Secular India

[Crookbond]

The striking word in the MMS statement is "equitable"; if one understand what it means anyway.

[seedhi]

The striking word in the MMS statement is "equitable"; if one understand what it means anyway.

What is striking is the absence of any mention of the disadvantaged in the majority community. Had he replaced the mention of minorities and Muslims with poor and disadvantaged and then claimed a first right for them in the national resources, that would have been non-discriminatory religionwise. But of course, the "secularism" followed in India is based on discrimination, categorization and appeasement.

[ganeshran]

What is striking is the absence of any mention of the disadvantaged in the majority community. Had he replaced the mention of minorities and Muslims with poor and disadvantaged and then claimed a first right for them in the national resources, that would have been non-discriminatory religionwise. But of course, the "secularism" followed in India is based on discrimination, categorization and appeasement.

Can you state few instances where the minorities have grabbed the national resources? Classic fear mongering by right wingers.

[seedhi]

Can you state few instances where the minorities have grabbed the national resources? Classic fear mongering by right wingers.

This rhetorical question which you have posed has an obvious answer if we restrict ourselves to our own perspectives - after all how does it matter to me or you, the elite class, if the PM is talking of such discrimination. What I want you to think about is this: consider two poor families, one Hindu and one Muslim, living side by side. How do you explain to the poor Hindu family the scholarship granted by the Central government to the children of the equally poor neighboring Muslim family but which is denied to them, only for being Hindus ? So perverse is the discourse of "secularism" in India that if one even points out such anomalies it is immediately termed as communal fear mongering. No wonder, advocating a uniform civil code is termed as communal !

[ganeshran]

This rhetorical question which you have posed has an obvious answer if we restrict ourselves to our own perspectives - after all how does it matter to me or you, the elite class, if the PM is talking of such discrimination. What I want you to think about is this: consider two poor families, one Hindu and one Muslim, living side by side. How do you explain to the poor Hindu family the scholarship granted by the Central government to the children of the equally poor neighboring Muslim family but which is denied to them, only for being Hindus ? So perverse is the discourse of "secularism" in India that if one even points out such anomalies it is immediately termed as communal fear mongering. No wonder, advocating a uniform civil code is termed as communal !

It was not a rhetorical question. I actually want to know how Muslims are grabbing national resources. Please list the schemes which are available only to Muslims so we can find out how much money is being spent on them and also whether there are any similar schemes that cover the general population (and hence Hindus) The cost spent on scheme which you mentioned (minorities scholarship) in minuscule in the larger scheme of things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving educational scholarships to minorities because there are plenty of other schemes which cover everyone else. Disadvantaged groups within Hindus also enjoy special reservations which are not given to similarly disadvantaged groups in other religions So yes it is fear mongering when you use some 7 year old statement by MMS to imply that the government gives away too much of the resources to the Muslims. The poor are shafted regardless of which religion they belong to.

[Crookbond]

What is striking is the absence of any mention of the disadvantaged in the majority community. Had he replaced the mention of minorities and Muslims with poor and disadvantaged and then claimed a first right for them in the national resources, that would have been non-discriminatory religionwise. But of course, the "secularism" followed in India is based on discrimination, categorization and appeasement.

First, the word used equitable is very important in it's context - that word was chosen over the term "equal". Extremely important in my opinion particularly since you are choosing to dissect statements. Second, I want to reproduce the elaborate statement

Agriculture, irrigation and water resources, health, education, critical investment in rural infrastructure, and the essential public investment needs of general infrastructure, along with programmes for the upliftment of SC/STs, other backward classes, minorities and women and children. The component plans for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will need to be revitalized. We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources.

Unfortunately, the media did take a spin on this but failed to provide context. Next, keeping in line with your discrimination theory; this means that the PM encourages discrimination based on age (children), gender (women), caste and religion. You had complete control to mention all of those and yet you chose to mention just the part where Muslims were mentioned. I'm not sure why one would do that if there's a semblance of objectivity to be maintained. Finally, as far as the poor go here's another excerpt from the speech -

But growth alone is not enough if it does not produce a flow of benefits that is sufficiently wide-spread. We, therefore, need a growth process that is much more inclusive, a growth process that raises incomes of the poor to bring about a much faster reduction in poverty, a growth process which generates expansion in good quality employment, and which also ensures access to essential services such as health and education for all sections of the community.

Make of it what you will.

