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

[panther]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Dear, people like you are a "blessing" actually. I am thankful to you. 

 

If there didn't exist Muslims like you, who clearly encourage the evils of Islam and hatred against the non-Muslims, then I would have never been succeeded in getting rid of Islam. 

 

People like you are hated by me and non-Muslims, but the one who really hate you the most, they are the "moderate" Muslims. 

 

Please keep up your good work. 

Thanks

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, panther said:

Soon, Brahmins and other so called upper caste like yourself will be cleaning our toilets, Ghazwa e hind!!!

Natuarally, you guys have been rammed so much on your hind-side, by some manu Ghzwas world over, you want to keep remembering those "Ghazwa e hind" in every post. Tumko bahut sulag rahin hain ab bhi!  

[zen]

For me, the "roots" of secularism is not the key issue. Since India decided to be a secular country, people are trying to make it work. The issue is when the practise of secularism is considered limited to a particular group such as those following indigenous religions only while many of those practicing foreign originated religions continue to disregard secularism. The issue is when minority appeasing politics takes the center stage, while in states such as Kashmir, people pursuing indigenous religions are marginalized. When petro dollars continue to flow to institutions following non indigenous religions while the indigenous religious institutions battle to get a meaningful pie from limited resources 

 

Moreover the fact that Ind subcon is still bogged down by these "issues" is shocking. When more pertinent issues such as  safety of women, elders, children, animals, quality of education, hygiene, etc., take the back seat  

[maniac]

@Manny_Pacquiao at what point in your conversation with the Pakistani do you feel that he is a rational, reasonable person open to debate or hearing the other perspective?

 

You are smarter than that to indulge him.

 

He is like one of those bot generated spam emails that say 

 

“Hey Baby what are you doing tonight I am lonely”

 

”Prince of Nigeria looking to transfer a 100 million usd”

 

Replying to that might  only result in useless spam or virus at the same time even if you consider this might be legit then the jokes on you.

[someone]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

For me, the "roots" of secularism is not the key issue. Since India decided to be a secular country, people are trying to make it work. The issue is when the practise of secularism is considered limited to a particular group such as those following indigenous religions only while many of those practicing foreign originated religions continue to disregard secularism. The issue is when minority appeasing politics takes the center stage, while in states such as Kashmir, people pursuing indigenous religions are marginalized. When petro dollars continue to flow to institutions following non indigenous religions while the indigenous religious institutions battle to get a meaningful pie from limited resources 

 

Moreover the fact that Ind subcon is still bogged down by these "issues" is shocking. When more pertinent issues such as  safety of women, elders, children, animals, quality of education, hygiene, etc., take the back seat  

Correct. The fact is there is never a constant, and thus, it's important to understand the Law of Diminishing Returns. Reservation has benefits for communities, yet there are costs and thus, today we are a stage where we ask if costs is higher than the benefits? Similarly, we have minority appeasement which in theory has positive benefits, yet the costs are enormous and outweigh the benefits. The appeasement has resulted in Muslim aggression as we keep offering them concession which is a sign of defeat and inability to resist.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

13 minutes ago, maniac said:

@Manny_Pacquiao at what point in your conversation with the Pakistani do you feel that he is a rational, reasonable person open to debate or hearing the other perspective?

 

 

Replying to that might  only result in useless spam or virus at the same time even if you consider this might be legit then the jokes on you.

 

not many takers for a debate, so i work with what i have.

 

its not so much for him, its for the lurkers and 'fence sitters' reading this thread.

 

generally, the arguments usually swing from "hindus are evil, a nation defined on hindu identity will kill muslims and deprive them of their humanity"...to... "muslim-centric secularism is necessary for india because it creates conditions for tolerance and co-existence".  those are the two extremes.

 

i think the pakistanis here, more or less tapped out when they couldn't defend akbar, and when they agreed that a nation created in gandhi's ideals wasn't good enough for them. they also don't claim to be secularists themselves, while they fully expect hindus to be secular. its a strange double standard.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Time to re-load the thread with another critique of secularism and it's suitability for indian society:

 

Written back in april 2014.

