Secular India

[ravishingravi]

^ So was the above a secular or communal ? Any secularites can guide us through this.

[asterix]

^ So was the above a secular or communal ? Any secularites can guide us through this.

Any action taken for the benefit of Muslims is Secularism...Any action taken for the benefit of Hindus is Communalism... So there...

[zubinpepsi]

Secularism in the context of ICF: Keep hindu bashing threads open in the name of knowledgable discussion (and with the lame excuse hindus are very tolerant) and close any threads talking about muslims because thats just communal..

[The Outsider]

^ So was the above a secular or communal ? Any secularites can guide us through this.

Maybe you can learn to use the search feature before begging for answers from secularities? Do you think the Shah Bano case has never been mentioned on ICF in its 7 year existence or you are the only nayaab to ve aware of it? Here I've helped you this time: http://indiancricketfans.com/search.php?searchid=1003809

[someone]

^^^^ Maybe, you can also answer the question directly instead of just derailing another thread. It is a simple question but can be complex for "sicularists"

[someone]

Any action taken for the benefit of Muslims is Secularism...Any action taken for the benefit of Hindus is Communalism... So there...

Yep. Never understood how India itself can be a secular state when there are special laws for Muslims. Could anybody offer a reasons?

[surajmal]

Lizard isn't secular, he is a dhimmi.

[ravishingravi]

Maybe you can learn to use the search feature before begging for answers from secularities? Do you think the Shah Bano case has never been mentioned on ICF in its 7 year existence or you are the only nayaab to ve aware of it? Here I've helped you this time: http://indiancricketfans.com/search.php?searchid=1003809

Yeah I don't know I guess I just enjoy begging for answers. And yes I did assume that Shah Bano was never discussed.

[ravishingravi]

Yep. Never understood how India itself can be a secular state when there are special laws for Muslims. Could anybody offer a reasons?

I think Tharoor said it quite right. The use of "secular" is incorrect in Indian context. The correct term is "pluralism" that we strive for. But even that isn't clearly laid out

[Detonator]

A deeply held conviction that all beliefs, be they political, religious, or otherwise, should be challenged and tested on a regular basis, rather than simply being accepted on faith. By challenging and discarding flawed beliefs, people can replace them with newer, less flawed ones, and so grow as persons.

[adi B]

secular=u can have 4 wives :winky:

[someone]

secular=u can have 4 wives :winky:

:giggle:

[trueblu]

^YOU CAN REFUSE VACCINATIONS FOR YOUR KIDS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS:whack:.YOU CAN GO AROUND . DESTROYING PUBLIC PROPERTIES, MOLESTING FEMALE COPS OVER A FEW FAKE PHOTOS AND TWITTER RUOMORS:bumsmack:.YOU CAN COMPLAIN TO HEADS OF OTHER COUNTRIES AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS:yousuck::fool:.

[ravishingravi]

