to the banks of the Upper Ganga canal near Muradnagar, shot and their bodies thrown in the water. By the last week of May, over 50 bodies had reportedly been found in the canal. Eighteen more were officially admitted to have been recovered from the nearby Hindon canal at Ghaziabad, although Indian journalists visiting Muradnagar and neighbouring places said that at least twice that number had been recovered; eye-witnesses said the bodies had been thrown in the canal by armed men in uniform. Two of the five survivors of the incident have testified that they were taken to the canal at Muradnagar by uniformed men who they identified as the PAC, who shot them and threw them in the canal. It is now believed that all the bodies found in the water were of men taken away from Hasbimpura although initial reports had indicated the bodies found in the Hindon canal were of victims of the killings which subsequently took place in Maliana”.36



“According to Indian journalists who visited Maliana immediately after the incident and interviewed eye-witnesses, houses of Muslims were looted and burned by the PAC and some of its inhabitants burned alive. At last 30 residents of Malaina are estimated to have been deliberately shot dead by the PAC in unprovoked and indiscriminate shootings, their bodies burned and thrown in wells or, some allege, taken away by the PAC and disposed of in secret. Dozens of others are still reported missing.”



“Eye-witnesses said that the PAC, led by senior officers, including the commandant of the 44th battalion, entered Maliana between 2 and 2.30pm on 23 May, took up positions around the village and announced they would carry out a search. Some villagers fled to the centre of the village, but said one man: “they followed us there and took position on roof tops. They shouted abuses and warned that the firing would continue if we did not come out. But when we came out they began firing on us. Even women and children were not spared”. According to other press reports there was some resistance to the police action and stones were thrown at the PAC who then took up position and fired at people after telling them to leave their houses. The PAC are also alleged to have entered houses and shot the inhabitants, killing entire families. One survivor was quoted as saying: “They burnt out house to ashes.....They killed my children in front of my eyes”. Another Yameen, a 30 year old fruit vendor, said he saw his 60 year old father Mohammad Akbar hacked to death, his body burned and his house set on fire”.

“Initially, the local administration described the incident as a “minor case of cross-firing in which a few people have died”.



The ghastly incident stirred the conscience of world community at the time. Indian media doyen Nikhil Chakaravarty compared the event with “Nazi progrom against the Jews, to strike terror and nothing but terror in a whole minority community”. In a joint statement signed by eminent citizens including I.K. Gujral, Rajindar Sachar and Kuldip Nayar demanded that “the government must prosecute all those who have disgraced their uniforms. Their misdeeds must be treated at par with treason and tried by special courts”.



But the guilty ones have yet to be punished. On the contrary PAC commander R.D. Tripathi, about whom the AI Report had complained that no more than suspension had been ordered, is now enjoying promotion, though he had reportedly ordered the shootings in Malliana.



13.3 Out of 66 PAC Police personnel indicted by the CBCID Inquiry Report on the Hashimpura case, submitted in Feb. 1994,37 cases were filed in the Court of CJM Ghaziabad, from where the dead bodies were recovered, against 19 persons mostly of lower ranks on 20 May 1996 u/s 374/307/302/201 of the IPC (case no: 1267/96). But in spite of serious changes against these PAC personnel they were not produced before the CJM’s court in spite six times bailable and 17 times non bailable warrants having been issued against them between 31 January 1997 and 29 April 2000, though all along this period they continued to be in active service of the PAC, with known home addresses and postings. They surrendered only in May-June 2000, after this writer’s efforts succeeded in building enough pressure through the NCM and the daily Times of India,38 which gave first page coverage to the story of the Govt. of U.P. hiding the culprits. During the year charges have not been framed so far.

14. The demolition of Babri Masjid, a four hundred and sixty four year old mosque, by the Sangh Parivar in broad day light in the presence of the entire law-enforcement machinery of the State and under full glare of the world community does not signify denial of freedom of worship to Muslims, which they have continued to enjoy even in the temple town of Ayodhya, but is symbolic of how Muslims as a community have been institutionally treated by the Indian State and its organs and agencies – rendering their survival with distinct identity precarious.



The world community needs to focus attention on how the law, the law courts and the law-enforcement agencies have unfairly treated the Muslims, the Sikhs and the Christians.