Quote

https://openthemagazine.com/features/india/run-of-the-mill/

India pays lip service to a 19th century European idea that is of little relevance today

If Narendra Modi moves to Race Course Road this summer, India is set for an epic culture war. Even if he remains as cautious in office as he is being as a prime ministerial candidate, a future BJP-led government in New Delhi would chill India’s beleaguered liberals to the bone. They are already on the backfoot, since over the last ten years Congress has not shown the slightest interest in protecting, for example, the individual’s right to free speech. Nor has it reconsidered how a commitment to the separation of State and religion might be updated for the 21st century. The idea of offence and blasphemy in India remains old-fashioned, with both offenders and offended following an imported 19th century script. As the original Penal Code of 1860 states, imprisonment will be the punishment for anyone who ‘with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person’.

For decades now, the idea of personal liberty in the form of Nehruvian secularism and freedom of expression has failed to gain much popular traction. This is not to suggest any infringement of freedom of belief would ever be tolerated by India’s citizens, or that Indians lack the right to openly express an opinion in a way that remains forbidden in many countries, but rather that the current form of the debate remains elitist and abstruse, and is often confined to the English-language media. Thus a ban on a film or book may get reported around the world as an attack on freedom, but it will rarely draw an Indian crowd onto the streets. A dispute over the upkeep of the Dargah Shah-e-Mardan, on the other hand, will, for example, produce over 25,000 passionate protestors, as happened earlier this month in Delhi; but it will barely be reported in India and will be ignored internationally, as if it were of no consequence.

More than a century-and-a-half ago, when the mutineers of 1857 marched on Delhi, enraged at the injustice with which they were being ruled, John Stuart Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor were busy writing the essay On Liberty. Mill tried to get round the inconsistency of promoting liberty only in what he called ‘mature’ societies by arguing that while British rule in India was admittedly despotic, it was held to the standards of representative government by the House of Commons. Like many 19th century European thinkers, Mill’s life was fatally bound up with the elite hypocrisies of Empire; he worked for more than three decades for the East India Company in London, and the opening line of his Autobiography states that he was ‘the eldest son of James Mill, author of The History of British India’ —a voluminous and influential book whose accuracy (with its talk, for instance, of ‘a general disposition to deceit and perfidy’ in a chapter titled ‘Of The Hindus’) was undone by the fact the author had never in his life been to India.

The younger Mill was, by the standards of his time, shall we say, liberal. In a footnote in On Liberty, he denounces British evangelicals for displaying ‘the worst parts of our national character on the occasion of the sepoy insurrection’. He objected to their missionary desire to spread the Christian religion to India’s Hindus and Muslims, calling it an ‘imbecile display’ to suggest ‘all who do not believe in the divinity of Christ are beyond the pale of toleration’.

Mill’s comparative radicalism on matters of belief and personal liberty should be seen in the context of Europe’s long religious persecutions. Just two centuries earlier in England, the mutilation and slaughter of religious dissidents was still a mainstream part of state and church activity. Lollards, Unitarians, Wycliffites or Quakers might have had their tongues slit or their bodies branded with red-hot irons. In Goa during the Inquisition, heretics and apostate Catholic converts would be executed. Europe’s torturers believed they were doing God’s work: in their rigour and zeal, they were not unlike today’s Taliban, convinced of their divine righteousness.

Only in the late 17th century had an idea developed in England that members of other faiths (and specifically Jews and Muslims) could be holy. The toleration of religious minorities—a negative liberty, allowing people to be left alone—became state policy. Freedom of thought and public discussion began, tentatively.

Mill (aided by Mrs Mill, though her name does not appear on the title page) took this a stage further in the 19th century: instead of toleration meaning the right to practice an alternative, dissenting version of Christianity, he proposed the toleration of individual liberty of conscience. So people would not merely have the right to freedom of religion, but, if they so wished, freedom from religion. The concept of apostasy, which needed to be punished either by torture on earth or by damnation in eternal hell-fire, was slowly disappearing.

