Jump to content
zen

Can India afford to be secular?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

@zen

 

What do you mean by "India, sooner or later, has to move towards becoming native religions focused." ?

 


In plain words - “become a Hindu (using it as a common term for all native religions) country” 

 

Not a move against Christianity and Islam, which flourish throughout the world, but to steer the region to its roots

 

Don’t forget Hindus may be a majority in India but from a world wide perspective compared to the other two religions, they are a minority with the subcon its only fort 

 

Most of the major countries surrounding India are protecting one religion or the other: ME - Islam, AFG - Islam, PAK - Islam, BD - Islam, SL - Buddhism (seen and protected as the state religion iirc), BHU - Buddhism the spiritual heritage

 

At least, Nepal was a Hindu country. It too went secular in 2007 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zen Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure I follow. Say, in your hypothetical scenario, ff India were declared a Hindu nation, what exactly changes on the street?

What exactly is a Hindu country? 

Is every citizen subject to Hindu canonical law?

 

If not, and we continue having more or less the laws we have today, its symbolism.

Does the mere symbolism of that sort 'save' a religion or a culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

@zen Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure I follow. Say, in your hypothetical scenario, ff India were declared a Hindu nation, what exactly changes on the street?

What exactly is a Hindu country? 

Is every citizen subject to Hindu canonical law?

 

If not, and we continue having more or less the laws we have today, its symbolism.

Does the mere symbolism of that sort 'save' a religion or a culture?

 

From a high level, a Hindu, an umbrella term for native religions, nation is one where these religions are the state religions. This would also allow the government to allocate a substantial part of its resources to promote various cultural elements including architecture and upgrading places of worships. Where necessary Hindu laws can be applied too. Integration of Hindu myths and history into education too where applicable - Why Was I not taught Ancient and Medieval Indian History at school?.

 

Right now, if you design a government building with a Hindu theme chances are some secular flag waiver would object. Such structures are being built since time immemorial and should not become an issue because someone added secularism somewhere.  Same goes for the issues with CAA where again issues were created that too when we have so many Islamic countries and the persecuted poor minorities in Islamic countries have only place to go too. For jews, Israel is the place to go whenever they want to. 

 

Recently at some places in West Bengal, Hindus have had to celebrate their festivals like they are going to a war. This in a region for them. Others will throw stones at you at any given opportunity, so I blame Hindus for their condition. But it can be rectified. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, zen said:

First of all, I like to see myself as a global citizen. When I was naive, I dreamt of a borderless subcontinent. Today too, I believe in multiculturalism and I interact with people of all types of background. And if that is so, why am I being a hypocrite and asking the question - Can India afford to be secular? 

 

In the battle of Kurukshetra, Lord Krishna advised Arjuna to do his duty. Before I go into what duties we are responsible for, let's look at the map below: 

 

 

sj14-int-religmap.jpg

 

 

  • Since Christianity is spread everywhere, Christian dominated countries can afford to be "secular" (at least on the surface) 
  • Islam has a foothold in quite a few countries. These countries do not even entertain the thought of being secular 

 

Similar to how Israel caters to Jews, the subcon caters to the native religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. These religions and cultures have no place to go, except Buddhism which spread a long time ago. 

 

What is interesting is that the native religions, apart from Buddhism, have not attempted to spread to other parts of the world relative to Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, the region has been influenced by both Islam and Christianity. 

 

 

The region can be secular or whatever, if the native religions had spread across the globe like Christianity or Islam. Unfortunately, they did not. Therefore, India is the only place where this important ancient culture with its religions can be kept alive in its pure form. If this culture loses India, it is as good as gone (or at least diluted to take a different form). Gods took the initiative to give this region its culture. Last thing that we want is to lose/dilute it further based on the preaching of Christianity which has a foothold in majority of countries and can afford to sound "secular". Islam, of course, is more straightforward with its agenda of Ghazwa-e-Hind. 

 

Yes, we like to be secular, but we cannot afford to be at this point in time because our ancestors did not focus much outwards. Now what remains of us is left duty bound to protect and maintain it and that too in its birthplace (not even in a different region). India, sooner or later, has to move towards becoming native religions focused. 

 

 

Just my 2 but important cents. 

 

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with India being a Hindu nation, India has a long history and civilization, and yes India can be secular as well and should be.

 

But when you have people spreading hate against every religion in India that is when you start running into problems, religion should be kept out of politics.

