Bharat Rakshak

I am starting this thread in open forum so there is a better understanding of this social and constitutional contract between Bharatiyas.

* What is Secularism, in theory and as it is practiced in Bharat.
* Is Secularism a required social and constitutional contract in a Hindu majority society?
* Who are the well-known secularists and what did they stand for.
* What benefits Secularism brought to Bharat/India?

Thanks in advance for an informed discussion!

Tamaso' ma jyotirgamaya!

RamaY ji,

I welcome all discussion on Secularism in India, and on second thoughts even the role Buddhism played in Indian society. I just wanted to say that these topics are all part of the Bharatiya discussion and can belong in that thread as well. If for reasons of visibility or some special focus you wish to have a separate thread, then I can understand this as well. It does however cause duplication as well as proliferation of threads. Hope you don't mind my little critique. Otherwise I would try to participate here as much as I can.

RajeshA garu,

I really appreciate your thoughts and recommendations. I created these threads for following reasons

Buddhism thread - Buddhism is perceived and being used as a anti-Hindu/anti-Brahmin tool by the vested interests. My intention is to start a open discussion so the intended audience, the section of Hindu society that is fed anti-hindu rhetoric, can refer to various socio political aspects and become self aware. It is completely an individual or groups prerogative to define and develop an identity that suits them, but I hope it comes from their Astitva than their hatred for something else.

This thread - Often multiple threads are diverted or moral-policed saying some view/strategy is not secular; making the basic definition of secularism an oxymoron. If secularism itself has some dos and donts then how can it be a social or political equiliser? More over the "idea of India" is defined as secular and then democratic structure of our society, everything else be damned. If secularism is so important then it is necessary for Bharatiyas to understand what exactly it is and what its value proposition is.

I agree, all this discussion can be bundled into Bharatiya thread. But I realized that often a certain sections of posters/thoughts are not entering in certain threads to give the impression that there is a wall between Hindu identity of India and the Idea of India, making those Bharatiya threads a "hindu narrow-streets" if you will. I would like to remove this mental block for posters so they can freely express their thoughts.

For example the Epics thread became some "purana kalakshepam" than the Bharatiya history that it truly is. The moment someone talks about Hindu world-view w.r.t any topic sighting the huge Hindu philosophical repertoire, they are gently asked to use the Epics thread as if the whole forum must use only western worldview and memes and everything else is religious discussion.

If this thread persists...........There is nothing wrong in secularism. At the end of the day it basically means separation of Church and State. However, it has become a tool in the hands of Nehruvian Marxists and various shades of leftists to push their agenda. So they see it as a tool to berate the majority into submission to perpetuate their rule and indulge in all kinds of anti-secular activities. What India needs is true secularism.

^ Fair enough.

Let us assume there are multiple options for India
1. Become a Hindu state
2. Become a Christian/Islamic state
3. Become a Secular state
4. Become a Buddhist state (like Burma/SL or China/Vietnam)
5. Become a Sikh state
6. Become a Jain state
7. Become a Jewish state

What is the difference between options 1 and 3 for a given religious group (minority/majority) of India?

For example you can present a loss/benefit matrix. You can use a scale of -5 to +5

-------------------- Hindu State ---- Christian State ---- Islamic State ---- Secular State ---- PSecular State (if different from Secular state)
Hindus ------------
Sikhs -------------
Jains -------------
Buddhists ---------
Parsis ------------
Muslims ----------
Christians ---------
Jews -------------

Yes I do think that the Bharatiya thread can be intimidating for some!

Secularism is of course a category imposed by sickularists so let's see them defend it. I agree they would feel more in their element here. But even here I fear that they would not be forthcoming. You see fudging everything in their interest. Clarity is what cooks their goose.

Instead of defending "secularism" what they rather indulge in is some everything hunky-dory Kumbaya talk.

They can't even define "religion", not to speak of "secularism"! What the secularists are doing is not banning Hindu religions from public discourse, they are dissuading and trying to kill our whole civilization terming it as religion.



Yes I have noticed that. The problem is that their version of "Idea of India" is based on solely external influences and historical narratives defined by others. So they can't openly say, which civilization does the Indian State represent! In fact they would try to bury the whole notion of a state representing a civilization and restrict it only to the idea of providing services to the people who live there, which is nonsense.

As soon as the state defines the education syllabus, the national language, the criteria for state jobs, state ethics, state-citizen relations, it is intervening in a civilizational matter. So state cannot plead neutrality in this question.