In one sense, this profound and emotive philosophical argument was of no relevance to the majority of Indians, who were practising their local or family variants of Dharma. Hinduism had no set of regulations from which a person could apostasise, nor a clerical hierarchy that could impose sanctions. More importantly, India had no real historical tradition of religious killing. This is not to say it never took place: the ancient conflicts between Buddhism and Brahminism, forced conversions and the destruction of Hindu and Jain temples during the early Islamic invasions, or the strictures of caste control could all be characterised as violent. But the idea of killing heretics as a matter of religious duty forms no part of Hinduism.

So while the debate going on in Europe had social and political influence on groups such as the Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj, and on kaala paani-crossing individuals like Gandhi, it meant little to those who had never thought of tormenting apostates. Like the foreign taxonomies introduced in the 18th and 19th century which obfuscated Hindu practices into a ‘religion’, with terms like ‘priesthood’ and ‘deity’ that corresponded to Christianity, the term ‘toleration’ had little resonance in India. But where it was of vital and enduring importance was in the attitude the Indian state developed towards different religions after 1857, lasting up to the present day.

 

What passes for secularism in India—which in practice is often a system whereby political parties secure Muslim votes by wooing hereditary and religious leaders—has its roots in the shift away from reform and conversion in the wake of the great rebellion.

Queen Victoria, influenced by her well-educated German husband Albert, had an aversion to Christian bishops and a great dislike for missionaries. She even objected to her children’s governess telling them to kneel while saying their prayers in the evening. Why couldn’t they just lie in bed and pray? The settlement after 1857, with power passing from the East India Company to the British Crown, was a way to maintain British power at a time of weakness, but it was also a statement of Victoria’s own beliefs.

Against the advice of her ministers, Queen Victoria made amendments to a proclamation of future government policy, stating that from now on, nobody in India would be ‘in any wise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects’. This was—in an era when Britain still had legalised discrimination against Jews and Catholics—quite a step to be taking.

Individual freedom of conscience came first: missionary organisations quickly flooded Windsor Castle with letters of complaint, but Victoria did not budge. The toleration of the Indian state was guaranteed. More than 150 years later, the royal proclamation of 1858 forms the basis of India’s policy of freedom of belief. In Pakistan, the situation reversed: the state legally discriminates against heretics.

The difficulty with the shape that toleration now takes in India is not the theory, which remains admirable, but the practice. If artists are in trouble with outraged members of a religious group, they are at risk. If a film or a book is suppressed for spurious reasons by a politician or a court order, the state will do nothing at all to protect the right to liberty of expression. If Salman Rushdie appears at a public event, no ‘secular’ leader will go near him, for fear of contagion. A supposedly representative Hindu opponent of an academic book will use outmoded and imported Christian arguments against impiety, and ignore the expansive, eclectic traditions of Hinduism—in which devotion is too intense to be troubled by the petty misrepresentations of others.

A beleaguered liberal, asked what should be done about this impasse, will generally answer that the Indian state needs to intervene legally or physically at times of threat, and securitise the right to freedom of speech—while knowing this is a political impossibility. What seems to happen remarkably rarely (and much less, I think than it used to in the post-independence years) is direct engagement between the opposing sides of such arguments. It is striking that both Hindu and Muslim traditionalists complain privately of being excluded from any opportunity to discuss what it is that offends them, and feel they suffer if their command of English is shaky.

Except for TV debates, when the participants are usually not in the same room but shout at each other from rival squares on a screen, there is little exchange of opinion or attempts to reach common ground. In most places in India, you notice people whose dress or appearance signals a religious affiliation, but it is possible to attend a book launch, a film opening or a literary festival and see nobody (Sikh men excepted) who displays their faith. A century ago, Indian intellectuals travelling abroad were obliged to look like saints and promote ‘Eastern’ thought: today, if they want attention in the West, they are obliged to appear secular. This showdown, with its rival interpretations of liberty, can sometimes seem to be as much a class war as a culture war.

 

When it comes to electoral politics, the assertion of secular values is even more skewed. Indian Muslims still suffer from social exclusion, lack of secure employment and chronic tokenism.