[seedhi]

It was not a rhetorical question. I actually want to know how Muslims are grabbing national resources. Please list the schemes which are available only to Muslims so we can find out how much money is being spent on them and also whether there are any similar schemes that cover the general population (and hence Hindus) The cost spent on scheme which you mentioned (minorities scholarship) in minuscule in the larger scheme of things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving educational scholarships to minorities because there are plenty of other schemes which cover everyone else. Disadvantaged groups within Hindus also enjoy special reservations which are not given to similarly disadvantaged groups in other religions So yes it is fear mongering when you use some 7 year old statement by MMS to imply that the government gives away too much of the resources to the Muslims. The poor are shafted regardless of which religion they belong to.

Of course, the poor are shafted. That is why the focus should be on the poor, regardless of religion. Regarding reservation, in post # 58 I had listed it as one of the counter-intuitive characteristics of Indian "secularism". By the way, poor upper caste Hindus do not enjoy any reservations. Undoubtedly, they are also disadvantaged by poverty like others, but in the entirety of India there is no special welfare scheme for them like for other groups. But leave that aside. From your post - you are talking of what is right and what is wrong. That is a separate debate. My point is more about the perversion of the meaning of secularism in India. Why keep up this hypocrisy, this charade of declaring India a secular state ? From birth to death, at every step of your life, you are differentiated by the government based on your religion, caste etc. We are just deluding ourselves by pretending that we are a secular state, in the true sense of the word. As I said, the national discourse is so perverted that the demand for a uniform civil code - something which part of the Directive Principles of the Constitution - is termed as communal. So, the statement of the PM is symptomatic of a larger malaise. Sadly, instead of correcting, he is further perpetrating it. All he had to do was to focus on the poor, regardless of religion, instead of singling out religious communities.

[seedhi]

First, the word used equitable is very important in it's context - that word was chosen over the term "equal". Extremely important in my opinion particularly since you are choosing to dissect statements. Second, I want to reproduce the elaborate statement Unfortunately, the media did take a spin on this but failed to provide context. Next, keeping in line with your discrimination theory; this means that the PM encourages discrimination based on age (children), gender (women), caste and religion. You had complete control to mention all of those and yet you chose to mention just the part where Muslims were mentioned. I'm not sure why one would do that if there's a semblance of objectivity to be maintained.

This thread is about Indian "secularism", therefore I highlighted his mention of the minorities, especially Muslims.

[PriyankaSR]

This, right here, is the problem with forum junkies. They want to solve terror plots and murder mysteries on the internet message boards. All of this posturing even after the realization (or maybe not?) that they know fvck all about the subject they ramble on. You see, the Constitution does NOT define the term secular. It had an amendment that added the term secular to the preamble and that's all. There was some attempt to define it but the Bill was never passed. Don't let this little reality check bother you. On with your driveling ways.

Chapter 3, Articles 25-28 under the fundamental rights of The Indian Constitution promote, protect AND define Secularism.

[ravishingravi]

Chapter 3' date=' Articles 25-28 under the [u']fundamental rights of The Indian Constitution promote, protect AND define Secularism.

"Right to Freedom of Religion 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.— (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.—Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; 13 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; © to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law. 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.—No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.—(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person n or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto. " Did I get this right. Which part defines "secularism" or is it beyond these clauses ?

[Muloghonto]

You got it right. There's the Article 12 that contains definitions and it doesn't mention secular or secularism. None of the provisos to these articles define secular either. If you run a search then you'd find the word secular only twice in the document' date=' once in the preamble and once in an exception to Article 25. That's all there is.[/quote'] You are correct and i remember the teacher noting this in my civic class in grade ten. What India badly needs is a uniform civil code, first and foremost. You simply cannot have two different set of laws.

[gs]

You are correct and i remember the teacher noting this in my civic class in grade ten. What India badly needs is a uniform civil code, first and foremost. You simply cannot have two different set of laws

AB Vajpayee missed a golden opportunity during his full term. The rest of the jokers didn't have the cojones to implement it.

[PriyankaSR]

See, The Indian Constitution in chapter 3 Article 25 states that the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of his/her choice BUT the State(i.e. the Country) may impose certain restrictions in the interest of morality, health, public order so that no one can be allowed to hurt the religious feelings of any class of citizens in India. Then we have Article 26 which says that The Constitution of India, you know, guarantees the right to establish and maintain Institutions for religious and charitable purposes. Article 27 of the Constitution aims to establish a secular state. A secular state is one that does not have any official religion and I think no taxes can be levied for the maintenance of any particular religion. Then finally we have Article 28 which prohibits religious teachings. I mean, as per the Indian Constitution, no religious instructions shall be provided in any educational institutions wholly maintained by the State (country) funds. So basically Article 25 to Article 28 in chapter 3 ( fundamental rights) of the Indian Constitution aim to achieve a Secular State and not following these is very much questionable in the Court.