It is not only that the guilty ones have not been brought to justice even after the passage of about two decades, the victims have not been paid adequate compensation under law. Ex-gratia payments have been made applying differing standards in similar cases. It is only the Sikh victims of 1984 killings in Delhi who have been paid compensation of Rupees two lakhs with interest in compliance with Justice Anil Dev Singh of the Delhi High Court’s judgment holding the Government liable to pay compensation for its failure to protect lives of innocent persons guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.39



The NCM’s recommendation, endorsed by the NHRC, in response to the representation of the Minorities Council for application of the judgment in all other similar cases of victims of riots at other places irrespective of their community affiliation has failed to make most of State Governments take any steps in this direction.



14.1 How Muslim victims of riots along with others, are treated is exemplified by the case of Hashimpura (Meerut). In its affidavit of 13 March 1997 filed by the Govt. of U.P. before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, it says that Rs. 40,000/- (paid in two instalments) paid to the next of kin of those killed was adequate.



14.2 Human Rights Watch/Asia in its Report on Communal Violence And The Denial of Justice In India (1996) had characteoised the communal riots 1992-93 as “orchestrated events which depended on the connivance or outright participation of police and other officials and political leaders” had warned that unless such complicity is publicly known and unless guilty are punished they will not be deterred from engaging in violence again.



14.3 That the role of the state security forces like the PAC in U.P. continues to be blatantly partisan and brutally communal has been once again demonstrated by the incidents of killings, loot and arson against Muslims that occurred in Kanpur on 16, 17 & 18 March 2001. The following are the findings of a women’s Delegation comprising All India Democratic Women’s Association, National Federation of Indian Women, Peace & Justice Commission of the CBCI, Women’s Unit of the Indian Social Institute and Muslim Women’s Forum:40



“.......it is the minority community, which has been victim of communal violence of loot and arson perpetrated by sections of the police and the PAC” (report Part-I para2).

“During the curfew period the PAC looted and burnt shops. In one incident confirmed by the Commissioner, looted articles were actually later removed under his supervision from a PAC van. In several incidents groups of the Bajrang Dal accompained by the police attacked minority shops and burnt several masjids......”. (Para6)



Similar investigative report about the partisan role of the police and PAC was published in The Times of India, New Delhi of 23,24,26 and 27 March 2001 by Akshay Mukul. It is indiscriminate and wanton use of firepower by the PAC that caused the death of at least fourteen persons in Kanpur.



14.4 It must be borne in mind that the PAC generally carries out the orders of the district administration and the political executive, as earlier reported by NC Saxena. It is ultimately the political direction to teach the Muslims a lesson that is responsible for such governmental lawlessness.



Senior journalist Mr. Nikhal Chakravarty once told this writer that the PAC’s organisation owed its existence to the fears harboured by the Congress leaders in U.P. about likely trouble from the Muslims in the wake of the partition.



15. This climate of impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the lawlessness and selective application of laws by the Union & State Governments in India, has emboldened those like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad the Shiv Sena and its other allies in the Sangh Parivar to treat themselves as not only above the law, but a law unto themselves, which has made them declare that whatever the orders, injunctions and directions of the courts of law, they would build the Ram Temple at the exact site where Babri Masjid stood, accordign to a schedule that their Religious Assembly has announced during the Mahakumbh at Allahabad in January 2001. One stalwart of the VHP Justice (Retd.) Devki Nandan Agarwal has appreciatively pointed out how the apex court has been indulgent to the contemmers in the case related to demolition of Babri Masjid. He is therefore confident that the court will not punish anyone for now building the Temple without waiting for disposal of the case. It has been repeatedly claimed by Hindu leaders that the order of the District Judge, Faizabad in 1986 for opening the gate of Babri Masjid was the result of complicity of the Court with the executive.41



From the initial attachment order of 1949 to the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1994 which gave legal sanction to the makeshift temple unlawfully built after demolition of the mosque, the quality of most of the rulings, directions and judgments in Ayodhya-related cases have bee questioned by eminent jurists like Justice (Retd.) V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice Hosbet Suresh, Mr. A.G. Noorani and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, who is now the Attorney General.42



15.1 It may be in order here to draw attention to the findings of Prof. Satish Saberwal and Prof. Mushir-ul-Hasan that “Muslims of Muradabad in 1980 were up not only against the police but also the judiciary......as judicial action on the granting of bail and the like were generally such as to let the Hindus off lightly and to come down hard on the Muslims”.43



In view of this uncertainty of the course of law, the assurance given by the Prime Minister of India that “the law will take its course, should any organisation attempt to disturb the status quo (at Ayodhya)” does not carry any conviction with Muslims and other minorities. There are apprehensions that a section of the Muslims may start thinking in terms of seeking desperate remedies. In the event of the aggressive Hindu nationalists trying to impose their will by force, there are chances that it will give rise to large scale violence, which may not remain confined to Ayodhya.