However some like to see Republic of India devoid of any civilizational considerations.

The problem is that India is perhaps one of the few countries, whose many "well-wishers" see it as independent of any civilizational foundation. All Western countries, all Islamic countries, China, etc. see themselves as representing some civilization. "Modern" Indians don't want to think in terms of civilization.

And they use "secularism" as a convenient way not only to throw out "Hinduism" but to sideline the whole Bharatiya Sabhyata!

In foreign affairs especially, we need to bring in civilization! Without it one would have Khur-shit trying to suck up to the Chinese and sell our land for free!

A Hindu state may not be necessary or desirable. Guesstimates are that by the time population stabilizes there may be close to 1.5 billion Hindus/dharmics in India. If this was Israel may be there would be existential threats. We are too big and concentrated to be obliterated by Nehruvian Marxists and Communists and their collaborators or foreign religions. However, their hold on India and manipulation has to end. We can push the country towards a situation wherein it becomes untenable for them to operate freely kind of like Communists in USA. For that INC needs to sit out for a considerable amount of time. It will help it to clear up its brains which have become foggy.

^ Can you please explain in detail

1. Why a Hindu state is not necessary?
2. Why a Hindu state is not desirable?

2. A religious state has not worked in the modern age. Yes, SA and Iran have a lot of money to spread around but I don't consider them to be successful states and I don't think beyond a point they will be successful. But more importantly, it is no. 1. I don't think we are in a situation where a declared Hindu state is going to bring any advantages. This is not to say everything is OK. We need to have safeguards in place. But more importantly make the existence of pseudo-secularism untenable in India. I think this "Hindu state" idea is diverting attention from real issues. It is just an ammunition for Nehruvian Marxists to perpetuate their agenda. Once, "secular" India becomes successful it is automatically going to radiate dharmic ideas to the rest of the world. Just like it used to do many centuries back. This is why no matter how economically well-off China becomes beyond a point it is not going to radiate new ideas unless it goes back to its roots.

One key benefit of Bharat becoming an overt Hindu state is that it will trigger the de-islamizing of Sub-continent. Some of these states are too small and need a big brother nation to show the path.

How do achieve a Dharmic state in a secular/christian/islamci/jewish state?

Supratik ji,

what is particularly religious about the term "Hindu"? In my view - nothing at all. 'Hindu' simply means Bharatiyas resisting foreign imperialist religious ideologies. Nothing really more than that. Don't the Bharatiyas have a right to do so at a civilizational level, even if it is allowed at the personal level?

Also it is unfair to use Islamic regimes as examples for "religious" state not working! Before Islam entered Bharat, Bharat was being ruled by Dharma for thousands of years. Can you point out what was really wrong about that society!

If you say a modern state cannot work according to the ethics and models as specified by Dharma, perhaps you may like to specify why not!

It is possible in a technically secular state. Once the Nehruvian Marxists are eradicated dharmic forces will take hold. In reality most of India still believes in some form of dharmic and karmic forces. Nehruvian Marxism was imposed by a miniscule minority who usurped all powers.

RA, I will argue that this "Hindu state" itself is an Abrahamic import. Dharma existed without imposition.

Aaha. Hindu state is an Abrahamic import. Didn't think that way.

Where was abraham in pre-0000AD Bharat?

What is a secular state and how is it different from a Hindu state?

Supratik ji,

Of course, Dharma existed without imposition, but Dharma also guided the affairs of the state.

Secondly anything and everything is allowed in a Dharmic Bharat, or for that matter in a Hindu Rashtra, which is not Adharmic. If any religion is not Adharmic, it has nothing to fear, and this is so the case irrespective of whether the religion is Indic or not.

In a way, you are right, Hindu Rashtra is an Abrahamic import as far as one has been forced to articulate it as a reaction to the spread of Abrahamic ideologies in Bharat. A reaction is the logic of the times. It should be accepted.

How will this Hindu State be different from the current Indian state? Specifically, what parts of the current constitution will be removed and what new clauses added?

It is not possible for people to support such a state unless they know how it will impact their daily lives. For example, will cow slaughter be completely banned throughout the country?


Who makes the determination whether a particular religion is Dharmik or Adharmik?

^ for that you need to visit Bharatiya thread.

