Who's killing India's Secularism?

[Fledgingwings]

What happened to it? looks just the way it was from the very first day.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Who’s Killing India’s Secularism?
To beat Hindu extremists, India’s secularists need to champion equality before the law and accept that radical Islam is a problem.

The new Chief Minister of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath arrives at the Parliament in New Delhi, March 21. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
By
Sadanand Dhume
Updated May 4, 2017 2:14 p.m. ET
7 COMMENTS

Minority rights in India are under threat. Scarcely a week passes without news of an attack on Muslims by vigilantes somewhere in the country.

Yogi Adityanath, a rabble-rousing monk-cum-politician best known for founding a thuggish private militia and whipping up anti-Muslim emotions, recently took charge of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state. On social media and on television, a shrill new breed of Hindu culture warriors makes no distinction between ordinary Muslims and a small, radicalized minority.

Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has mostly struck the responsible tone expected of his office. Last year he condemned cow protection vigilantes who assault anyone they suspect of transporting cattle for slaughter. He has publicly praised Islam as a “great religion.”


But Mr. Modi’s support for Mr. Adityanath and studied silence over a spate of recent attacks on Muslims suggest a turn toward hardline identity politics ahead of national elections in 2019. In contrast, three years ago Mr. Modi won power by emphasizing economic development.

With the BJP ascendant—most serious observers expect Mr. Modi to cruise to re-election in two years—India’s secularists face arguably their biggest challenge since independence in 1947. A country long synonymous with pluralism may end up marginalizing its 172 million-strong Muslim minority, the largest Muslim population in the world outside Indonesia and Pakistan.

Not surprisingly, many members of India’s left-leaning intelligentsia simply blame the BJP and the Hindu nationalist movement to which it belongs for the upsurge in anti-Muslim sentiment. Reality is more complex.

As a large national party, the BJP accommodates many shades of opinion—from economic conservatives armed with Harvard MBAs to cultural hardliners preoccupied with battling Muslims and Christians. Mr. Adityanath’s elevation shows that the party has done a poor job of sidelining extremists who do not distinguish between the majority of peaceful Muslims and a radicalized minority. This begs the question: Why do so many Indians prefer the BJP to its opponents?

No single reason explains this preference, but it’s safe to say that the traditional version of Indian secularism associated with Congress has lost favor. More than 212 million people voted for the BJP and its allies in 2014, compared to about 129 million who opted for the alliance led by the left-of-center Congress Party. In March, the BJP crushed its opponents in Uttar Pradesh, nearly one-fifth of whose 200 million people are Muslim, by winning more than three-fourths of the seats in the state legislature.

Simply put, Indian secularism is in freefall. Those concerned that it will be replaced by Hindu chauvinism need to come up with a viable alternative.

For starters, secularists in the media and politics need to acknowledge that their model has failed. By not taking terrorism seriously, effectively condoning backward Islamic practices such as polygamy and divorce by verbal decree, and championing special rights for minorities rather than equal rights for all Indians, secularists have lost the moral high ground to Hindu nationalists.

Take Islamic terrorism. Instead of acknowledging that the global scourge affects India too, leading secular politicians do cartwheels to dodge the issue. After the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, which killed 166 people, Congress Party General Secretary Digvijaya Singh helped launch a book that blamed the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad for the carnage.

Other party leaders support wild conspiracy theories impugning a decorated police officer who died in a 2008 shootout with terrorists in Delhi. Not long after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, another avowedly secular Indian politician from a regional party in Bihar engaged an Osama bin Laden lookalike to appeal to Muslim voters. Last week, Mr. Singh of Congress was at it again, this time blaming cops in the southern state of Telangana for allegedly driving Muslims to join Islamic State.

Moreover, Indian secularists tend to take a lackadaisical approach to reforming backward Islamic practices such as polygamy and divorce by verbal decree. Unlike Western democracies, India allows Muslims to follow separate sharia-based laws in civil matters including marriage, divorce and inheritance.

At independence, this was meant as a stopgap measure to give Muslim reformers time to modernize their customs. The lack of progress seven decades later gives Hindu nationalists a powerful weapon—effectively they are the only ones championing the idea of equality before the law.

A retooled Indian secularism would recognize these deficiencies. Back in the 1950s, it may have made sense for the Hindu majority to tiptoe around the sensitivities of the Muslim minority. At the time, Muslims accounted for less than 10% of the population. Islamic terrorism was virtually unheard of, and Islamists, champions of sharia law, were in retreat from Turkey to Indonesia.

Today, more than 14% of Indians are Muslim, terrorism is a global problem and Islamists are ascendant in much of the Muslim world. Secularists need to be tough on both terrorism and Islamism while nonetheless striving to ensure that Muslims are treated fairly as equal citizens. Unless they can find a way to do this, they should expect to give up more ground to the likes of Mr. Adityanath.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-killing-indias-secularism-1493920175?tesla=y

Muslims can't be blamed here.

Muslims never wanted secularism. 70 to 85% of Indian muslims voted for Pakistan.

Dharmics brought in 'Secularism' from Europe. Now Dharmics find no use for it. That is all.

 

[adil_minhas]

Padamchen?

Sigh no.

Adil Minhas. Muslim and proud.