We would like to warn the world community of the potential threat that Hindu-Muslim conflict over issues like Ayodhya poses to peace in the region. Unless the police and the judiciary are reformed for impartial and humane law enforcement and for speedy delivery of justice and unless all the guilty ones are speedily brought to justice and victims of violence are adequately compensated, there is no hope of any amicable solution of contentious issues through dialogue.



This continued atmosphere of communal animosity and violence will further deprive Muslims of equality of opportunity and equal participation in the common domain of polity and economy and further subject the cherished features of their identity to assimilationist pressure.
www.indianmuslim.org.uk

 

[Contrarian]

Yeah, so he hates Muslims, do we arrest him for not liking Musilms? or saying something against them? Cuz this is not being secular. it means that he can say anything he likes as long as he does not stop Muslims from carrying out their religious duties.

If India was NOT secular or if a Mulsim country, then he would have been arrrested and sent to jail without trial. Here there are Muslims leaders who say bad things about Hindu's and vice verce. So? If we arrest them, we are taking away their fundamental right to speech. Herein comes the concept of democracy and secularism. A VERY VERY fine balance has to be maintained.

 

[Awesome]

Khair whether India is secular or not... It's imperative we should head into that direction. The lesson to be learned from them is to avoid their fallacies.

 

[Contrarian]

Khair whether India is secular or not... It's imperative we should head into that direction. The lesson to be learned from them is to avoid their fallacies.

Very true

 

[A.Rahman]

Khair whether India is secular or not... It's imperative we should head into that direction. The lesson to be learned from them is to avoid their fallacies.

Of course its imperative; but the fact is that India claims to be secular; while their police allowed the genocide in Gujarat. This is hypocritical of India.

 

[Contrarian]

Of course its imperative; but the fact is that India claims to be secular; while their police allowed the genocide in Gujarat. This is hypocritical of India.

Well...atleast India is mature enough to realise its follies and call them so. These are classified as exceptions. India is secular whether you deem it so or not.Peiod.

 

[alamgir]

Well...atleast India is mature enough to realise its follies and call them so. These are classified as exceptions. India is secular whether you deem it so or not.Peiod.

Myth of Hindu tolerance
By V.B.Rawat

Indian politicians as well as "intellectuals" have found the bogey of secularism easier than any thing else. Thus the attacks on Muslims and Christians got wider publicity than anything else. The point I am making here is not to denigrate the assault on Muslims and Christians or justify this but I am raising a very important question which our intellectuals friends crying loudly must answer.

All those who talks of "great democratic" India and non violent and tolerant Hindu community must address to this issue as where were they when Dalits were being butchered by the Hindu Upper castes. I am aghast to note that there is not a slightest mention of the massacre of 29 Dalits in Jahanabad district of Bihar by the upper caste Bhomihar dominated Ranvir Sean.

Day in and out we see such butchering of dalits in India by the Hindu upper caste. Our friends have been giving number of documentation about violence on minorities but not a single documentation has been mentioned by any of secular friends on violence against Dalits by the Hindu upper castes.

Not many years ago in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan, the Jatav villagers of Kumher village were massacred by the powerful Jats simply because the Jatav youths were watching the cinema from balcony which prohibited for them. We see violence against Dalits in other parts of the country where they are not allowed to fetch water from the village well.

The atrocities on Dalits in other parts of the country be it Uttar-Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Haryana,Tamilnadu or Andhra Pradesh do not make the main stories neither in Indian media nor in the world media simply because they are not even "sub-human". How can they talk about human rights.

I am raising this issue because, I see the Brahminisation process of RSS-Bajrang Dal and VHP's hate propaganda against Christians and Muslims. I am afraid if we talk about the true secularism which should be based on rationalism of western concept or our own Lokayata Darshan or pre vaidik age, than most of our secular friends would be exposed. Their secularism is as hollow as the true Hinduism of RSS. Why this rhetoric continue that Hindus have been the most tolerant quam of the world. It is a blatant lie. Hinduism is nothing.. it is not religion..

The Hinduism that is being preached these days is infact Varnashram dharma which believe in caste hierarchy.. And this caste system makes India as world's biggest practising racist country, worst than the South Africa of apartheid period. But unfortunately, none of our friends ever wrote about this aspect of our dirty past.

