Secularism was never indigenous to India - a case for why India's 'secularists' are delusional

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Brilliant article providing a much needed, and often ignored perspective.

 

 

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/don-t-blame-britain-for-modi-s-plan-for-a-new-india-

 

Quote

Don’t blame Britain for Modi’s plan for a ‘new India’

History has a sarcastic sense of humour, just ask Francis Fukuyama. Or eminent historians and literary ornaments of India like Ramachandra Guha, Arundhati Roy, and Shashi Tharoor, who are now mourning the loss of a secular liberal India under a Hindu majoritarian quasi-imperial centre.

These four and their fellow academics are the first ones to blame India's turn for the worse on the British empire, and all that it 'made, shaped and quickened'. This is somewhat ironic, given that Modi’s march to Kashmir is as rebellious and subaltern as it gets. Yet India’s post-colonial moral guardians are worried.

'The passing of the act (which allowed Narendra Modi to overturn 70 years of status quo on Kashmir) was welcomed in (India's) parliament by the very British tradition of desk-thumping' Roy wrote. 'There was a distinct whiff of colonialism in the air,' she claimed. Even in her daftest misunderstanding of history, Roy cannot resist a dig at the Raj.

In another confusing op-ed in the Washington Post, dutifully tweeted by Tharoor, historian Ramachandra Guha laments the destruction of secular liberal democracy and the rise of Hindu majoritarianism.

The worry stems from confusion – mistaken at best and ideologically deluded at worst – of an understanding of India’s history. Ask some academics and they would likely tell you the same myth peddled repeatedly in any western post-colonial university department; the one that became conventional wisdom since the time of Nehru as the prime minister of the largest democracy. It says that colonialism was unequivocally evil and that the British Raj was the single most catastrophic fate that befell the subcontinent.

There’s no scope of nuance about any of that. It is, of course, not true. India was never truly 'secular', neither under the Mauryas or the Mughals. And it was much less united. The only secular and united entity India experienced, for around two hundred and fifty years, traces its roots back to a certain liberal: Lord William Bentinck.

So when Tharoor asks for reparation from Britain, he glorifies a myth of a naturally tolerant and liberal country. But he is oblivious that liberalism, secularism, and a united nation-state are all gifts of the British – the superstructure stemming from enlightenment ideas, an edifice that is now being torn apart by a native reactionary force.

In the dying days of the Mughal and Maratha empires and in the early days of British rule, a section of India’s elite understood that too. The Hindu majority population of the Indian subcontinent, ruled by a relatively moderate but nonetheless Islamic ruling elite, was always waiting for strong central forces to take India back in time in search of some mythical, long-lost glorious age.

Raja Rammohan Roy, an early liberal social reformer against the practice of Sati, where widows would throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyres, understood how dangerous it would be. He implored the Raj to set up universities, science colleges and facilitate technology and education transfer. The creation and training of a Baboo class of native Indian civil servants would form an enlightened liberal barrier against any Hindu or Muslim ochlocracy. Evidence of that belief is found in his letters to the Viceroys, currently archived in the Victoria Memorial Hall.

The British Raj was an ally and, in some ways, a benevolent guardian for India’s liberal social reformers. The reason why support for the Indian mutiny was muted in major parts of India was simply because leadership needed leaders. Newly-Westernised liberal leaders and civil society refused to support a bunch of illiterate rebels planning to take India back to feudalism.

The conventional wisdom is that Britain built up Indian infrastructure and the civil service to drain Indian wealth from the Ganges to the Thames. The reality is that it was welcomed by a significant majority of a freshly-minted liberal elite, desperate to push the country towards modernity. An elite class of people, who either died serving the empire or left the subcontinent after independence, whose side of the story is hardly told anymore.

It is due to that fault line that the lamentations of the current secular elites sound hollow and hypocritical. Secular liberalism in the Indian context was not natural and native to the land. It was and remains a child of the British empire and the broader Anglo-American rule of law – a liberating but foreign-imposed idea, one whose survival depends on the acceptance of that reality.