@ravishingravi We wrote the definition along with A27 in class, I thought it was a part of it :hmmm:

[Crookbond]

You are correct and i remember the teacher noting this in my civic class in grade ten. What India badly needs is a uniform civil code, first and foremost. You simply cannot have two different set of laws.

While I agree with the latter part of your statement, does the constitution need to have the word "secular" embedded in it. I mean if the constitution says "equality for all despite X" where X = religion, caste, creed, education, status etc. doesn't that de facto imply secularism? The presence or absence of the term "secular" is a red herring merely.

[seedhi]

While I agree with the latter part of your statement' date=' does the constitution need to have the word "secular" embedded in it. I mean if the constitution says [b']"equality for all despite X" where X = religion, caste, creed, education, status etc. doesn't that de facto imply secularism? The presence or absence of the term "secular" is a red herring merely.

No it doesnt. Firstly, as long as there is no uniform civil code, secularism (in its truest sense) is not guaranteed. Furthermore, even the rights that are granted in Articles 14-30 can be legally trampled by the government using a much abused loophole in the Constitution. You see, in 1951 Nehru and Co. added the Ninth Schedule into the Constitution which says that any law in this schedule would be immune from judicial scrutiny even if it violated the fundamental rights. It started with 13 laws back then and today more than 280 laws have been added into this schedule (http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed09.htm) which have been immune to challenge in courts, even if they violated the fundamental rights. These include some of the laws for reservation also. Another interesting fact is that Article 370 provides for essentially a separate constitution for J&K with its own preamble. Our preamble is not applicable to J&K. Notably, the word secularism is missing from the preamble of J&K. Therefore, let us not delude ourselves. There is huge ambiguity and adhocism in the Constitution regarding "secularism" and indeed several other aspects. Our politico-legal system is running on the constitutional equivalent of a Windows 98 system filled with bloatware. The initial intent was that these loopholes and contradictions - such as non-uniform civil code, reservations, article 370 - would be temporary and shall steadily be eliminated. Unfortunately, that hasnt happened and we seem to be saddled with this mess for the foreseeable future.

[Crookbond]

No it doesnt. Firstly, as long as there is no uniform civil code, secularism (in its truest sense) is not guaranteed. Furthermore, even the rights that are granted in Articles 14-30 can be legally trampled by the government using a much abused loophole in the Constitution. You see, in 1951 Nehru and Co. added the Ninth Schedule into the Constitution which says that any law in this schedule would be immune from judicial scrutiny even if it violated the fundamental rights. It started with 13 laws back then and today more than 280 laws have been added into this schedule (http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed09.htm) which have been immune to challenge in courts, even if they violated the fundamental rights. These include some of the laws for reservation also. Another interesting fact is that Article 370 provides for essentially a separate constitution for J&K with its own preamble. Our preamble is not applicable to J&K. Notably, the word secularism is missing from the preamble of J&K. Therefore, let us not delude ourselves. There is huge ambiguity and adhocism in the Constitution regarding "secularism" and indeed several other aspects. Our politico-legal system is running on the constitutional equivalent of a Windows 98 system filled with bloatware. The initial intent was that these loopholes and contradictions - such as non-uniform civil code, reservations, article 370 - would be temporary and shall steadily be eliminated. Unfortunately, that hasnt happened and we seem to be saddled with this mess for the foreseeable future.

Wonderful analogy! I must use that to explain to people. That said, I never said India is a "secular" state (in the strictest sense) in it's implementation. The question is whether the constitution (in it's original form) preached secularism. PS - I don't doubt the ambiguity and inconsistency in our laws.