A friend from Tamilnadu mentioned that we wanted to chant " garv se kaho hum hindu hain". Why he forgot the greatest revolutionary work done by EVR in Tamilnadu. If you want to understand the greatness of Hinduism I would ask my uppercaste seculars to study Periyar, Ambedkar, M.N.Roy, Lokayata Darshan and Buddhism.

Let me be candid that we owe this pluralism in India to Brahminisim.

Right from Lokayat Darshan to Buddhism, Jainism, Kabirpanthis, Sikhism were a form of revolt against the castiest Varnashram dharma. Even the religion like Christianity and Islam provided platform to scores of untouchables who were living an undignified and contemptuous life under the Brahminical forces.

The entire Indian history, the epic are the story of Brahminic cunningness and cheat to Indian masses. Hence when they wanted to rule over the masses they created a structure of what Dr Ambedkar said of " graded inequality". Now, this graded inequality ensured Brahmincal domination because every caste hated the lower ones and hence the Brahmin enjoyed the supremacy over the vast Indian ignorant masses.

Today in the post Mandal scenario the situation has dramatically changed. The backward classes are asserting. The Dalits are asserting their identities. They know that the congress or left brand of seculars were chanting the secular mantra at the cost of Dalits hence there is no representation of Dalits/backward classes in our schemes of things. Are they not seculars ? Are only the Hindu upper caste are seculars ? I doubt this.

Similarly, right from the right-wing thugs, the entire debate on conversion today seems to be between the Hindu upper castes. Not a single dalit or backward class person could be found in these debates.

Why ? Are only the Brahmins and Banias the true Hindus ? I doubt this also and feel that the maximum harm to non-Brahminic Hinduism has come from these communities. Why do not we ask the Dalits/ backward classes themselves what they feel about conversion.Dr Ambedkar, EVR and other reformers wanted the oppressed communities to leave the Brahminic Sanatan dharma based on caste based hatred and truthfully lakhs of Dalits converted to Buddhism with Dr Ambedkar. Not only Dr Ambedkar challenged the concept of " tolerance of Hinduism", he mocked at their holy Grantham and holy gods in his wonderful analysis " riddles of Hinduism".

Ambedkar's analysis of "Bhagwat Geeta" is a masterpiece. But how many seculars have read that. Secularism in India is not a gift from Gandhi and Nehru who were also hardcore Brahmins in their heart of heart. Both of them did nothing to eliminate the Brhaminical vampire in India. Gandhi went on to fast to deny the Dalits their legitimate right as having a separate electorate.

The best form of Hindu tolerance came in the form of anti-Mandal agitation in Delhi which was not only fully supported by the Brahmin seculars but V.P.Singh, the Rajarshi of Banaras Brahmin, became one of the most hated politicians, despite his impeccable honest and secular credentials. Whether it is Laloo Yadav, Mayawati, Karunanidhi, Phoolan Devi or Mulayam Singh Yadav, India's uppercaste have a general hatred towards them. They may like a charming Muslim or Christian guy but the welfare of oppressed communities make their faces red.

India's "secular" media make mockery of forces of social justice thus despite his being the most rationalist and secular person in nature, our secularists mediamen and intellectuals fear Periyar because all the Tamil Brahmins would just love to hate him.

India's problem is not the issues of minorities. RSS and all its lumpun organisation would not have been succeeded in this age had their been only Hindu community living in this country since Dalits and other oppressed communities knows the designs of Chitpawan headed Sangh Parivar. It is the issue of leadership which the Dalits and backward classes started getting in their hand.

How to deviate the attention from this? Hence this attacks on Christians and Muslims so that the internal democratic movement inside the non-Brahminic Hinduism are finished. The matter of the fact is that RSS-VHP and other allied organisations have no dearth of money. They have temples, they have big business houses, they have NRIs who are behaving in a more Hinduised way, they have lawyers, shopkeepers.the list is big.Why cannot they utilise the fund for spreading education, literacy, health care etc. and see the result. Is Ashok Singhal ready to fight against the atrocious Hindu racist order ? Does he know what kind of religion is this? Had he ever ponder over the situation as why it is easier to convert a Hindu and not a vice versa. But surely, Ashok Singhal and other uppercaste tribe of Sangh Parivar and their lumpens would not like the oppressed communities to educate themselves since it would mean a death knell for the castiest Hindu order.

If the Christian nurses in Indian hospital stop working for one day in all India hospitals all these Singhals, Advanis, Vajpayees, Joshis would find it difficult to breath for a moment. India owe it to Christians, their commitment for health care and education.