The rise of Hindu majoritarianism in India was entirely predictable. Why? Because it was the only social force strong enough to fill the country's conceptual vacuum. Realpolitik and an acceptance of Modi’s India as a necessary, if not agreeable counterweight against the rise of China is an understandable reaction in the West.

But India's Hindu majoritarian turn also presents a challenge to the current Indian liberal intelligentsia. It's the same one their forefathers faced in the 1820s: accept the natural return to equilibrium or become revolutionaries and look for foreign allies. Whatever they decide, it starts with long-due reform and teaching the real history of India, instead of the Britain bashing post-colonial ideology that is currently in vogue.

Sumantra Maitra is researcher in international relations at the university of Nottingham

 

So liberals, which foreign allies are you teaming up with?

[Yoda-esque]

Predictable written by a Bong lol

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Manny_Pacquiao]

14 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

Predictable written by a Bong lol

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

but he got it right.

 

The version of history we are/were taught is not a correct representation, and was primarily meant to serve congress party legacy:

Mughals were good/the British were *ing horrible

 

A more objective version, and certainly from a hindu perspective:

Mughals were *ing horrible/the British were an improvement but still bad

 

There's very little comparison between the mughals and the british. You could easily argue that poor mughal governance created the conditions for the east india company to attempt territorial conquest.

 

@Muloghonto you'd probably like this sort of discussion.

[coffee_rules]

57 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

but he got it right.

 

The version of history we are/were taught is not a correct representation, and was primarily meant to serve congress party legacy:

Mughals were good/the British were *ing horrible

 

A more objective version, and certainly from a hindu perspective:

Mughals were *ing horrible/the British were an improvement but still bad

Moghuls were horrible for the Indian indigenous religions as such with their Islamic Iconoclasm and Kaffirophobia. But Marathas had made Moghuls their b!tches by the end of Moghul era (read Aurangzeb) till  the mid-18th century and had ruled from Cuttack to Attock. They had lessoned the horrible rule of Moghuls and had revived the Sanathan (read Hindu) dharmic values in most parts of India. Kashi, Mathura and Benaras were revived by Marathas which were ravaged by Muslim rule with most of the temples destroyed. 

 

The British effect on India is much more horrible and long-lasting. They changed the political ideology of India by brainwashing Indian kids with an education system (Macaulay) that taught them to hate their religion and feel subservient to the British. Tne colonial impact on our culture is lasting even now with the scores of self-hating Indians calling themselves left/liberals and who have no idea what India brought to the world. They got the Aryan Invasion theory and the Dravidian ideology into our psyche which Indians are using it even now with their identity politics in TN. The modern caste system was formalized by the British caste census of India 1871 where they recorded the castes of people and gave it a fixed hierarchy which Indians formally followed culturally for the next generations after generations.  By late 18th and 19th century christianity had become modern enough to not burn libraries or pagan temples as they did in the medieval era, our temples and literature was not destroyed like the Moghuls, but the British ruled us psychlogically and made all future generations dumber and weaker.

 

57 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

There's very little comparison between the mughals and the british. You could easily argue that poor mughal governance created the conditions for the east india company to attempt territorial conquest.

 

@Muloghonto you'd probably like this sort of discussion.

 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

30 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Moghuls were horrible for the Indian indigenous religions as such with their Islamic Iconoclasm and Kaffirophobia. But Marathas had made Moghuls their b!tches by the end of Moghul era (read Aurangzeb) till  the mid-18th century and had ruled from Cuttack to Attock. They had lessoned the horrible rule of Moghuls and had revived the Sanathan (read Hindu) dharmic values in most parts of India. Kashi, Mathura and Benaras were revived by Marathas which were ravaged by Muslim rule with most of the temples destroyed. 