 

Can India become France? No it's too late for that France is a true secular country, but Indians and Indian politician's and a lot of people I see on YouTube are spreading hate against others and that is not a good thing.

Edited by SujitPrakash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@zen

 

I'm no expert on the matter, but my basic understanding is the verses re: Ghazwa e Hind are mostly a recent concoction. Not an Islamic agenda as you claim.

They are unverified verses from the Hadees. There is a general consensus among scholars that there are " kitab al sittah" or six verified/authenticated hadees.

 

These verses aren't from there. They are the sayings of one of the companions and find no mention by any of the others. That itself maybe a technical reason to doubt their veracity.

 

More so, if they were authentic, the many Islamic invaders who have attacked India over the centuries would have mentioned it in their literature. But there is no such mention what so ever. Almost all mentions are from the 80s and that too from Pakistani sources.

 

Maybe @Alam_dar @Sooda can chip in here.

 

 

Sorry if I am speaking out of turn but Ghazwa-e-Hind is very much real. There are hadees/hadeet that are not very well known to public and then there are ones that are propagated. We live in the world where real meaning of Hind or Arab what Prophet meant is also not understood. How can one understand what Ghazwa-e-Hind meant?

 

We have a large population who call themselves Hindu but they dont even know the source of that word, the meaning of that word. I dont want to turn this into religious discussion, but the way I understand Ghazwa-e-hind has a very pure and beautiful meaning unlike many understand. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mariyam said:

@zen

 

I'm no expert on the matter, but my basic understanding is the verses re: Ghazwa e Hind are mostly a recent concoction. Not an Islamic agenda as you claim.

They are unverified verses from the Hadees. There is a general consensus among scholars that there are " kitab al sittah" or six verified/authenticated hadees.

 

These verses aren't from there. They are the sayings of one of the companions and find no mention by any of the others. That itself maybe a technical reason to doubt their veracity.

 

More so, if they were authentic, the many Islamic invaders who have attacked India over the centuries would have mentioned it in their literature. But there is no such mention what so ever. Almost all mentions are from the 80s and that too from Pakistani sources.

 

Maybe @Alam_dar @Sooda can chip in here.

 

 

Very briefly:

 

* Although Ghazwa-e-Hind is not found in 6 Hadith books , but still it is considered "AUTHENTIC" according to the science of Hadith and all Sunni Ulama accepted it unanimously till the emergence of some of present day Salafis (who are known as Ahl-e-Hadith in Indian/Pakistan). 

 

* This means that all Hanafis (i.e. all Barailvis and all Deobandis) believe in Ghazwa-e-Hind.  (link). 

 

* And even among Salafis, there are two groups. One reject it, but the other one accept it.
And the reason is some what Political.

The party of "Jamat-ud-Dawah" of Hafiz Saeed is Deobandi and their whole agenda revolves around Ghazwa-e-Hind.

But Pakistani Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafis) want to snatch away the political influence from Deobandis, and thus they deny Ghazwa-e-Hind, so that religious Pakistanis join their ranks instead of Jamat-ul-Dawah. 

 

* It may be strange that there was not much mention of Ghazwa-e-Hind till the late 90s, but today's situation in Pakistan is this that almost all Pakistanis believe in Ghazwa-e-Hind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Very briefly:

 

* Although Ghazwa-e-Hind is not found in 6 Hadith books , but still it is considered "AUTHENTIC" according to the science of Hadith and all Sunni Ulama accepted it unanimously till the emergence of some of present day Salafis (who are known as Ahl-e-Hadith in Indian/Pakistan). 

 

* This means that all Hanafis (i.e. all Barailvis and all Deobandis) believe in Ghazwa-e-Hind.  (link). 

 

* And even among Salafis, there are two groups. One reject it, but the other one accept it.
And the reason is some what Political.

The party of "Jamat-ud-Dawah" of Hafiz Saeed is Deobandi and their whole agenda revolves around Ghazwa-e-Hind.

But Pakistani Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafis) want to snatch away the political influence from Deobandis, and thus they deny Ghazwa-e-Hind, so that religious Pakistanis join their ranks instead of Jamat-ul-Dawah. 

 

* It may be strange that there was not much mention of Ghazwa-e-Hind till the late 90s, but today's situation in Pakistan is this that almost all Pakistanis believe in Ghazwa-e-Hind. 