 

[Hindustani78]

In a secular society there should be no minority or majority. Everyone is equal and should follow same laws. No airbrussing of terrorist incidents. Nation should be above religion

Issue is not majority or minority but the way Indian nation is being treated and the way Indian Nation is being threatened even within thier national territories. This has been used by the enemies of the Indian nation. National Borders shows us everything. Divide and rule policy , this is what doesnt work on Indian nation anymore.

 

[Hindustani78]

Which is what is Uniform Civil Code which only one religion has a problem with as they cannot pursue their agenda here.

Uniform Civil Code means strengthening the Constitution of Republic of India and the drafting committee of the Constitution of Republic of India was well aware while drafting the Constitution.

First and foremost is securing the national territories and regaining our ancient territories.

 

[salarsikander]

I think Hindus have lost the plot frankly.

Sadly for them they have 200 million Muslims on the other side.

Its a big joke if they think they can turn this nation of ours into a Hindu rashtra.

You cannot escape the reality. Those 200s were offered to choose between pakistan and india and theh chose latter. Frankly, their property, land was worth more. So now theh should also,pay the pricw.
With india becoming all hindu is zomething that i cant even argue bout. You lot had yhe xhoice which u didnt take

our ancient territories.

Of ? The ancient mahabarat rulers ?

Please do not spout nonsense.

How is it nonsense ?

Uniform Civil Code means strengthening the Constitution of Republic of India and the drafting

Can youmsay the same for nagaland ? Whichmwas a cepeyed bwcause its diversity would be respected

 

[adil_minhas]

You cannot escape the reality. Those 200s were offered to choose between pakistan and india and theh chose latter. Frankly, their property, land was worth more. So now theh should also,pay the pricw.
With india becoming all hindu is zomething that i cant even argue bout. You lot had yhe xhoice which u didnt take

Please do not spout nonsense.

Let me elaborate.

Most Pakistanis are those who always lived there.

Ditto Indian Muslims. Always lived in today's India.

Ditto Bangladeshis. Always lived in Bangladesh.

At the time of Partition, of a total population of 400 million, there were around 90 million Muslims.

30 remained in Pakistan (then West P). 30 remained in Bangladesh (then East P). And 30 remained in India.

There was a migration of 15 million people in both directions. Almost exactly half and half (7.5 million each side, with maybe 1.2 million Bengalis).

You wanted to take in 30 million Indian Muslims?

Where was the land?

As I said. Talking nonsense as always.

 

[Hindustani78]

Muslims can't be blamed here.

Muslims never wanted secularism. 70 to 85% of Indian muslims voted for Pakistan.

Dharmics brought in 'Secularism' from Europe. Now Dharmics find no use for it. That is all.

Majority of Indian Muslims are from Indian nation similar like Indian Aryans and they all are dwelling in thier ancient lands and all the Avatars and Prophets which has been mentioned by Prophet Muhammed Pbuh spread the word of the Supreme Creator on their lands.

 

[adil_minhas]

How is it nonsense ?

Read.

Dont be in a tearing hurry to reply always.

Medal nahin milega.

 

[Hindustani78]

Of ? The ancient mahabarat rulers ?

Liberation of the holy sites .

 

[salarsikander]

Liberation of the holy sites .

Have they been occupied like israel occupies palestkne which is internationaly recognised

Please do not spout nonsense.

Let me elaborate.

Most Pakistanis are those who always lived there.

Ditto Indian Muslims. Always lived in today's India.

Ditto Bangladeshis. Always lived in Bangladesh.

At the time of Partition, of a total population of 400 million, there were around 90 million Muslims.

30 remained in Pakistan (then West P). 30 remained in Bangladesh (then East P). And 30 remained in India.

There was a migration of 15 million people in both directions. Almost exactly half and half (7.5 million each side, with maybe 1.2 million Bengalis).

You wanted to take in 30 million Indian Muslims?

Where was the land?

As I said. Talking nonsense as always.

Again bullshit. My family shift3d feom india. Muslims were giv2n choice. And provide the evidence. Migration took place. People like u optedd form personal belongings over sacrifising. So bear the price. I am all up for supporting hindus in this one

Where was the land?

Thats enough land. Tell me why you couldnt let go of your properties

 

[adil_minhas]

Again bullshit. My family shift3d feom india. Muslims were giv2n choice. And provide the evidence. Migration took place. People like u optedd form personal belongings over sacrifising. So bear the price. I am all up for supporting hindus in this one

Look man. We believe that we are one people.

You also believe you are one people.

The reason for our belief in our oneness is different.

You want to take the side of Muslim killing sanghis just to spite us, be my guest.

 

[salarsikander]

Look man. We believe that we are one people.

You also believe you are one people.

The reason for our belief in our oneness is different.

You want to take the side of Muslim killing sanghis just to spite us, be my guest.

We are one. But not only when it suited u. You lot opted over your properties. So are bearing the cosequences. That said i dont find hindu stance any wrong. If we were anything like ganga hindus we would be one, but we are not. Your grievances alone show that. So enjoy the party

 

[Jacob Martin]

Yes Indian liberals and secularists will recognize everything but please spare us having to look at Yogi Baba's face first. It is blinding us to everything else!

First, we had to look at Baba Ramdev's lovely face, and now Adityanath. It is all a bit too much really.

 

[Hindustani78]

Have they been occupied like israel occupies palestkne which is internationaly recognised

Shimla Accords 1912 and Balfour Declaration 1916. Indian and Arab nation are having one cause which is to stand against colonization. Indian Establishment has always stand with the Liberation of Palestine.