 

The British effect on India is much more horrible and long-lasting. They changed the political ideology of India by brainwashing Indian kids with an education system (Macaulay) that taught them to hate their religion and feel subservient to the British. Tne colonial impact on our culture is lasting even now with the scores of self-hating Indians calling themselves left/liberals and who have no idea what India brought to the world. They got the Aryan Invasion theory and the Dravidian ideology into our psyche which Indians are using it even now with their identity politics in TN. The modern caste system was formalized by the British caste census of India 1871 where they recorded the castes of people and gave it a fixed hierarchy which Indians formally followed culturally for the next generations after generations.  By late 18th and 19th century christianity had become modern enough to not burn libraries or pagan temples as they did in the medieval era, our temples and literature was not destroyed like the Moghuls, but the British ruled us psychlogically and made all future generations dumber and weaker.

 

 

My issue is that you're looking at both periods in isolation. It goes back to what i was saying earlier: the mughals created the conditions for the east india company to wage 100 years of war. marathas were a powerful kingdom, but there were large sections of the subcontinent that remained under (weak) mughal rule.

 

mughals submitted to the british east india company in bengal, and from that point on...the east india company only grew and grew. you could say the muslim-hindu divide in the subcontinent is what led to the british eventually governing the subcontinent.

 

my point is: from a hindu perspective...life in a british-controlled region was a good alternative to life in a mughal region. most hindus fought for the east india company, and did so for good reasons. hindus probably welcomed the east india company in many regions.

 

what you describe is the post 1857 era...when the british converted india into a territory under the crown and actually began to govern. their governance was awful, clueless and largely self-serving and when we speak of why the british were bad, we can point to this era between 1857 and 1947, which consequently created the conditions for the 'secular' government that followed post-independence.

 

within this context, i'd argue the mughal period was WORSE for india, and hindus, relatively speaking. the british left us with a crappy nation state built on british institutions, but they intentionally kept hindus alive, and used them against the muslims. they didn't convert the masses and change the character of the indian subcontinent. the mughals did, and the proof is found in the half a billion muslims that currently exist in the subcontinent. from a hindu perspective, those are people india LOST and will probably never get back. the subjugation of hinduism starts with the mughals, not with the british.

 

we can gradually erase whatever the british did - eventually removing politicization of caste, the idea of secularism and this ineffective institution of democracy (along with all the outdated laws) by creating a more indigenous civilizational state - but erasing the mughal legacy...is almost impossible. how do you 're-convert' more than half a billion muslims?

Edited March 10, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[maniac]

Mughals tried to convert the local population with either the sword or extra perks. Even though they did manage to convert a lot of people their efforts did not match the results.

 

Then the British came and tried the same old technique with missionaries or by force.

 

However they soon realized force or rewards wouldn't be enough as Hindus have been resisting and managing to protect their culture through all these invasions. They took the route of making Hindus ashamed of their culture and look at themselves as inferior through various methods. Now this was really successful as this has carried on 70+ years after they left us.

 

So the option is like picking between the virtues of  a blood thirsty bandit who wants to cut your head off and steal your money or the pshyco killer that will abduct you, rape you every night but maybe provide food and clothing in the process. In the 2nd case which we hear of such incidents from time to time ,we see victims suffer from Stockholm syndrome and proof is in the pudding in what we see today.

Edited March 10, 2020 by maniac

[Manny_Pacquiao]

31 minutes ago, maniac said:

Mughals tried to convert the local population with either the sword or extra perks. Even though they did manage to convert a lot of people their efforts did not match the results.

 

Then the British came and tried the same old technique with missionaries or by force.

 

However they soon realized force or rewards wouldn't be enough as Hindus have been resisting and managing to protect their culture through all these invasions. They took the route of making Hindus ashamed of their culture and look at themselves as inferior through various methods. Now this was really successful as this has carried on 70+ years after they left us.

 

So the option is like picking between the virtues of  a blood thirsty bandit who wants to cut your head off and steal your money or the pshyco killer that will abduct you, rape you every night but maybe provide food and clothing in the process. In the 2nd case which we hear of such incidents from time to time ,we see victims suffer from Stockholm syndrome and proof is in the pudding in what we see today.

Lol at that last paragraph. that definitely describes our small, but declining, class of 'english speaking intellectuals'.

 

you're not wrong about the british, but i would argue that the 'de-hinduization' of india was enabled by the nehruvian era secularists, and later, the communists. those two groups had very little to do with the british, they were simply inspired by whatever the 'cool' thing was at the time.