As an Indian who despite born in a very poor family with no Christian school background, I owe my secularism to Lokayat Darshan, To Buddha, To Ambedkar, To Periyar, To M.N.Roy, To Kabir who were not that elitist like our secular friends. I do not want a secularism of Hindi film brand which are the most orthodox nature and supported superstition, ignorance and mocked at poor people, downtrodden and disabled. I would like my friends to stop crying about India's tolerant past and tolerant Hinduism and give a thought to continuous assault by the Hindu upper castes over the Dalits.

The current attacks against minorities should be considered in this way that the Uppercastes wants to close the doors of liberation for the Dalits. It also shows that being a dalit no body would take care of them hence they must choose the right way so that there are no atrocities against them.

It is unfortunate that the attacks on Christians and Muslims by a sections of hooligans is being termed as majority-minority issue. The Sangh Parivar and others have never cared for Hindus without any contribution to social reforms in Hindu society or India's freedom movement. They do not have the mandate of non Brahmin Hindu society hence the entire issue cannot be termed as majoritarian assault on minority. In fact it is the minority that has ruled India since independence, the Brahmin-bania minority capturing India after independence.
It is time for all of us, the oppressed to take on this brutal lunatic fringe and show them their way. Fortunately, We are the Majority. As long as we continue to chant minority-minority, the Sangh Parivar and the their like minded would continue to enjoy the majority status which they are not. India has a rich secular heritage in the form of anti Brahmin and rationalist movement and the "seculars' are better advised to study that before chanting " Gandhian ramdhun".

I am also a bit amused on a statement by our friend about Shahi Imams participation with other Christian leaders. What is the problem. Who will decide who is a fundamentalist and who is not? If Shahi Imam is voicing concern over the violence against the Christians should we just not allow him to do so? We cannot allow such prejudices which the so-called "secular" media has been projecting. We never called our Shankaracharyas as fundamentalists and all the secular politicians, bureaucrats and editors prostrated before him even when some of them openly endorse caste system and anti-women sentiments. Please for Gods sake allow any one to associate with other if he/she is willing to do so without having a prior opinion about him/her.

Secular fundamentalism

To further my debate, I found secularism a platform by fundamentalist forces to benefit their cause and relegate the issues of social reforms in their own communities. Thus a Hindu uppercaste feel much proud in becoming a "secular" than to the cause of social reform movements. Similarly, is with other communities.

Jinnah was a secular person to the core of his heart who wanted Hindu-Muslim unity with Sarojini Naidu describing her as "Ambassador" of Hindu-Muslim unity. In India Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement and had no problems with his Muslims friends in accepting the demand of separate electorate but when the issue of Dalits came he became an ardent Hindu opposing it vociferously.

I wrote about V.P.Singh earlier. K.R.Narayanan, our president was a darling of our middle classes but as soon as he raised the issue of Dalits and landreforms, India's progressive, secular media and intellectuals have turned him a villain as a father of sectarianism in India.

Our constitution says that the state will not interfere in the personal laws of religious communities. Now the question is who will decide it? Does these personal laws offend an individuals rights?

A strange case has come into light from Tamilnadu and it needs our attention should state just watch and see what is happening. It so happened in early seventies that the Dravidian Tamilnadu government brought out a legislation that the "Archaks" in Tamilnadu could worship in Tamil and might be from any community irrespective of castes etc. This order was challenged and finally the Supreme Court of India came to the rescue of petitioners that the Tamilnadu government order was violating the constitution by interfering in religious matters. How sad ! If Shakaracharyas defend untouchability as part of great "sanatan dharma", should it be allowed in the garb of religious autonomy.Some human right activists defended their cultural autonomy. My question is who will decide what is culture? A few disgruntled, inefficient Pundits or Mullahs? The man not only supported Sati system that it is a part of Hindu tradition. I do not mind that cultural autonomy. We know very well that Supreme Court was pro-active in the Shah Bano Case and more than Muslim women it were Hindu men who were keen on the issue thus communalising it. Yet the victim of the personal law case was a Muslim women.

The demand for cultural autonomy should come from the communities it self and not from outsiders. In the entire debate on personal laws, the Hindus showed as if they wanted a personal law and it is just the Muslims who deny it. This is the biggest lie of recent time. Who were those opposed the progressive Hindu code bill? It was not just Jansangh but also Congress Party. And if you go through the marriage advertisement, dowry problems, burning of brides and expenditure in marriages, it is Hindus who would not ever like to have a civil marriages. Why?