The secular fundamentalist "The next general election, says Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, will be a battle between “communal and secular forces.” He’s right. But who represents these two “forces”? And how do you define communalism and secularism? Is Nitish Kumar secular? Is Narendra Modi communal? Has L.K. Advani suddenly morphed from being communal to being secular? Does Sonia Gandhi represent secularism? I attempted answers to some of these questions here and here. In the final analysis, the 2014 Lok Sabha poll will be a referendum on the ideologies of Sonia Gandhi and Narendra Modi. Sonia’s stewardship of the Congress has demonstrated that she stands for the following: 1: Secularism; 2: Welfarism; 3: Inclusive growth. All are unexceptionable in theory but problematic in practice. Consider each: Secularism: The classical definition of secularism is simple: keeping religion out of the public domain. The definition of communalism is equally straightforward: using religion to win votes by offering job, educational or other quotas to, for example, Muslims or pandering, for example, to Hindus over emotive issues like building a Ram temple at Ayodhya. In short, religion is private. Keep it at home. The brand of secularism the Congress has practised for decades has been economically and socially detrimental to Muslims. Outcome, not intent, is the only real test of a policy targeted at a specific community. By that test, the secularism of the Congress – and of the JD(U), SP and NCP in their respective states – fails the test. Welfarism: India’s fiscal profligacy, since especially 2011, has led to low economic growth, inflation and a falling rupee. Much of this profligacy is predicated on the Congress’s welfarism. This has been opposed by the Prime Minister. But he has often been – unconstitutionally – vetoed by Sonia. Inclusive Growth: Economists ranging from Keynes to Friedman have stressed that, without growth, inclusion becomes irrelevant. But inclusive growth is possible only if there is growth. Instead, the UPA’s nine years in office have become better known for inclusive corruption. Turn now to the ideology of Sonia’s principal political rival – Narendra Modi. His definition of secularism has been articulated as India First – nation above all else. This stands up to scrutiny – in theory. In practice, the outcome will emerge only in the fullness of time. On welfarism, Modi clearly prefers a private sector, industry-driven model. This has worked well in Gujarat though health and social indicators need to catch up with the manufacturing sector before Modi’s economic model can be declared a complete success. On inclusive growth, Modi says he works for “six crore Gujaratis, not six crore Hindus and Muslims”. Again, that’s impeccable in theory. In practice, Muslims in Gujarat are indeed better off than Muslims, for example, in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and Assam. But inclusiveness is an ongoing project. It needs constant attention and improvement. Author Amish Tripathi recently wrote: “The answer to religious extremism is not secular extremism, but religious liberalism. This leads one to the obvious question: what is liberalism? For in modern Indian public debate, the definition of liberalism has been distorted. Being liberal is very often misconstrued as being leftist. But I have met many leftists who are as illiberal as the right-wing extremists they oppose. We have to realize that religious extremism will only be defeated by religious liberalism, not by ivory-tower, secular, homilies from our elite.” (Emphasis added). Digvijaya Singh, as I said at the start, is right in declaring 2014 a contest between secular and communal forces. But his party has too often preached the former and practised the latter. In less than 10 months, a young, aspirational Indian electorate, interested in corruption-free, decisive governance and jobs, not religious extremism or dressed-up secularism, will deliver a verdict. If that verdict places real secularism, and not the fraudulent variety manufactured by some parties, at the heart of Indian society, religion will no longer be held hostage to political opportunists. " http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/headon/entry/the-secular-fundamentalist

[ravishingravi]