 

it seems unfair to blame britain for the congress party, even though they created and promoted it. which gets back to what the original article is saying. india's so called liberals are a lost cause, and they would be considered weird even in today's britain.

[coffee_rules]

43 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

Lol at that last paragraph. that definitely describes our small, but declining, class of 'english speaking intellectuals'.

 

you're not wrong about the british, but i would argue that the 'de-hinduization' of india was enabled by the nehruvian era secularists, and later, the communists. those two groups had very little to do with the british, they were simply inspired by whatever the 'cool' thing was at the time.

 

it seems unfair to blame britain for the congress party, even though they created and promoted it. which gets back to what the original article is saying. india's so called liberals are a lost cause, and they would be considered weird even in today's britain.

The fact that we don't remember much of the other kingdoms of India shows the damage done by these two empires, especially their historians and the marxist historians that have reigned over after  Brits left. Between Ghazni and Ghori there were a period of close to 150 years where there were no Islamic invaders because of Indian kingdoms resisting invasion. Nobody knows about this period, but only that Ghori attacked after 150 years, after so many tries, and because of the stupidity of PC (pre-dawn attack), he was defeated and Ghori executed PC in 1192. 

 

Also, after the Moghul era decline in the 16th century, before the Brits occupied Bengal and  started to occupy rest of India and later till early 17th century, 70-80 years were dominated by Marathas which saw a revivial of Hinduism. This era is not talked of much. Rajputs have also ensured that sacred places like Ayodhya, Kashi have retained their Hindu legacy.

 

Re: OP, I don't agree that India was divided before Brits ruled. Although, it was politically, a cultural unity of India was very much felt. Much from Ramayana and a Mahabharat tales are reverberated all over India. Rama/Shiva temples in deep south India, while a lot of Puranic accounts talk about one Bharat geographically from the Himalayas to the seas.   It is the Indologists of EU and Maxsist historians to be blamed for losing the Hindu identity of India, much by the Moghuls.  Moghlus killed Hindus and converted large number of people, Brits spared our lives, but killed our Idea politically and spiritually. Hindus never had a chance once the Islamic invaders start to pour in from the 10th century. British created INC and with the transfer of power in 1947 made sure this revival is subdued.  Whole bunch of Nehruvian secularists killed Hinduism much more than what Moghuls and Brits did. The OP is right about saying that it is wrong to blame Brits for this status quo, it is the dhimmi Hindus called secularists, that  are responsible for the current state of affairs. After the defeat of Marathas, Hindus were a confused lot to figure out how to defeat Muslims , might have preferred Brits and the same case of Muslims to feel that same way. 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by coffee_rules

[maniac]

20 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

The fact that we don't remember much of the other kingdoms of India shows the damage of these two empire rules have caused, especially their historians and the marxist historians that have reigned over after  Brits left. Between Ghani and Ghori there were a period of close to 150 years there were no Islamic invaders because of Indian kingdoms resisting invasion. Nobody knows about this period, but only the Ghori attacked so many times, and because of the stupidity of PC (pre-dawn attack), he was defeated and Ghori executed PC in 1192. 

 

Also, after the Moghul era decline in the 16th century, before the Brits occupied Bengal and later till early 17th century, 70-80 years were dominated by Marathas which saw a revivial of Hinduism. This era is not talked of much.

 

Re: OP, I don't agree that India was divided before Brits ruled. Although, it was political, a cultural unity of India was very much felt. Much from Ramayana and a Mahabharat tales are reverberated all over India. Rama/Shiva temples in deep south India, while a lot of Puranic accounts talk about one Bharat geographically from the Himalayas to the seas.   It is the Indologists of EU and Maxsist historians to be blamed for losing the Hindu identity of India, much like the Moghuls.  Moghlus killed Hindus and converted large number of people, Brits spared our lives, but killed our Idea politically and spiritually. Hindus never had a chance once the Islamic invaders start to pour in from the 10th century. British created INC and with the transfer of power in 1947 made sure this revival is subdued.  Whole bunch of Nehruvian secularists killed Hinduism much more than what Moghuls and Brits did. The OP is right about wrong to blame Brits for this status quo, it is the dhimmi Hindus called secularists are responsible for the current state of affair. After the defeat of Marathas, Hindus were a confused lot to figure out how to defeat Muslims , might have preferred Brits and the same case of Muslims to feel that same way. 