Civil marriage or Personal laws will not serve purpose for Hindu males who at one time want to look like a very modern person and at the same point of time gain financially through marriage. Hindu marriage system does no justice to women. Otherwise, nothing is more atrocious than the concept of "Kanyadan". It is against the basic human values but our courts and government will defend it in the name of cultural autonomy.

Before independence the Congress Party was never considered a secular outfit by the Muslims and Dalits. Congress was a political party formed to get maximum benefits from the British whose leaders were Hindu religious leaders and who did not mind using Hindu sentiments and religious symbols to gain politically.
Is not it a fact that so-called secular stalwarts legitimised the Hindutva forces. While RSS today is chanting Gandhi's Ramrajya which itself is a bogus and dangerous concept and Ramrajya was never a democratic or ideal republic but than God knows what prompted Gandhi to enforce it to his non Hindu members this theory. Even as a Hindu I feel offended on this. Second, in the schemes of our things a Hindu is never considered as anti national. He is born secular says Hindutva forces. He is a Rastra Bhakta.. India owe it to Hindus as its present secular credentials. Look Sonia is also claiming the legacy of "Sanatan dharma", the same way as Advani and Vajpayee used to do it. The champion of backward cause Ram-Manohar Lohia himself wrote " Ram and Krishna" were the "Nayaks" of Indian civilisation.

Perhaps Lohia did not have time to study either Periyar or Ambedkar or he was foiling the backward movement since he was a bania. In the post independence India Nehru allowed RSS to participate in the republic day parade as a separate contingent. What could a bigger certificate than this. Later on "great" Lal Bahadur Shastri allowed them to regulate the traffic of Delhi during war with Pakistan. In 1975, after the emergence of Jai Prakash Narian, who were the forces got maximum benefit of anti-congressism. It was Jansangh. Jai Prakash Narain not only invited them to participate in his movement but appointed Nanaji Deshmookh has his secretary and Lal Krishna Advani, an unknown man who could never win a LokSabha election till than, became Union Information and Broadcasting minister.

In 1980, Indira Gandhi was openly playing Hindu Card when she ordered the armed forces to enter the Golden temple. In 1984, the pogroms of thousands of Sikhs was under the noose of a very secular charming government of Congress Party. The December 1984 verdict to Congress Party was a communal verdict. It was the victory of RSS and their ideology. They worked for the Congress party than as it symbolised the greater Hindu pride. The BJP was reduced to just two seats. Even Vajpayee lost his own seat at Gwalior. In 1989, the Sangh Parivar won at the bandwagon of Mr V.P.Singh who was riding high against the corrupt deeds of Rajiv Gandhi. In 1992, the Babari Masjid was demolished under the " efficient" leadership of Narsimha Rao. Some of my secular friends said that Rao was cheated by RSS and VHP but the fact is if Narasimha Rao is secular than nobody can be communal in India.
In the post Babari Masjid scenario, our seculars do not want Muslims to raise the issue. Neither they are interested in the issues of Muslim community. Why should the secular not ask for a speedy trial of those involved in it. Why is that UP government continue to allow people to have "darshan" at socalled Ramtemple but not allowing the Muslims to go for a Namaz. Is it secularism. Why is that all the programmes of government derived from Sanskrit language and Hindu scripture. We have Arjuna Award Dronacharya Award, Bharat Ratna, Padma Shri. We have Agni, Prithvi, Akash, Ganga as our missiles. On the occasion of every inaugeration we do the start with " Deep Prajwalan" and breaking of coconut. Is it the sign of a secular republic?

My dear friends, the debate can go on endless. But the question is are we really interested in a secular India where every religion grow and where scope of religious reform remains with the downtrodden. If we are just asking for the secularism from the text book of Gandhi and Nehru than it is not possible, but if we are asking it from our own rich heritage of Buddha, Nanaka, Mahaveera, Ambedkar, Pariyar,Bhagat Singh,Phule, Kabir, Dadu, Bauls and number of others in every parts of India than we have every chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, the congress Party's secularism these people do not have respective place. They have been contemptuously subjugated to the "achievements" of Nehru and Gandhi which is the real reason of growth of fundamentalism and communalism in India. Otherwise, how is it possible for RSS to claim the legacy of Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh? It was possible only because the Brahminical Congress Party and its secular historians never wrote the social history of India as well as the truthful place of these legends in the Indian history.





www.saxakali.com

 

[Keysersoze]

South Asia Nobel laureate attacks Hindu nationalism
By Subir Bhaumik in Calcutta, BBC News, Monday 28 dec 1998, published at 07:10 GMT

Calcutta: "No city is more broad-minded," says Amartya Sen

India's Nobel Prize-winning economist, Amartya Sen, has launched an attack against the forces of Hindu cultural nationalism in India.