This thread is mainly to understand the definition of secularism, its value proposition, what value it gives to Indian minorities that Hinduism doesn't and so on.

The idea is that secularism, especially in indian context, should stand on its own feet and strength. It cannot stand on the shoulders of Hinduism and while pooping on it.

Why is cow slaughter so important for a secular state? does it have anything to do with secular theology?

Who decides what is dharmic and Adharmic? The system that defines Dharma and Adharma without any Devine covenant.

That thread is 47 pages long. Are you sure my question has been answered in there somewhere? And there was some discussion about Hindu State here above, that is why I asked the question.


Secularism does not poop on any religion. Leftists, pseudo secularists and closet islamist sympathizers in India do. Unfortunately the media in India is beholden to such elements and has assumed the sole authority of branding people secular or communal.


You (or RajeshA) asked the question as to what the minorities in India gain from A Secular state that they might not from a Hindu State. It is no secret that minorities in India are opposed to a ban on cow slaughter. It is just an example. There may surely be others.
And there is no such thing as "secular theology".


That is too vague an answer. Will such a decision be taken by a judicial authority? What will be the qualification of the judges? What happens to any belief system that is declared Adharmik? How will the criteria for deciding whether something is Dharmik or Adharmik be defined?

^ but secularism is either separation of church from state OR equal treatment of religions by the state.

Then how do you solve when 900 million citizens ask for banning cow slaughter and 200 million ask for cow slaughter, who should win?

Should we use democracy to solve it or should we ask the cows?

***

Can a secular institution comment on dharma and Adharma? What happens when one religions dharma is someone else's Adharma? Which religion gets to make the choice?

In what manner secularism can be the final arbitrator in a dharmic debate, when it is not supposed to have any theology of its own that would say what is dharma and what is on, based on secular principles?

Narendra Modi keeping VHP and other religious organizations et al at bay is an example of true secularism in Indian context. Misfortunately INC also does the same to VHP etc!

Why should the banning of slaughter of one particular animal be a source of national crisis? Pigs are not slaughtered [supposedly] in several countries. Those nations are not collapsing. If a certain subpopulation becomes extinct simply because it cannot slaughter cows in a modern India with many alternatives for proteins - then there is something very very wrong with the similar banning of slaughter of pigs in other countries too.

Almost every modern state follows religious values - the more sophisticated ones, simply label the religiously sourced values as secular ones. The British and north-western European "secularism" is primarily post-medieval editing of Christian values.

In India, the value system has been constructed on a conflation of reconstructed Buddhist, Christian and Islamic values. [The reason that onlee "hindu" values are criticized, deconstructed, and seen to be needing "reforms" - the two others are "protected" and are not seen to need any reforms. Most of the civil laws stem from the British reconstruction of Indian laws and carry the unmistakable stamp of 19th century British Christian values.]



Maybe this hesitation comes from the propagandized devaluation and resulting lack of confidence in the "Hindu"?



Safeguards are always cultural, and almost always driven by an ingrained religious value system. Once that identification is weakened or devalued, since most people need certainties and instinctively attach themselves to "strength" and away from "weakness" - any religion that provides certainties and authority, always win over those who relax.


Impossible from pure "secularism" - because this pseudo-secularism is based on concrete religious memes.



If we accept that "Hindu state" is a "diversion" - this is exactly what the Nehruvian Marxists want : they want us to accept that the idea is irrelevant. For they know very well, that once that idea takes root, it will be more immune to pseudo-secularism than it is now. Marxists were very much aware of the Christian roots of their creed. Look at Engels's writings in German Social democracy phase, and Marx on the 1948 uprisings.



This automatic dissemination thing might not be supported by evidence. It seems to have been more successful piggybacking on the expansive power of Indian empires.

Separation came about because church was dictating terms to state. In other words an extra-constitutional and transnational authority which is answerable only to "the divine" had a say in the lives of citizens of a country. Needless to say that such a setup is untenable in the long run as it is a system in unstable equilibrium. A country should ideally be under the control of a constitution that may be amended by the will of the majority (however one defines it - usually much greater than simple 50%+ majority - something like 2/3rd or 3/4th or even 1/1 when the entities with a stake are small).

That is the reason why I have said before that elitist based political systems would not survive. Some people (a minority I might add) here seem to subscribe to such an idea without (in my humble opinion) thinking it through contrary to protestations of doing so.

^ this doesn't answer the question though.

Why secularism? What value did it bring?