[Sundar88]

i agree that no religion' date=' heck no belief system should be given preference when making policy decisions. i just dont agree with this notion that being an atheist suddenly makes you a more rational and inteligent person that will contribute more to society than religious people.[/quote'] Being an atheist does not make you rational but rationally answering the question of whether or not there is a god and whether there is a reason to believe in any religion will inevitably lead you to Atheism. Because of this atheists in general tend to be more rational compared to theists but it was the rationalism that came first. Intelligence is a very vague term, there are many different types of intelligence. ALL the arguments for the existence of gods have been shown to be fallacious and have been debunked repeatedly and in this day and age with the accessibility of the internet if you are a theist then you are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest but I wouldn't say you are necessarily less intelligent. I don't know if Mao and Stalin would have done what they did had they been theists but think about it, if Ajmal Kasab were an international cricketer who played Cricket for Pakistan do you think he would have come to India and killed so many people? Claiming Mao and Stalin did what they did because they were atheists is no different from claiming Kasab became a terrorist because he was not a cricketer. Religion and Theism claim to make people better but many of the biggest and brutal wars have been fought in the name of religion, atheists are significantly underrepresented in prison populations around the world and countries with higher percentages of atheists in their population tend to be happier countries and have higher life expectancy, quality of life, more gender equity, better education, higher levels of technological advancement and lower crime rates compared to religious countries. Also pretty much all religions have loopholes in them that allow anyone to get away with any "sin". For example a lot of Hindus believe that bathing in the Ganga washes away all their sins so all Stalin and Mao would have had to do was visit the Ganga once before they died and their god would have forgiven them if they were Hindus. If they were Muslims they'd have just had to accept Allah before they died and if they were Christians they'd have just had to accept Christ, pretty much every religion has an easy way out like these so there is no reason to believe theism would have prevented Stalin and Mao from doing what they did.

[ravishingravi]

Secularism and constitution " A Constitution does not become secular by merely introducing the word "secular" in its preamble which Mrs Indira Gandhi did during the Emergency. Not one word was changed in the text of the Constitution, which implies that the ingredients of secularism were already there. No commentary on the Constitution of India teaches that Article 25 of the Constitution is the foundation of Indian secularism. This Article guarantees every citizen the right not only to profess and practise his religion but also the right to propagate it. However, these three rights have been subordinated to three fundamental interests of the Republic of India i.e., public health, public order and morality. This subordination of religion of every name and content to these overriding interests of the nation presupposes firstly, that all religious beliefs and practices will compete for acceptance in the free market of ideas and peaceful debate, and secondly, that the conflict between national interest and religion shall not be settled by pundits, priests or mullahs but by the use of the small yet magnificent equipment called the human brain. In short, Indian secularism mandates life, guided only by reason and logic but inspired by love and compassion." :- Ram Jethmalani.

[ravishingravi]