 

I wont go much in details but tell me according to you, define these 2 words as understood by Prophet himself, Arab and Hind. I know at least 2 people in Pak who knew what it exactly meant. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dial_100 said:

 

I wont go much in details but tell me according to you, define these 2 words as understood by Prophet himself, Arab and Hind. I know at least 2 people in Pak who knew what it exactly meant. 

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have enough study on this subject. 

 

And many traditions (most) were fabricated by later coming Muslims in name of their prophet, and thus different traditions show contradictions. 

 

Regarding Ghazwa-e-Hind, some traditions show that area of Hind is limited to the present day Pakistan. And then there are some traditions which use the word Sindh, instead of Hind. And then there are some traditions which are using both the words Sindh and Hind. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Unfortunately, I don't have enough study on this subject. 

 

And many traditions (most) were fabricated by later coming Muslims in name of their prophet, and thus different traditions show contradictions. 

 

Regarding Ghazwa-e-Hind, some traditions show that area of Hind is limited to the present day Pakistan. And then there are some traditions which use the word Sindh, instead of Hind. And then there are some traditions which are using both the words Sindh and Hind. 

 

No problem. Thanks for being honest at least.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 9:37 AM, Mariyam said:

@zen

 

I'm no expert on the matter, but my basic understanding is the verses re: Ghazwa e Hind are mostly a recent concoction. Not an Islamic agenda as you claim.

They are unverified verses from the Hadees. There is a general consensus among scholars that there are " kitab al sittah" or six verified/authenticated hadees.

 

These verses aren't from there. They are the sayings of one of the companions and find no mention by any of the others. That itself maybe a technical reason to doubt their veracity.

 

More so, if they were authentic, the many Islamic invaders who have attacked India over the centuries would have mentioned it in their literature. But there is no such mention what so ever. Almost all mentions are from the 80s and that too from Pakistani sources.

 

Maybe @Alam_dar @Sooda can chip in here.

 

 

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/145636/hadith-about-the-conquest-of-india

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 1:19 PM, New guy said:

Show me facts and figures showing hinduism is in danger

 

Yes we have not progressed as desired but its mostly because when have small periods of peace and growth we have right wingers rise and spread hatred and divide the country again and we go back to square one.

 

The only Hindus selling their religion are the ones who understand it the least. Hindus Gods and avatars were always extremely liberal and preached secular values.

 

Now people are hijacking it for their favorite cult party and wanting it to be a clone of other intolerant religions

 

 

Ignorance is bliss. Islam clearly mandates on every Follower of it, for “Jihad” (holy violent war) and killing of “Zalims” ( bad people) in legal manner. Looks okish in surface but if you check definition of “Zalim” you will understand that unless people are follower of strict Islam all of them qualify in category of Zalim.

Hence you see, without military or monarchy, anywhere where Islam has reached a critical percentage, its ruled by fanatic system. 
 

So in my opinion a minimum ban on Islam is needed so that others can survive.

 

PS: Islamic Nations where you see some leeway to above estimate, its because of UN, else every place will be ISIS and Taliban style system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yoda-esque said:

Simple question to know whether India is secular..reverse the population percentage and imagine
 

In a hypothetical world where there is no Islamist in World apart from P5 nations  full of Islamic followers  of UN and you will see what fate will await rest of world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishra said:

Ignorance is bliss. Islam clearly mandates on every Follower of it, for “Jihad” (holy violent war) and killing of “Zalims” ( bad people) in legal manner. Looks okish in surface but if you check definition of “Zalim” you will understand that unless people are follower of strict Islam all of them qualify in category of Zalim.

Hence you see, without military or monarchy, anywhere where Islam has reached a critical percentage, its ruled by fanatic system. 
 

So in my opinion a minimum ban on Islam is needed so that others can survive.

 

PS: Islamic Nations where you see some leeway to above estimate, its because of UN, else every place will be ISIS and Taliban style system.

Dude you are the gullible guy who fell for personal drug use story when the country had a 100 major issues. So of course you will  believe whatever anyone feeds to you and parrot the hate

 

Populist leaders must thank God for gullible peope like you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishra said:

If people forget just remind yourself, Its mandated that every Followers need to put fear of Allah among non followers. And then ironically they complain about Islamophobia

And so you want hinduism to be a clone of that,?

 

I dont understand people like you. You say these things as exaamples of things which are bad right? That people being obsessed by a religion and hating others is bad right?

 

.then you say india should not be secular and should be exactly like Islam and follow what they do?

 

How does this contradiction make any sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...