Thousands of Calcuttans turned out on Sunday to greet one of the city's greatest sons, who won the Nobel Prize for economics this year.

But the UK-based professor was in no mood to talk on his favourite subject, welfare economics. Instead he told the large gathering it was necessary to reject the narrow separatist view of Indian culture propounded by Hindu nationalists.

"It is important to reject the vision of Indian culture as a fragile object that would break in contact with influences from outside," Mr Sen argued.

"Rather, our general understanding of a non-fragile Indian civilisation is quite profound," he continued. "But more specifically, no city, I believe, can claim to be absorbative, more broad-minded and more in tune with the non-isolationist view of cultural excellence than this city, our Calcutta."

Mr Sen's remarks were lustily cheered by West Bengal's ruling communists, who had organised the civil reception to honour the economist. Like Mr Sen, the communists oppose the forces of Hindu nationalism in India.

However a militant Hindu leader has struck back criticising the Nobel award as part of a "Christian conspiracy" to undermine Hinduism. World Hindu Council head Ashok Singhal said Mr Sen's repeated calls for developing literacy in India reflected a secret desire to promote Christian missionary-run institutions.

Uneasy with nationalism Observers say Mr Sen, who is the Master of Trinity College in Cambridge University, is uncomfortable with the growth of Hindu nationalism in the country in recent years and was now seeking to confront ideas propounded by them.

When Mr Sen won the Nobel Prize this year the Hindu nationalists questioned the relevance of his research and thinking in an India ruled by them.

Professor Sen was the first Asian recipient of the Nobel economics prize.

He was chosen for his work on welfare economics and particularly the causes of famine and ways to prevent it.

After experiencing a devastating famine in of Bengal in 1943, Professor Sen undertook extensive research on famines in India, China and Africa.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/52a/011.html

 

[con]

South Asia Nobel laureate attacks Hindu nationalism
By Subir Bhaumik in Calcutta, BBC News, Monday 28 dec 1998, published at 07:10 GMT

Calcutta: "No city is more broad-minded," says Amartya Sen

India's Nobel Prize-winning economist, Amartya Sen, has launched an attack against the forces of Hindu cultural nationalism in India.

Thousands of Calcuttans turned out on Sunday to greet one of the city's greatest sons, who won the Nobel Prize for economics this year.

But the UK-based professor was in no mood to talk on his favourite subject, welfare economics. Instead he told the large gathering it was necessary to reject the narrow separatist view of Indian culture propounded by Hindu nationalists.

"It is important to reject the vision of Indian culture as a fragile object that would break in contact with influences from outside," Mr Sen argued.

"Rather, our general understanding of a non-fragile Indian civilisation is quite profound," he continued. "But more specifically, no city, I believe, can claim to be absorbative, more broad-minded and more in tune with the non-isolationist view of cultural excellence than this city, our Calcutta."

Mr Sen's remarks were lustily cheered by West Bengal's ruling communists, who had organised the civil reception to honour the economist. Like Mr Sen, the communists oppose the forces of Hindu nationalism in India.

However a militant Hindu leader has struck back criticising the Nobel award as part of a "Christian conspiracy" to undermine Hinduism. World Hindu Council head Ashok Singhal said Mr Sen's repeated calls for developing literacy in India reflected a secret desire to promote Christian missionary-run institutions.

Uneasy with nationalism Observers say Mr Sen, who is the Master of Trinity College in Cambridge University, is uncomfortable with the growth of Hindu nationalism in the country in recent years and was now seeking to confront ideas propounded by them.

When Mr Sen won the Nobel Prize this year the Hindu nationalists questioned the relevance of his research and thinking in an India ruled by them.

Professor Sen was the first Asian recipient of the Nobel economics prize.

He was chosen for his work on welfare economics and particularly the causes of famine and ways to prevent it.

After experiencing a devastating famine in of Bengal in 1943, Professor Sen undertook extensive research on famines in India, China and Africa.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/52a/011.html

All those articles that which critize the drawbacks of Hinduism are either written by Hindus themselves or someone denunces them are also Hindus.

Interesting isn't it. Atleast Hindus can criticse the religion they belive without having to bother that some would not call for their death.