Earlier this year, I spent time with a Muslim leader in central India who had an iron grip on his community: he, or his family, had control of access to places at an engineering and medical college, the opportunity for individuals to stand for election, and even the chance to start a business. If an outside politician wished to hold a meeting in the local areas under his control, they had first to seek the leader’s permission. In his own view, and it was not wholly without foundation, the power he wielded was necessary to protect the minority community from hostile communal forces.

He spoke of progress. Would it not be helpful, I asked, if India had a single law that applied equally to all citizens on matters such as marriage, inheritance and the adoption of children? Absolutely not, he answered, as I had expected. But the present divided system, a leftover from earlier times, significantly weakens personal liberty by subsuming individuals into a system of control based on compulsory group identity.

Indian Muslim women, for example, can still be divorced by the utterance of the triple talaaq. In many Islamic countries, this has been prohibited as archaic. Even across the border, the triple talaaq was abolished under the Pakistani Muslim Family Laws Ordinance in more liberal times in 1961. In India, it remains firmly in place.

If any of these myriad areas of contention are to be improved, the change has to come from what in India is perhaps inaccurately called the left: secularists, progressives, liberals and former and current communists. Were a BJP-led administration headed by Narendra Modi to try installing a uniform civil code, for instance, the country would turn into a sea of protest; coalition partners would fall away, probably bringing down the government.

A new theoretical framework is needed that speaks to contemporary India. The idea of liberty promoted by John Stuart Mill had its time and place, and arose out of a religious context that today makes little sense. India pays lip service to a 19th century European idea of toleration that is of little present relevance.

 

Since this article was written, triple talaq has been abolished.

but muslims still have a certain degree of autonomy from the state, with stone-age era religious institutions falling outside purview of government.

 

UCC, while offically on the agenda, hasn't been brought in yet. many opposition parties continue to resist it, with congress openly saying that it should be "optional"...whatever the hell that means. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uniform-civil-code-cannot-be-forced-upon-people-it-has-to-be-optional-randeep-surjewala/articleshow/74241962.cms

 

the good thing is, the scenario described above, of modi losing coalition partners is less likely to play out with the BJP holding a majority in both houses of parliament. the protests, however, will almost certainly happen. but that is to be expected.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, panther said:

Soon, Brahmins and other so called upper caste like yourself will be cleaning our toilets, Ghazwa e hind!!!

Sorry fake khan and sister seller, soon we will deconvert you from barbarian religion.

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, rock777 said:

Son well firt you need to  learn how to write proper sentences it is english  not your hinglish

Says the guy who cannot form proper sentences....are you also a product of cousin incest ?

[zen]

56 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

Time to re-load the thread with another critique of secularism and it's suitability for indian society:

I did not read the article so pardon me if I get the context wrong. I read your post which ties secularism to UCC. If Secularism is defined as:

 

"Secularism, as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary,^[1] is "indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations". In certain contexts, the word can connote anticlericalism, atheism, desire to exclude religion from social activities or civic affairs, banishment of religious symbols from the public sphere, state neutrality toward religion, the separation of religion from state, or disestablishment (separation of church and state)"

 

There should not be a conflict on implementation of UCC, which would fall under social activities or civic affairs. 

 

 

"In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). Defined briefly, secularism means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. One form of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.^{[Notes 1]} Another form of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.^{[7][Notes 2]} There exist distinct traditions of secularism in the West (e.g., French and Anglo-American) and beyond (e.g., in India).^[2]"

 

Therefore a secular state should not consider religious sentiments when formulating laws for its citizens. The practice of using "secularism" to advocate practising laws per your religion is therefore wrong. The issue could be "the misrepresentation of Secularism in India". 

 

 

[panther]

https://youtu.be/8G1GOhz41VY

[Manny_Pacquiao]

16 hours ago, zen said:

I did not read the article so pardon me if I get the context wrong. I read your post which ties secularism to UCC. If Secularism is defined as:

 

Therefore a secular state should not consider religious sentiments when formulating laws for its citizens. The practice of using "secularism" to advocate practising laws per your religion is therefore wrong. The issue could be "the misrepresentation of Secularism in India". 