Nehru did not have any specific agenda. He was just an idiot who thought he was equal to the British and by default above everyone else.

 

The problem with India till date is we have never had a combo of someone who was a scholar/philosopher/thinker + a true leader/administrator.

 

We had guys like PVN and Vajpayee or even a guy like maun mohan Singh who can be called scholars but not great mass leaders or people like Modi/Shah and even Indira Gandhi who were capable leaders/admins. I thought Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Scholar but I have not found credible info on his educational qualifications from a high level google search.

 

We still talk about guys like Chanakya+Chandra Gupta because that is the ideal combo of a mass leader + scholar that is required to define a nation. No matter how street smart they are I wouldn't call Modi or Shah as philosophers or thinkers. They are incredibly capable admins with a lot of mass appeal.

 

That is why we are a directionless society.

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by maniac

[coffee_rules]

33 minutes ago, maniac said:

Nehru did not have any specific agenda. He was just an idiot who thought he was equal to the British and by default above everyone else.

 

The problem with India till date is we have never had a combo of someone who was a scholar/philosopher/thinker + a true leader/administrator.

 

We had guys like PVN and Vajpayee or even a guy like maun mohan Singh who can be called scholars but not great mass leaders or people like Modi/Shah and even Indira Gandhi who were capable leaders/admins. I thought Lal Bahadur Shastri was a Scholar but I have not found credible info on his educational qualifications from a high level google search.

 

We still talk about guys like Chanakya+Chandra Gupta because that is the ideal combo of a mass leader + scholar that is required to define a nation. No matter how street smart they are I wouldn't call Modi or Shah as philosophers or thinkers. They are incredibly capable admins with a lot of mass appeal.

 

That is why we are a directionless society.

 

Don't underestimate Nehru's irresponsible power, he hated India/Indians and thought we are a bunch of illiterate that can be ruled over just like British and was brainwashed thoroughly with AIT etc, and thought Europeans and EU centric ideas like socialism. secularism were superior to SarvaDharmaSamanvaya ideas of Hinduism. So did MKG as well. After 1947, he didn't give any nationalistic leader any scope for power. Like Vallabhai Patel. Screwed up Kashmir and China Policy. He is responsible for the current state of India. Also, we have INC leaders parroting the same ideas of secularism good, communal-BJP bad for India. Some of the social commentary of 1940s-50s, recount on how much aura was built around Nehru and IG dynasty. In every show in cinema halls, there were 15 min clips of Indian News Reel, which was only about how popular Nehru was in 'roos', a charismatic leader with whites following him crazily. There were intellectuals (like SPMukherji) who called out on this, but were not popular and also eliminated. Even DDUpadhyay who was mysteriously bumped off. As you said, there were no RW popular leaders. 

Edited March 10, 2020 by coffee_rules

[Stradlater]

Guys what exactly is this secularism that y'all speak of? 

I have heard conflicting definitions over time and now not even sure which one describes the Indian situation perfectly. 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

15 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Don't underestimate Nehru's irresponsible power, he hated India/Indians and thought we are a bunch of illiterate that can be ruled over just like British and was brainwashed thoroughly with AIT etc, and thought Europeans and EU centric ideas like socialism. secularism were superior to SarvaDharmaSamanvaya ideas of Hinduism. So did MKG as well. After 1947, he didn't give any nationalistic leader any scope for power. Like Vallabhai Patel. Screwed up Kashmir and China Policy. He is responsible for the current state of India. Also, we have INC leaders parroting the same ideas of secularism good, communal-BJP bad for India. Some of the social commentary of 1940s-50s, recount on how much aura was built around Nehru and IG dynasty. In every show in cinema halls, there were 15 min clips of Indian News Reel, which was only about how popular Nehru was in 'roos', a charismatic leader with whites following him crazily. There were intellectuals (like SPMukherji) who called out on this, but were not popular and also eliminated. Even DDUpadhyay who was mysteriously bumped off. As you said, there were no RW popular leaders. 

