RE: Why India should not be Secular

[Krishna C Tripathi <krishnact@yahoo.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have two comments about your mail.
1. " At present, as is evidenced by some of the
contributors to our debate, it is mostly us Hindus who
need to come to a conclusion about the value of
secularism (I do not see a single Muslim in our
debate, or for that matter anywhere else, decrying
secularism)."
--- It means that what we discussing under the name
"secularism" is a system which is biased in favour of
muslims and against hindus and that is why you find
ONLY hindus decrying it and NOT A SINGLE muslim
decrying it . Right?
2. "Also, if you care to study the history of our
freedom struggle, you will realise that it was the
de-secularisation (or Hinduisation) of the freedom
struggle which led to the creation of Pakistan"
--- What you are saying is that If you have bucket
full of water ( Secular India under British rule ) and
pour saffron into it ( Saffronize the freedom movement
) what will precipitate ( sperate from water ) will be
Green colored ( Pakistan ) ? You mean to say that
poeple involed in the freedom strugle got Hinduaised
and decided to create a Muslim Nation and a secular
nation? This is a very funny logic. Let me show you
very simple logic.
Secular(British India) + X => Secular(Current India) +
Islamic(Pakistan)
  It means either Islamic elemets are added into
British India or Anti Islamic elements( Hindu ?)
removed from British India.

   I think you have never read any history other than
written by communists. if you care to read any non
communist historian you would never realize such
baseless things.
--- prabhu.guptara@ubs.com wrote:
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it,
> and propagate it!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> dear Sanjay
>
> Please do not be patronising to 140 million of our
> fellow-Indians.
> There are
> people from all communities who "need to see
> themselves as part of the
> same
> secular solution".
>
> At present, as is evidenced by some of the
> contributors to our debate,
> it is
> mostly us Hindus who need to come to a conclusion
> about the value of
> secularism
> (I do not see a single Muslim in our debate, or for
> that matter anywhere
> else,
> decrying secularism).
>
> Also, if you care to study the history of our
> freedom struggle, you will
>
> realise that it was the de-secularisation (or
> Hinduisation) of the
> freedom
> struggle which led to the creation of Pakistan, just
> as it was the
> betrayal of
> the promises made by our leaders which led to our
> problems in Nagaland
> and
> Mizoram, just as we created our own worst headaches
> in the case of the
> struggle
> regarding Sikhistan, just as we created our own
> worst headaches in the
> case of
> the language isse in the 1960s, and just as it was
> the decisions of
> Rajiv
> Gandhi himself (and, earlier, Mrs Gandhi) which led
> to Rajiv Gandhi's
> assassination.
>
> Less mythologisation and a better study of history
> may also make us
> better at
> anticipating future problems, unlike the RSS and its
> sister bodies.
>
> prabhu guptara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gargsam
> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Dezember 2000 17:22
> To: debate
> Cc: gargsam
> Subject: Why India should not be Secular
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it,
> and propagate it!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Raju,
>
> You make some excellent points but we need to be
> practical. A fact of
> life
> is that we have 140 million muslims who must be seen
> as part of the same
>
> 'secular' solution.  Unlike marxists/ communists, we
> cannot simply
> eliminate
> people who disagree with us.
>
> More importantly, muslims themselves must see
> themselves as part of the
> same
> solution - we all know the old saying about taking a
> horse to water.  My
> own
> sense is that muslims really have no idea of, or
> experience in, living
> within the confines of a modern secular democracy.
> As they progress up
> the
> learning curve, we will slowly and painfully arrive
> at a definition of
> secularism which will work for all.
>
> In the meantime, however, a UCC must be established
> in India.  The
> current
> bill of rights creates, deepens and hardens
> divisions in society.  The
> last
> thing we need is for new divisions to crop up even
> as we resolve old
> ones.
>
> Sanjay Garg
>
>
> >From: "Raju Agarwal" <krantikari@hotmail.com>
> >Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> >To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> >Subject: Re: Why India should not be Secular
> >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:33:32 -0800 (PST)
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept
> it, and propagate it!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Why India Should Not Be Secular
> >
> >The proponents of “Secularism” argue that this
> construct is essential
> in
> >order for different religions to peacefully coexist
> with each other.
> The
> >problem with this argument is that it falsely
> assumes that all
> religions
> >are
> >based on the idea of exclusivity and therefore will
> be hostile to one
> >another.  The truth is, that while this may be a
> valid supposition in
> the
> >case of the Abrahamic religions, it is certainly
> not true in the case
> of
> >Eastern religions in general and Indian religions
> in particular.
> >
> >All religions are not based on the same
> philosophical underpinnings and
>
> >therefore should not be labeled with the same
> brush.  Moreover, the
> very
> >concept of (organized) “religion” is alien to
> India.  There is no
> >equivalent
> >of the English word “religion” in any Indian
> language.   The closest
> Indian
> >word is “Dharma” which does not connote
> exclusivity.  Even the term
> “Hindu”
> >is a Persian word that refers to people living east
> of the Indus
> (Sindhu)
> >river.  That is, the term Hindu in its original
> sense refers to all
> >Indians.
> >   “Hinduism” therefore, is just the “ism” of the
> Indian people.
> Hinduism
> >has no Church, no Pope nor even a common Bible.  As
> noted previously,
> >“Hinduism” is not a religion.  It is a paradigm
> like “religion” and
> >“Secularism” itself, which has proved to be more
> successful in bringing
>
> >about the peaceful coexistence of diverse spiritual
> traditions.  For
> >example, despite India’s spiritual diversity, there
> was no equivalent
> of
> >‘The Crusades’ in India.  There was no war between
> the Vaishnavites and
>
> >Shaivites or between the Advaitists and Dvaitists.
> There was no war
> >between
> >the followers of this Prophet and that Prophet,
> this God and that God.
> >Whenever a new Prophet gained prominence in India,
> the message was
> spread
> >through peaceful means and there was no religious
> persecution from the
> >established order.   Shankara did not raise an army
> to spread his
> message
> >and his first devotee was the head of the Dvaitist
> school of thought,
> which
> >was the prevailing philosophy at that time.
> Al-Biruni put it
>
=== message truncated ===



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------