And yeah by the way I really feel funny when Pakistans post articles regarding the authocratic rule of Brahmins within Hinduism and it being the cause of all evil in India. I really pity for those Brahmins.
They have to struggle the most to get a seat in a college,get a job in a gov company. No reservation at all. Unfortunately you would be very unlucky to be born as a brahmin.

By the way Brahmins are equivalent of Mullahs of Islam. If Muslims dare not cross the line drawn by Mullahs,then how can you expect some people Hindus to oppose Brahmins who are apparently said to the scholars of religion?

 

[PakSniper]

All those articles that which critize the drawbacks of Hinduism are either written by Hindus themselves or someone denunces them are also Hindus.

Interesting isn't it. Atleast Hindus can criticse the religion they belive without having to bother that some would not call for their death.

And yeah by the way I really feel funny when Pakistans post articles regarding the authocratic rule of Brahmins within Hinduism and it being the cause of all evil in India. I really pity for those Brahmins.
They have to struggle the most to get a seat in a college,get a job in a gov company. No reservation at all. Unfortunately you would be very unlucky to be born as a brahmin.

By the way Brahmins are equivalent of Mullahs of Islam. If Muslims dare not cross the line drawn by Mullahs,then how can you expect some people Hindus to oppose Brahmins who are apparently said to the scholars of religion?

Their your scholars in Hinduism? If so why treat them like dirt (no pun intended) I mean shouldn't they be highly respected then, since they carry the cradle of Hinduism? Like we respect our scholars even though some have their own army.

 

[A.Rahman]

All those articles that which critize the drawbacks of Hinduism are either written by Hindus themselves or someone denunces them are also Hindus.

Interesting isn't it. Atleast Hindus can criticse the religion they belive without having to bother that some would not call for their death.

Islam is open to question; but by drawing insulting cartoons & having Islamophobic tendencies these people are not question Islam; but rather Insulting it for their own gain

And yeah by the way I really feel funny when Pakistans post articles regarding the authocratic rule of Brahmins within Hinduism and it being the cause of all evil in India. I really pity for those Brahmins.
They have to struggle the most to get a seat in a college,get a job in a gov company. No reservation at all. Unfortunately you would be very unlucky to be born as a brahmin.

By the way Brahmins are equivalent of Mullahs of Islam. If Muslims dare not cross the line drawn by Mullahs,then how can you expect some people Hindus to oppose Brahmins who are apparently said to the scholars of religion?

Muslims are free to agree or disagree with any scholar in light of Quran & hadith.
Anyone can become scholar if he/she goes to university & learns about Islam. Bharamin are born scholars. A major difference.

 

[Contrarian]

As yet, you do not see Hindu fanatics threateining to kill every one who questions the Hindu faith. There are extremists, but its not as widespread as you find in the middle eastern countries.

Apart from that the Brahmins(me being one) are not given any special status, because they are categorized into the 'general' category, which is mostly brahmins, rajputs, etc, etc, ie those who are NOT in the SC/ST's or OBC category. The government gives SC/ST's reservations in the govt jobs, college's, etc, etc so that their status can be uplifted.

Though to most uneducated people in this respect, Brahmins rule India and all the rest are subservient to them. Infact while almost the opposite can be said to be true. Brahmins get no special treatment, while the SC/ST's, OBC', etc, etc do get one. This special treatment is good enough to change lives. This is a verry sensitive issue in India, ie quota issue.

 

[Adux]

Most Brahmins never ruled India, It was always the Khastriya's, The warrior race, Brahmins the scholar, preacher race, the vysa's - traders etc.
Its some old weird jumbo-mambo.lol

 

[con]

Their your scholars in Hinduism? If so why treat them like dirt (no pun intended) I mean shouldn't they be highly respected then, since they carry the cradle of Hinduism? Like we respect our scholars even though some have their own army.

First and foremost there is there is no concept of Hindu religion. As with other religion there are founders and holy books. Hinduism doesnot have any.

It is a effect of how the society was structured. Brahmins were a group of people who has the job of getting education and providing them. Just like in a company different set of people do different jobs.

Since they were most educated during the times of Kings,they were regularly consulted. This gave them access to when the power lies. Similar to mullahs having access to courts of Muslims emperors as Mullahs were considered the experts in religious and social issues.
And since power corrupts,they tried to introduced monopoly over who gets the knowledge.
This what use to happen.Now since any one has the right for education, it invariably means they dont have monopoly and hence no power.
And for some reasons Pakistanis hate Hindus with a weird reasons that Brahmins dictate and oppress people. Strange.

By the way they get the respect what they deserve.Nothing more nothing less. They dont dictate how society should run.