What harm Hindu rashtra would bring to the citizens?

(continuing my previous post ...)

The real question one has to answer is
"Are there any 100% secular countries in the world today?".

In my mind the answer is no. All the countries have constitutions that are in the open interval (0,1) of the secular scale.

A "hindu" state would be as close to the right end as any other state could be. India's constitution is "a" (not "the") supremum .

^ are you saying a Hindu state would be a secular state although it will be close to one end of the secular limits?

Please define secularism. First you made a claim that secularism is separation of church and state and then state should treat all religions equally. What I am saying (which is neither an original argument nor requires great insight which is clear from the historical fact of religion controlling the state) is that this situation is untenable because of the advances in human understanding of the nature of the world - nay universe - which negates religious elitist demagoguery.

That is correct. Also, it is dynamic in that the the constitution gets amended progressively so that it always stays the supremum. "Hindu" religion has a built-in reformation mechanism.

If Hinduism has this built in reformation mechanism, why would one need Secularism? Isn't it a national confusion/facade that is meant to hurt national interests. Shouldn't we then call the people who implemented it national shame and traitors for they have been misleading whole nation for six decades?

Coming to definition of secularism, I am repeating what I hear all the time. You too inferred it that way when you said how about cow slaughter, as if it is a foundation of secularism.

Please ! the church was never completely "separated" in Europe. They divided on sectarian lines, but still aligned to respective competing centres for global domination. They remained in politics maybe under the radar, and in a more indirect and sophisticated control mechanism. The apparent manifestation and claims of "separation" are linked to a complex sequence of historical contests between aspiring imperial ambitions from within the same religion. It really has less to do with "going against the Church" than an ideological skullduggery to justify respective political lines.

No, I never said that. BjiNachiket ji said that. Just to be clear I am not BjiNachiket ji (at least on the existential physical plane ).

(Edited so the attribution is correct)

Exactly - almost all the states (the state known as India being the exception) in the world are controlled to some extent by some church.

My bad. Nachiket said it

Is there a Hindu church?

Is Hinduism == Abrahamic faiths?

Then why does India need secularism? Is it to continue the Christian moral laws over Hindu majority?

RamaY garu, you are taking the words literally.

Let me say something outrageous (and my guess is that I am not the first). hindu is secular and vice versa. period. hindu subsumes all other "churches" - past and future. No other religious/non-religious thought can say anything that has not been said by hindu either directly or indirectly through a meta-theory.

^ How about Kill Kaffirs and you will get 72 Virgins plus eternal sex ?

For me secularism means a state which is not against any religion at the least. The former govt in Tamil Nadu was supposedly secular but was spewing venom against Brahmins and Hindus in general. But they were more secular and less communal than Modi, I was made to think!

I dream of an India which has a democratic govt which did not come to power through communal vote bank politics, has no like or dislike for any religion, recognizes that Indian and Dharmic culture are one and the same, prevents forced conversions and which helps religiously persecuted Dharmics around the world. We already have a setup which does most of these things but unfortunately the political parties, both the NDA and UPA have together corrupted the idea behind it. All started off by JLN.

Secularism has been imposed on the world as a universal solution to what was essentially a Western predicament -- insistence of the Christian clergy that it is higher than the temporal authority of the king and the ruling elite should submit to its authority. It has no relevance to civilizations like that of the Hindus where the clergy has always been given a place below the king and the king was mandated to do his duty towards all his subjects equally (follow Raj dharma). However, our Nehru hero, lacking in basic intelligence, blindly copied secularism from the West, as if the struggle with clergy for power has always been an essential feature of Hinduism too.

In India, secularism is dangerous. On one side there are predatory monotheistic faiths; on the other are non-proselytizing faiths like Hinduism. Through secularism, the Indian state refuses to take sides in this one-sided contest. This act automatically empowers the monotheists with strong churches against the disorganized polytheists. Through secularism, the state actually sides with the predatory monotheists by refusing to defend disorganized Hindus from their aggression. Worse, the Indian state pretends that it is actually the predatory monotheistic faiths which require protection from Hinduism and gives them special privileges. This is so stupid, it casts a doubt on the intelligence of constitution makers. Many Indian nationalists had a very low opinion of Congressmen before independence and considered them of low IQ and lacking any insights into statecraft. The way the Congress dudes went out of their way to give privileges to monotheists against the Hindus proves the nationalists right.