Congress’ secularism is a myth "A deceptive lull in the Advani camp, and the expected JDU pullout, have dominated the political flavour of the week. Good riddance, for that removes once for all their Damocles' sword of blackmail and humiliation that continuously hung over BJP's head over the past year. I read that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has recently administered a baptism of Congress "secularism" to the hitherto "communal" Nitish Kumar, after his mea culpa of cohabiting with the BJP for 17 long years. Alongside, the new Congress summer offensive against Narendra Modi has started with a rather clumsy revival of the Ishrat Jehan case, full of howlers and blunders, causing a civil war between the CBI and IB, and revving up the stale "communal" propaganda against him. Clearly, after his spectacular victories at the polls, the only accusations against Modi will be the imaginary ones concocted by the vote bank secularists of the Congress Party, instigated by their BJP supporters, that Modi is communal, arrogant, divisive etc. Alas, we have reached an unfortunate situation in India where anyone decisive is called divisive, and an honest, efficient, tough task master and achiever with remarkable leadership qualities is insulted by being labelled arrogant, and a one man show. Secularism and communalism are two words in India's political terminology that have intentionally been left undefined, so that they can be misused as weapons of attack by the Congress and its allies, against any political opponent, (presently Modi), without any accountability, or questions regarding their true meaning. I strongly believe that the Congress and other self-proclaimed secular political parties should be made to explain the meaning of these words to the people of India, instead of bandying them about like ignorant charlatans. Strangely enough, neither the intelligentsia, nor the media ask these questions. Even stranger, the BJP, a constant target of the "communal" attack, has never considered it important to aggressively counter the communal charge, or demand an explanation regarding its basis, or point out the blatant communalism that the Congress practices continuously. The Congress and other political rivals of the BJP therefore continue misusing the words "communal" against the BJP and "secular" for themselves, even though neither the speakers nor the listeners care about understanding their true meaning. And with constant repetition, the brainwash becomes something of an idiom. I can understand that the BJP under Advani could not challenge the Congress on this issue, because of his Babri baggage, but it is now time to shed this passivity. As repeatedly stated by me in this column, the fundamental tenets of "secularism" constitute complete neutrality by the state in matters of religion, neither supporting, nor opposing it; treating all citizens equally regardless of their religion, without favouring or giving preferential treatment to any particular religion or non-religion; constitutional bar against the state adopting any religion as its state religion; since religion is a matter of personal faith, there should be no mixing of religion and politics for vote banks. Undoubtedly, social values of all countries are bound to trace their origins to religion, but these must pass the test of rationality and public good before they are accepted as social norms. I am certain that the policies of the Congress and its allies cannot pass the authentic test of secularism. If the Congress Party, the BJP, the Communist Parties, the SP, BSP, JD(U) etc have created their own versions of secularism and communalism, let the nation know about them, so that the subject can undergo the rigorous scrutiny of a public debate, including on television. I doubt whether the Congress party or its allies will ever do this. It is politically more opportunistic to leave these terms elusive, undefined and intentionally misusable, and cultivate sections of captive media and intelligentsia to disseminate disinformation and brainwash gullible sections of the people. I have always maintained that India needs an inclusive "national secularism" agenda, which in any case forms the fulcrum of our constitution, as against the "communal secularism", practised by the Congress, and its satellites. What is polarising the nation today is not BJP or Narendra Modi, but the Congress party's own divisive, communal vote bank politics, to which it gives a fake label of "secularism". This distortion is then marketed by the Congress spin doctors to the media and the public, and the myth of Congress secularism and BJP communalism is perpetuated through the usual Goebellesian techniques. I request the readers to go through the Communal Violence Bill advocated by the National Advisory Council. It is a most communal and socially divisive document to ensure a permanent wedge between the religious communities of India. The UPA government has either been plundering the country, or cooking up ill conceived, non-implementable, financially destructive welfare schemes, that it neither has the commitment nor the vision to implement, and knock the Indian economy out completely. And judging from the present state of the economy, it has succeeded in good measure. It almost appears as if the NAC is successor to the colonialism and communal legacy of the Raj with a specific agenda to destabilise whatever is stable in India. I also request my readers to revisit the Independence movement, and examine the role of the Congress Party in aiding and abetting the colonial powers in launching communal politics in India, that ended with the partition of India. There was no BJP during those years, so the standard accusation of communalism cannot be pointed towards them for the religious divide that developed in the Independence Movement, eventually culminating in the creation of Pakistan on religious lines. The onus of alienating the Muslims in pre-independence India can only rest on the Indian National Congress — for their repeated inability to deal successfully with the Muslim League, and their greed for power during those years — so much so, that large sections of influential Muslims went to the extent of exchanging their patriotism for the Two Nation call. The unpardonable and irreversible blunders of the Congress are documented in history, their refusal to share power with Muslims for one-third seats in the Central Legislature, or address their political security demands in a spirit of give and take, the failure of the Nehru Report of 1928, under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru with Jawaharlal Nehru as secretary, and the ensuing "parting of ways" with Jinnah and his 14 points as a Muslim leader, and finally succumbing to the Two Nation Theory and creation of Pakistan. How can the same Congress party that disastrously failed to protect the political security and interests of the Muslims of undivided India when it had to deal with the issue full front, and instead drove them to seek a separate state based on their religion, claim to be their only protector today? Accepting the solution of partition was tantamount to the Indian National Congress pleading guilty to that charge. After Independence, utmost priority ought to have been given to imparting secular education as a compulsory subject in every school and college curriculum to build national integration and social cohesion, explain the position of religion as assigned to it by the Constitution of India, the rights and obligations of all religious communities. It was also important to sensitise all minority communities, particularly Muslims, to the concept of secularism, as it was some of their kinsmen who had opted for another state on the basis of religion, for which Indian Muslims had to bear the cross. But the Congress governments did nothing of the kind. Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right not only to profess and practise his religion but also the right to propagate it, is the foundation of Indian secularism. Not a single word of the text of the Constitution was changed after the word "secular" was added to the Preamble during the Emergency by Indira Gandhi, implying thereby, that the ingredients of secularism already existed. However, no commentary on the Constitution of India teaches these facts about secularism. Over the decades, our indifference to the true practice of secularism has resulted in anarchic use of the words secular and communal, general ignorance or indifference among the people about their true meaning, and political licence to use them irresponsibly. Altogether, a formidable contribution of the Congress party to the political tradition of India." http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/congress-secularism-is-a-myth

[ravishingravi]

"The Shah Bano case (1985 SCR (3) 844) was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim, daughter of a police constable[1] and mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978 but even after winning the case at the Supreme court of India was subsequently denied alimony because the Indian Parliament reversed the judgement under pressure of Islamic orthodoxy" I have a question, Is this secularism or communalism ?