 

 

You're going too far. the more logical conclusion is that there isn't, nor has there even been, any real secularism in india. at least in practice.

[zen]

4 hours ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

You're going too far. the more logical conclusion is that there isn't, nor has there even been, any real secularism in india. at least in practice.

Ind is founded as a secular country. Hinduism can be considered a “secular” religion in a way too.

 

The issue is when some ppl suggest that “xyz” is not acceptable in our religion so we will not do it even if the law requires them to do it. The argument then becomes that Ind is a secular country so we must be allowed to do what our religion demands. However, while a secular country allows people to practise or not practise a religion, ideally, it would not consider religious factors to determine its laws esp. if they involve UCC for e.g.  
 

When you say there is “no real secularism in Ind”, what is the goal here?  

Edited March 17, 2020 by zen

[Manny_Pacquiao]

31 minutes ago, zen said:

Ind is founded as a secular country. Hinduism can be considered a “secular” religion in a way too.

 

The issue is when some ppl suggest that “xyz” is not acceptable in our religion so we will not do it even if the law requires them to do it. The argument then becomes that Ind is a secular country so we must be allowed to do what our religion demands. However, while a secular country allows people to practise or not practise a religion, ideally, it would not consider religious factors to determine its laws esp. if they involve UCC for e.g.  
 

When you say there is “no real secularism in Ind”, what is the goal here?  

to move india towards a system of government and law that is more in line with the moral character of it's hindu population.

[zen]

54 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

to move india towards a system of government and law that is more in line with the moral character of it's hindu population.

Minority appeasement at the cost of “majority” is an issue. While people may want to change that, it does not necessarily mean changing the system to appease the majority and when Ind is the birthplace of a variety of religions. 

Tomorrow, for e.g. say most Hindus become Sikhs, Buddhists, or whatever, does it mean changing the system to whatever the majority at that point in time is (what Islamic countries have done for e.g.). 
 

Even in Hinduism there are numerous gods. Tomorrow, someone can say to only follow a selected ones to be counted as Hindus. There is no end to it. 
 

The idea of having a government system and law per religion ideally only works if there is one religion and in a system where everyone is religious. In reality,  there are multiple religions with Ind being the birthplace of many. Some folks do not even follow any religion. Further the world is segmented into different races, languages, customs and so on. 

The goal of catering to the Hindu population only will be opposed not only by people of other religions, many of which have originated in India, but also by many Hindus. In Kashmir, the majority want an Islamic State, which is being opposed too.  Many people do not like Pakistan because it is an “Islamic State” and not a secular one where a majority happens to be muslims. 
 

Attacking “secularism” to advance a Hindu centric agenda is a lose-lose game in the long run esp. when India missed the boat of taking some kind of stand on this issue (at least from all indigenous religions’ PoV) when it was formed. 
 

Why not take a step back and reframe the goal to having a system of government and law per the modern culture (a relatively broader and more inclusive view) of the land? “The modern culture of the land” is common to almost everyone in India irrespective of religious inclinations. 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

27 minutes ago, zen said:

Minority appeasement at the cost of “majority” is an issue. While people may want to change that, it does not necessarily mean changing the system to appease the majority and when Ind is the birthplace of a variety of religions. 

Tomorrow, for e.g. say most Hindus become Sikhs, Buddhists, or whatever, does it mean changing the system to whatever the majority is (what Islamic countries do for e.g.). 
 

Even in Hinduism there are numerous gods. Tomorrow, someone will say to only follow a selected ones to be counted as Hindus. There is no end to it. 
 

The idea of having a government system and law per religion ideally only works if there was one religion and in a system where everyone is religious. Now there are multiple religions with Ind being the birthplace of many. Further the world is segmented into different race, languages, customs and so on. 

The goal of catering to Hindu population only will be opposed not only by other religions, many have originated in India, but also by many Hindus. Attacking secularism to advance a Hindu centric agenda is a lose-lose game in the long run. 