Criticism of nehru is far too harsh. I get it, by today's standards, and from an exclusively hindu perspective...he comes across as a piece of ****. But he was a product of his time. and his ideas, in those days, made sense.

 

He wasn't indian, he was british. and he looked at india through a british lens.

 

The truth is, india WAS a predominantly illiterate society. literacy levels plummeted under british rule. nehru had to deal with this in the only way he knew how: removing religion, and building a predominantly 'secular' society that promoted a 'fake' harmony between abrahamic and dharmic faiths. i call it fake because there is never any harmony between proselytizing and non-proselytizing belief systems, conflict is unavoidable.

 

the congress, knowing this, killed all the competition and banned all criticism of nehru. even today, you could get arrested for saying something critical about nehru: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/payal-rohatgi-arrested-judicial-custody-offensive-nehru-video-6169476/

 

the widespread denunciation of nehru and even gandhi, is mostly a result of censorship. if criticism of nehru was allowed, then there wouldn't have been such a strong backlash.

 

this is why i don't mind criticism of modi...at the very least, these people are out in the open, and you can attack their ideas with counter-arguments. every hero needs a villain to kill.

 

3 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Guys what exactly is this secularism that y'all speak of? 

I have heard conflicting definitions over time and now not even sure which one describes the Indian situation perfectly. 

 

this is a good question. as i understand it, secularism in theory is an equal treatment of religions. or something like that.

 

in practice, secularism, is the justification of atrocities against hindus, and state sanctioned segregation, such as what we saw in kashmir for so long.

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Guys what exactly is this secularism that y'all speak of? 

I have heard conflicting definitions over time and now not even sure which one describes the Indian situation perfectly. 

In theory, it is a western concept. When protestant groups and catholic groups were fighting across medieval europe, with governments of countries which had majority of a group squashing other groups, the only solution they thought was to separate church from state and said they will tolerate one another to stop all the violence. This is called secularism where the state keeps from meddling with the church and all religions "tolerate" one another.

 

In Indian context, it means that the government treats all religions equal, but gives special rights and priveleges to minority religions.  Secularism was not in the preamble of our constitution and was introduced unconstitutionally during the Emergency. Ambedkar and the constituent assembly had a reason to not call India secular.  Dharmic religions believe in mutual respect and not tolerance. There is a difference in respecting one another and toleration the other. It is never possible with semitic religions. They think the "others" go to hell, so where is the respect? Hence, this secularism that liberals talk of is total BS. In India, secularism means appeasement of Muslims and shaming Hindus for being a Majority all the time. Their festivals, kapde pehenne ka dhang, khaane ka dhang, everything is communal.

Edited March 11, 2020 by coffee_rules

[rock777]

indians are mostly extremist and narrow minded 

[Laaloo]

1 hour ago, rock777 said:

indians are mostly extremist and narrow minded 

Pakistani are mostly terrorists and no minded 

[rock777]

21 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Pakistani are mostly terrorists and no minded 

But indians slightly ahead both in terrorism and extremism 

[Laaloo]

3 minutes ago, rock777 said:

But indians slightly ahead both in terrorism and extremism 

Nope. We can never reach your level. Some of your burqa clad women even blow themselves up and your kids are brainwashed from a young age.

[rock777]

8 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Nope. We can never reach your level. Some of your burqa clad women even blow themselves up and your kids are brainwashed from a young age.

Yeh you are ahead you elect a terrorist as prime minister of your country a

[Manny_Pacquiao]

3 hours ago, rock777 said:

indians are mostly extremist and narrow minded 

 

pakistani point of view on india was always the same: a hindu country and not a secular state. so nothing has changed from your side.

[Laaloo]

1 hour ago, rock777 said:

Yeh you are ahead you elect a terrorist as prime minister of your country a