Amartya Sen and the ayatollahs of secularism – part 3 "Dr. Amartya Sen compels me to return to a subject India should have long buried: secularism. Dr. Sen’s definition of secularism is as misty-eyed as that purveyed increasingly by secular liberals who – in the classical sense of those terms – are neither. As I wrote in The Ayatollahs of secularism - part 2, Indians six decades ago had to make a choice between a theocratic Pakistan and a secular India: “On a cool spring day in 1950 at a California college campus, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a tall, angular man of 22, was in a garrulous mood. He told my father: ‘Ah, Pakistan. See what we will do with my wonderful new country.’ My father, like young Bhutto, a student at the University of California, Berkeley, was unimpressed. ‘A country founded on theocracy,’ he told Bhutto, ‘will never work.’ Bhutto walked away in a huff.” Sixty-three years later, has India lived up to its secular promise? The short answer: yes. The larger question: why is India secular? The answer: because the majority community is intrinsically secular. If it wasn’t, India would have been, in Shashi Tharoor’s words, a “Hindu Pakistan”: the kind Bhutto would have understood. So what is Amartya Sen’s definition of secularism? In his 2005 book, The Argumentative Indian, Dr. Sen devoted 23 pages to explaining his views on secularism – without coming to a definitive conclusion. This is what he wrote in one passage: “Secularism in the political – as opposed to ecclesiastical – sense requires the separation of the state from any particular religious order. This can be interpreted in at least two different ways. The first view argues that secularism demands that the state be equidistant from all religions – refusing to take sides and having a neutral attitude towards them. The second – more severe – view insists that the state must not have any relation at all with any religion. The equidistance must take the form, then, of being altogether removed from each. “In both interpretations, secularism goes against giving any religion a privileged position in the activities of the state. In the broader interpretation (the first view), however there is no demand that the state must stay clear of any association with any religious matter whatsoever. Rather what is needed is to make sure that in so far as the state has to deal with different religions and members of different religious communities, there must be a basic symmetry of treatment.” Symmetry of treatment is crucial: What does symmetry imply? Clearly, equality for all, special privileges on the basis of religion to none. That is not Dr. Sen’s conclusion at the end of his 23-page chapter on secularism. And it is certainly not the secularism that – for example – the Congress practises today. In an interview with The Economic Times, on July 22, 2013, Dr. Sen said he would like a “secular person to be prime minister” and added: “I would not like to see Narendra Modi as India’s prime minister and I’m speaking as a citizen of India.” Dr. Sen, on being probed further, clarified why not: “(He) generates concern and fear on the part of minorities.” But surely it is parties which preach secularism but practise an insidious form of communal separateness which feed a false fear among Muslim voters? Such “secular” parties don’t care for Muslims. They care for Muslim votes. If they had “real concern” for Muslims – a key quality in a prime minister according to Dr. Sen – Muslims would not be as poor, as deprived, as backward, as alienated and as stigmatised as they are today. After 54 years of Congress governments, each preaching secularism but practising the opposite, the appalling state of Muslims is a telling indictment of faux-secular governance. * * * Dr. Sen is surprisingly coy about Rahul Gandhi. When The Economic Times asked him what he thought of Rahul, Dr. Sen parried the question instead of taking it head on as would be expected of an independent mind. Here’s what he said: “I haven’t assessed him in that way. I know him as a different figure (not a politician). I know him as a likeable young man who was a student in Trinity College (Cambridge). We have met when I was Master of Trinity. We spent a pleasant day together. I did ask him then if he was interested in politics or not. At that time he wasn’t. However, I haven’t assessed him as a politician or a potential prime minister.” That’s an extraordinary answer. Rahul, the Congress vice-president, has been in electoral politics for over nine years and Dr. Sen, so knowledgeable and outspoken otherwise about Indian politics and economics, hasn’t “assessed him” yet as a politician or a potential prime minister? Surely, Rahul deserves more of Dr. Sen’s attention. Dr. Sen’s kerfuffle with Professors Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya of Columbia University over growth vs. inclusion is meanwhile a red herring. Good governance is the real answer: both economic growth and inclusion are intrinsic to it. The real issue is entitlement vs. empowerment. Profs Bhagwati and Panagariya rightly argue that economic growth, allied with welfare schemes which build productive capital assets (rather than the NAC-Sen-Dreze formula of handouts which create dependencies) is the most efficient development model for India. Who can best create that model? Certainly not those who advocate a policy of entitlement with its attendant fiscal profligacy that has so severely damaged India’s economy. " http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/headon/entry/amartya-sen-and-the-ayatollahs-of-secularism-part-3

[someone]

2 good articles there^^^^ There really is no debate on secularism but its all about labeling and misusing the term "secularism" itself. Many in our forum themselves also practice that with their inconsistent as usual.

[adi B]

Digvijaya Singh, as I said at the start, is right in declaring 2014 a contest between secular and communal forces. But his party has too often preached the former and practised the latter. In less than 10 months, a young, aspirational Indian electorate, interested in corruption-free, decisive governance and jobs, not religious extremism or dressed-up secularism, will deliver a verdict. If that verdict places real secularism, and not the fraudulent variety manufactured by some parties, at the heart of Indian society, religion will no longer be held hostage to political opportunists. "

:nice:

[beetle]

...

[adi B]

^bakwaas,FB is itself bakwaas tbh

[ravishingravi]

Attended very interesting debate today. I think to large extent the points made by both sides on concept of secularism made great sense. Esp. how secularism is defined in India as oppose to the west and why is that the case ? Firstly, it is a fact that there is no written definition. Now, for generally accepted idea of secularism, as one of the debaters said, it stems from partition and the every basis of partition. The idea of India and idea of Pakistan will always be at odds and will always remain inter dependent. India as a nation gets its sense of identity from unity in diversity and freedom of religion. Accept that unlike a secular nation, it really has bent the law and constitution to accommodate different religions or some more than others. It has to. It isn't secularism in classical sense.