 

Why not reframe the goal to having a system of government and law per the culture (a relatively broader and more inclusive view) of the land? Culture of the land is common to almost everyone in India irrespective of religious inclinations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Hindus are not asking for Hindu-centric laws. At least, they should be treated like all other religions and not have special restrictions to only Hindus.

 

1. Relinquish government control of Hindu temples, while there is no such control over Mosques, Churches or Gurdwaras. Government has total control over Hundi money and they are free to spend it all in which ever way it pleases. This is a british era law, which needs to be amended. Some temples even have government madated seva rates and setting up which seva/hom/yagna to perform for public. Why is secular government in the business of running temples. Also, we have retired judges clamoring to be on the trustee boards of these temples controlled by the government, as a reward for retiring!

 

2. Let Hindus own the right to open educational institutions without government mandating hold over syllabus, like it doesn't control madrassas and convents. Ramakrishna institutions had to declare they are not Hindu so government stops meddling with their institutions

 

3. Let RTE laws be applied on minlority run institutions as well, just like it applies only to Majority run educational institutions 

 

4. Why are there special government schemes for minorities to higher education ? Why not the poor in the Majority communities?

 

Look at the demands of Hindu charter to see how the laws are skewed against Hindus in India. At least, let there be real secularism in India, not this fake kind.

Edited March 17, 2020 by coffee_rules

[zen]

28 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Hindus are not asking for Hindu-centric laws. At least, they should be treated like all other religions and not have special restrictions to only Hindus.

 

1. Relinquish government control of Hindu temples, while there is no such control over Mosques, Churches or Gurdwaras. Government has total control over Hundi money and they are free to spend it all in which ever way it pleases. This is a british era law, which needs to be amended.

2. Let Hindus own the right to open educational institutions without government mandating hold over syllabus, like it doesn't control madrassas and convents. Ramakrishna institions had to declare they are not Hindu so government stops meddling with their institutions

3. Let RTE law be applied on minlority run institutions as well, just like it applies only to Majority run educational institutions 

4. Why are there special privileges for minorities to higher education ? Why not the poor in the Majority communities

 

Look at the demands of Hindu charter to see how the laws are skewed against Hindus in India. At least, let there be real secularism in India, not this fake kind.

Absolutely! As I said minority appeasement even at the cost of majority is an issue. If Hindus are discriminated in the land where the religion was born, where will they go. 
 

There are several ideas in play here. Some want to go from inequality for Hindus to inequality for others except Hindus.  My post was against the agenda of using the idea of minority appeasement and attacking secularism, which is being misrepresented to a certain extent as discussed before, to try to turn the country into a particular religion focused state and that too when Ind is the birthplace of a variety of religions. We (Hindus) can fight for our rights without trying to marginalize others. Otherwise there may not be much difference b/w us and proponents of Islamic States, the idea and existence of which is opposed. We need to turn Islamic countries into secular ones. 
 

If the governing system and law have to be rectified, the focus should be on utilizing India’s modern culture, which is common to all. 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by zen

[Manny_Pacquiao]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

Attacking “secularism” to advance a Hindu centric agenda is a lose-lose game in the long run esp. when India missed the boat of taking some kind of stand on this issue (at least from all indigenous religions’ PoV) when it was formed. 
 

Why not take a step back and reframe the goal to having a system of government and law per the modern culture (a relatively broader and more inclusive view) of the land? “The modern culture of the land” is common to almost everyone in India irrespective of religious inclinations. 

 

India's culture is hinduism. this is not to say that we should have "hindu laws", but the state and its institutions should accommodate the hindu character, in order to protect the age-old beliefs and lifestyles of the people from politically-motivated subversion.

[zen]

16 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

India's culture is hinduism. this is not to say that we should have "hindu laws", but the state and its institutions should accommodate the hindu character, in order to protect the age-old beliefs and lifestyles of the people from politically-motivated subversion.

The use of term "Hinduism" can alienate others (much like the term "Islamic" would to many). If the focus is on using the term "modern Indian culture", and if India's culture is Hinduism, its elements will automatically be included 

 

[zen]

Some of my threads on the such subjects. I started many of these threads to "test out" various ideas and approaches: