Secularism - Hollow & Contradictory Assumptions and Claims
Cross-posting some posts from the
"Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread
brihaspati ->
nachiket wrote: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?
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.
Who makes the determination whether a particular religion is Dharmik or Adharmik?
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.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Supratik wrote:RamaY wrote:
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.
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.]
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.
Maybe this hesitation comes from the propagandized devaluation and resulting lack of confidence in the "Hindu"?
This is not to say everything is OK. We need to have safeguards in place.
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.
But more importantly make the existence of pseudo-secularism untenable in India.
Impossible from pure "secularism" - because this pseudo-secularism is based on concrete religious memes.
I think this "Hindu state" idea is diverting attention from real issues. It is just an ammunition for Nehruvian Marxists to perpetuate their agenda.
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.
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.
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.
____________________
brihaspati ->
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.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Nehruvian Marxists did not drop out of thin air, and Nehruvian imposition could not have succeeded, unless a great majority of the population decided not to oppose him. The reason for not opposing Nehruvian marxists - stems from exactly the sort of hesitation, or what often is actually driven by a conditioned shame in being identified with a non-doormat version of Hinduism, that starts questioning the very right of "Hindu" values to predominate within a state structure.
While western style or communist proclaimed pseudo-secularism is essentially reconstructed opportunistic and contextually strategic application of Christian value systems - pushing for such "secularism" has no inherent conflict with the "religion" per se - and its imperialistic version of Christianity which then becomes the state value.
The weakening came before - Nehru ji could utilize it.
The failure here is to recognize that religions which do not occupy state power - directly or indirectly - will always fade away, before the tiniest, apparently weakest, "minority" religion that succeeds in getting the state to actively protect it - while it assiduously and relentlessly targets the state power for eventual control. The current state itself is an instrument of protection and nurturing of certain religions, often using the resources available to the state from extraction of such from other "religions", and therefore the process is irreversible as long as this state functions.
The religions which have failed to influence or trap or coopt key institutions and functionaries/political power generation sources of the state, will be forced to accept definitions, reconstructions, imposed on them by the state. Not only that but the state will consciously or subconsciously do so in a selective manner and in ways that leaves intact or even enhance the power of those minority religions which ideologically dominates the state and weakens the competitors of those state-aspiring "minorities". This is what is happening to the "Hindu". The militantly organized religious orders are doing just fine - with a tacit default patronage from the state - which in turn has been inherited as an intact power structure from the earlier foreign imperialist power which similarly saw the currently patronized "minority" religions as superior ones compared to the majority pagan "desperately needing reform" one.
____________________
brihaspati ->
There is this very funny but interesting line from pseudo-secularists about historical continuity. Every atrocity from Islamic or other ideologies, in India or elsewhere - is always in reaction to some claimed previous atrocity on the Muslims or that ideology. So for example the discussable riots in India [the onlee valid "communal" riots are those that can be clearly pinned on the non-Muslim and the non-Christian, the others if not falsifiable as to "community" affiliations are always by "extremists" from those communities] all have a starting point in some previous claimed "Hindu" atrocity. But if every such communal riot is a reaction, why is not the "Hindu" riot a reaction to what the muslims perhaps had done before?
This p-sec historicity therefore fixes chosen starting points of history - with the hilarious paradox that their whole argument is actually based on historical continuity which in turn is dependent on historical anti-continuity.
By dismissing the role of what happened before 1947 on what happened after 1947 - we make the same false argument as the p-secs.
Individuals cannot play their negative roles in a vacuum. Hitler could not have become Hitler for all practical purposes if a sizable and significantly dominant portion of the German electorate had not switched over to him in the 1931-33 phase. Same goes for the Bolsheviks. I agree it does not have to be the numerical majority - but the aggressive, dominant, and audacious minority can do equally well.
By dismissing the deviations and mercantile/collaborationist lines started from imperial/state linked Buddhism, or Jaina mercantile interests in west-coast, or those who collaborated with the sultanate, or the Mughals, or the EIC, and justified doing so on reconstructions of "tolerance/acceptance of everything" type of "Hinduism", had sown the seeds of self-doubt and weakened the foundations.
Denying that contribution - glosses over an important destructive process still continuing in the thought processes of the dominant ideological streams in the nation.
For every Nehru ji in Indian history - there was a coterie and a subservient class that saw its monetary and privilege interests tied to what he was doing, and helped in carrying out the difficult task of maintaining the twin hegemony over the cultural as well as the state arena. Not being aware of this allows such classes to foist new "supreme leaders" when the pre-existing one gets too embarrassing for maintaining the cultural hegemony which in turn helps in control of state hegemony. But the system continues.
____________________
brihaspati ->
"pseudo-secularism" is more about excessive concentration on only one aspect of life and corresponding construction of desirable goals for the individual and national life. Buddhism had overwhelming obsession on renunciation, which in turn led to institutional obsession to the exact opposite - material profits and physical/sexual "purity". Islamism had overwhelming obsession with sexuality and power and totalitarian control over thought. This led to paranoid destruction of the vitality of the economy and society. British imperialism had overwhelming obsession about racial supremacy and profits - leading to sexual deviation and super massive repression and financial corruption. Communists had overwhelming obsession with guilt of being born "Hindus". The mercantile line in Indian politics had always contextualized profits over all else and hence led to monetizing all values.
Each of these forces had chosen to focus on one particular aspect of life that the ancient Indians did look upon as only a part of spectrum of a full life - and not the whole. The balance aspect of life was forgotten. The current -p-sec is therefore driven by a need to distinguish itself from almost every Indian aspect that has been decried upon by the deviationists in their obsession with narrow foci in isolation. The result is a complete vacuum of values, and therefore a space in which every opportunistic foray can be justified by contextual application, modification or rejection of "values".
This leads to paralysis in national life and the state decision making. If we do not have a system of value sto evaluate our decisions - how are we going to take decisions? Is going to war over a territory of higher "value" than the next electoral win with potential for monetary profits benefiting individuals and circles? How do we measure such values - if we do not have a reasonable system in place? This is the fundamental problem that "secularism" has landed us in. Making the nation devoid of values, substituted perhaps weakly by monetary profits - but which is well known to be notoriously fuzzy and indecisive on non-material aspects.
____________________
brihaspati ->
why step into the diversionary tactics unleashed on
{us}?
Take the gems of understanding already thrown by the wise into the ring, one by one:
(1) secularism must be defined by separation of state from religion : try to get a concrete example of that in "history", even immediate past "history", from those who are touting this line of thought. If they mention any European country, any of the ME countries, any of the Asian "giants", or lilliputs, or US of A, there is going to be fun. Let them try with India as a shining example, there will be greater fun.
(2) since "definitions" must be pinned down to the last d and last s : you should ask rigorous definition seekers - what constitutes rigorous proof of "separation" of state from religion. No hemming and hawing of pious wishes as substitute for concretization. Is it just in absence of religious institutional functionaries in state functionaries? what exactly is patronization by the state and what is not? This will not be forthcoming much for India, in any case. It will get stuck in the pious wish expressed in parts of the Indian Constitution without any discussion whatsoever as to the other illuminating parts of this epitome of nirapeksha constitution that disses the pious intent of the previous parts.
(3) Do religions really need to be in state power overtly to control or use state power for their own protection or growth against other religions? What are the characteristics necessary in a religion to do so and which religions satisfy such requirements? The volumes of information out there also include elaborate studies and theories of "manufacture" of consent, imposition of ideologies by using the coercive powers of the state, or the Gramscian understanding of twin floors of hegemony. It would be fun to explore this side of the game too - yes, from the voluminous information out there in history and "current history".
(4) is it possible to have any state completely free of any value system? are value systems all autochthonous and shayambhu? Why do Indian state value systems - as seen in law formation, and educational or cultural coercive mechanisms sponsored by the state - see nothing wrong with the values claimed and propagated by certain religions, and lots of "wrong" needing reform in onlee one religion? If it was completely so neutral in religious affiliations, covert or overt, it would find nothing wrong with any religion/faith/philosophy whatsoever.
It would be interesting to know why people think what the Islamics or some other religions [not the "pagan" ones] have done in India - or globally - in imposing their line of "exceptionalism" has harmed them in any way, or that they have somehow gone "down"! The facts - of which people are so fond of - must be supporting their theses? Can we have them here please?
____________________
brihaspati ->
RamaY wrote:Vivji
1. If the only Nirapekshata is constitutional Nirapekshata, what is the need for adding "Secular" word to the preamble of the constitution and now the socio-political intellectual debates that the "idea of India" is Secular democratic nation?
2. How could all the governments since 1947 go wrong in implementing that constitutional Nirapekshata? Does it mean all these govts are unconstitutional in their governance? How could so many people from different ideologies go wrong?
3. I can and will define the difference between Hindu and Christian Nirapekshata as we go (I already gave some insight into it)
Nobody is forcing people to post in this thread. If anyone thinks this is whine thread they can ignore this thread.
Thanks
RamaY ji,
please do not be provoked into the trap of inter-religion comparisons. Ask the questions I have asked. People must have very concrete ideas about the ideal of secularism to find yours problematic. Pinning down the concrete details of those ideals is important. Once the actual nitty gritty is sought for - it will get interesting.
____________________
abhishek_sharma->
One of the properties of pseudo-seculars is that they do not point out the bad effects of "settlers" and "assimilators". You were worried that some views mentioned here are code for "Hindu proselytizing". You did not get time (or motivation) to mention the proselytization that is already going on.
We would not be having this discussion if everyone was honest about the good and bad effects of
all religious groups. How sad.
___________________
abhishek_sharma->
One of the properties of a good and correct (secular or not) society/country would be that textbooks will include
complete and accurate history. In other words, some events will not be brushed under the carpet. Is that a desirable property? Do we have it now?
____________________
brihaspati ->
amit wrote:Brihaspati ji, why don't you define what true Secularism is? You don't need to write a thesis a couple of sentence would do.
On the other hand you could also clear the air by saying the Secularism per se is a bad word and should not have a place in India. That would also suffice.
You see any one of the two options above would clear the air here and then I'm sure the discussion could be more focused instead of being one of a dog chasing its tail as someone wrote.
ah Amit ji,
why should I go forward and define "secularism" when others seem to know why RamaY ji is so wrong in his views on whatever passes for Indian "secularism"? If RamaY ji or RajeshA ji's concepts are so wrong and ridiculous, maybe those who find them so - have an inner clear cut definition of what "secularism" means as it exists!
There has been wise gems - I agree the minimalist ones - the ones that do not go into a thousand lines where 10 is required, perhaps just like the Indian Constitution, leaving wide open spaces of interpretation and therefore discretionary powers to the state and its organs like the judiciary which chooses to define "Hinduism" on behalf of "Hinduism" but no other "religion".
I was just trying to flesh out those minimalist 10 or lesser word gems: in order to understand what exactly is meant by those minimalist gems. If it is not for the same purpose as that of minimalism on the crucial stuff in the Constitution, which makes a wonderful job of pious wishes regarding "secularism", leaving it just sufficiently vague so that the other selective patronizing can go on, then "folks" here must be knowing what they are talking about when they claim "separation of state from religion"? No? Why is it a crime to ask a bit more details on that 5 word quintessence of wisdom?
What I think of "secularism" (the word, or as it is used, or as it exists, or as it is practised - which one?) is irrelevant for this thread.
____________________
brihaspati ->
viv wrote:JE Menon wrote:you see nobody wants to take a stab at defining secularism, just like no one wants to take a stab at defining Hinduism...
In short, no one wants to foreclose options
Baniyas one and all, and I love it... Keep going.
Boon or Bane
Splitting hairs to sub-atomic level. With every split, we are getting closer and closer and closer... We are getting closer to the truth right?
Madhava's carbon atoms spread over a bit of the solar system at least by now must be resonating with that life memory imprint.
Bji and you are making the same mistake. RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that. The government for different reasons may bend this way or that (like no tax on 'minority' temple or schools) but we do have a good definition and a respected document (Bharatiya Sanvidhan). With that there is hardly and discussion required other than list the issues that are bothersome. So it is not secularism that is boon or bane - it is the areas where it is not applied fully or properly.
If the government is continuously "bending" this way or that - then it might not be an accident. It could be related to the very concept of "secularism" as it means to the government [whatever that means]- which is simply from that apparent standpoint, a preference hierarchy of religions to protect and allow resources to grow.
If religion/sect blindness is not apparent in the state, no amount of repeating selected lines from the Constitution establishes otherwise things on the ground.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Really, all the knowledgeable posters who have specialized info on glorious "secularism": I am looking for examples of countries/ regimes/historical-eras that were/are "secular". Give me some concrete examples of "separation of state from religion".
I was also looking for corroboration of the statements that went along the lines that : the exclusivism of Islamism and other religions have somehow forced these religions to be on the "retreat", in India and globally where they showed their exclusivist teeth at one stage in the past. Concrete proofs of "retreat" would be decreasing numbers of followers [even proving that is not going to be easy - because "following" can be measured in different ways and not always proved by lack of public show of following], decreasing influence on regional or relevant state powers, decreasing power to block/influence/ other religions or communities in political, economic or military terms - etc.
____________________
Surasena ->
They "assimilated" so well that less than 70 years ago they demanded and got their own country in an ocean of Hindu blood while the oh so secular "founding father" JLN watched on with non chalance or talked about air bombing Hindus.
Some "assimilation".
If this is assimilation, one wonders what refusal to assimilate would mean in some peoples make believe world.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Comparing historical 700 years == survival of 50%, and greater proportion in a subset/subzone from 1947 - although still showing the relative higher propensity for growth in the "other", after a reset of temporary reversal due to the Partition, is perhaps very very wise. Especially when we deliberately ignore the fact that for most of those 700 years, non-Muslims had the opportunity/territory/and legitimacy to fight physically and wage war - defensive or offensive against the "invaders". Modern Indian centralization of all military power into the hands of the state which again makes pious declarations of being "secular" while it practically protects and allows the growth of specific imperialist ideologies passing off as "faiths" while promptly taking measures to prevent any or all threads it sees as potential obstacles to its effectively selective promotion policies, combined with the disarming of the populace, means that this time around the - non-Muslim has no defence. Against religions which claim the right to obtain state power, immunity from all criticisms, and erase all other religions/faiths if necessary by use of military or coercive powers as part of their core faith and hence should be allowed to be preached in their institutions - the Indian state provides no defence for the non-Muslim.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Surasena wrote:They "assimilated" so well that less than 70 years ago they demanded and got their own country in an ocean of Hindu blood while the oh so secular "founding father" JLN watched on with non chalance or talked about air bombing Hindus.
Some "assimilation".
If this is assimilation, one wonders what refusal to assimilate would mean in some peoples make believe world.
They will immediately cite the "nationalist Muslims" who stayed back. This comes out of the careful amnesia and avoiding studying the standard historical evidence of Islamic clergy to keep institutional presence among sympathetic non-Muslim powers and regions. Also the amnesia about the comments made by some of the "nationalist Muslims" regarding their dream of having the "entire" subcontinent under Islam one-day, and the official reasons given by the Ulema sitting in UP who "opposed" Partition - the same reason, that this Partition would make it difficult for the eventual Islamization of the whole - or delay the process.
The aim was never different - that of Islamization of the entire subcontinent, and once the initial phase that required pacifist posturings until numerical and military dominance was achieved [not necessary to have initial numerical superiority as per evidence of all now Islam majority areas in the world], erase all other cultures. Only the tactical finer points of the road to that achievement were in dispute.
But it is true that one individual - like some do - citing JLN, or else, should not be seen as the sole culprit. That is an individualistic reading of history that is patently false. The greater support of this line comes from a deceptively "Hindu"-facade maintaining section, who often claim "Hinduness" or their birth in Hindu families, to pass off their self-hatred or the hatred of the community at large - as also "Hinduism". So that their overt identity origins becomes a masochistic weapon in them to carry out their deligitimization of their claimed identity.
The argument goes like this :
(a) " I am a Hindu/[by birth/pride etc] and I think that anything and everything goes since they have been assimilated [ I don't see the need to clarify why I think they were assimilated or how or whether it was mutually agreeable or one-sided impositions]"
(b) "Because I am claiming to be a Hindu who believes so - anyone else who does not agree with me and also claims to be a Hindu, only shows that Hindus cannot and should not agree on everything"
(c) "Therefore not having fixed common core beliefs where practical points of survival and existence as a culture/belief/ideology of the Hindu are concerned, especially on crucial points of attitude/strategy/ towards dealing with declared-ly hostile eradication-agenda faith systems - is part of and should be the defining characteristic of "Hinduism""
The reason this could happen relatively easily under Islamic or British rule - should have been so obvious, that it surprises me that people do not or refuse see the connection. Its the loss of state power that prevented Hindu ideological institutional structures from being able to stop/correct/penalize this opportunistic modification of the outlines of "Hinduism" by people born into the community - but who saw advantage in shaping themselves up along lines they knew would be more comfortable and patronizable for the ruling militant forces.
____________________
brihaspati ->
Theo ji,
I am genuinely curious : looking for concrete examples of manifest "secularism" in other countries, periods, as well a sIndia. Second looking for proof as to how exclusivism in religions have led to their "downfall" - in measurable terms.
____________________
brihaspati ->
matrimc ji,
for me personally, freedom of thought and speech takes paramount importance, for the history of human civilizational "progress" [again perhaps a debatable value] in terms of understanding and using the environment/nature/earth in knowledge terms is crucially linked to the two above. [Again there are perhaps citable contradictions, but they are rare].
The dogmatic creeds do not allow this, and not ony that, they have a built in targeted agenda of capturing state power with what is epitomized in the bald Leninist statement that all state formations are instruments of coercion. These ideologies/religions are not against the coercive nature and repression of the state per se - but they want to control it to repress those who do not belong to them, and try and eliminate all such non-their-religionists.
Given the trajectory of Islamic institutional infrastructural propagation and preservation of their textual doctrine of "expansion" and elimination, on the excuse that it is imply an unchallengeable, uncriticzable text - added to which is the dual deception of mumbling about the violent bits as "historical" or "weak sourced" [but never ever anti-islamic -so that when military strength is obtained the same memes will be applied as being very Islamic] when the military strength is still not there, as well as lying about long term intentions - I do not want to see an Islamic majority develop in India. There has been not a single exception to the rule that a Muslim majority region which was not conquered militarily by non-Muslims and its Islamic teaching/mullah manufacturing processes systematically crushed and dissolved - has preserved and/or not diminished non-Islamic cultures/thoughts/knowledge-systems/philosophies.
Islamic societies lose all inner or internal voices of criticism so crucial for "modernization" [again a debatable term - but lets say broadly - an attempted shift towards more of rational and science approaches to society instead of claims of everlasting dogmatic revelations by unchallengeable supra-human authorities].
Since I have not seen a single actual instance of "secularism" as being hinted at here - totally neutral, valueless, no-patronizing-religion state structure anywhere, geographically or in historical periods - [most are myths based on selective pushing of narratives aimed at whitewashing various Christian or Islamic regimes], I do think a debated, discussed, value system based on the "Hindu" is a good bet for preserving my freedom of thought and expression. Much better than the two imperialist ones now masquerading in India.
The other alternative is to have a debate on a common value system - to which all - Hindus, Christians, Muslim, Sikhs, Buddhists - theologians concur, or their "following" is okay with.
One way or the other - there will always be underlying values by which people, whether they be commons or ruling regimes and their organs of power - judiciary, executive etc, - who will fill up the gaps in practice never possible to cover by law books or the Constitution. The fight is over this underlying matrix of values - which has been cleverly and through sustained state sponsored educational campaigns, or legislative discretionary powers of interpretation, been made over to deconstruct Hinduism in such a way that leaves it open for predatory proselytization and eventual destruction, while jealously guarding and raising the image of the two imperialist ones.
____________________
brihaspati ->
matrimc ji,
Indian Constitution is only one part of the story of the issue of secularism in India. It contradicts itself on the question of attitudes towards religions, and in a way that is patently paralyzing for the state before any well coordinated imperialist manipulation of the system internally and externally. Which is exactly what has happened.
First it does not propose any independent set of values on which to measure or evaluate religious claims.
Second, it does not provide a fall-back or default option when religious values are insufficient or contradictory.
Third, it relies on terminology and phrases that are not always formally mappable to well defined concepts or are unambiguously constructable sub-concepts.
Its shows the irony that might result when Indians had tried to think like the British born incarnation-aspirants of Roman imperialism, based on a regurgituration of what had been taught as history by the British, desperately trying to find practical Indian memes and items that could be made to fit this fantasy.
____________________
Surasena ->
Theo_Fidel wrote:Bji,
How can you change what some fool organization thinks. You can not fund it or avoid its message. Beyond that society has to be robust enough to deal with these things. You want to seal everything into a hermetic bubble where nothing bad is said or done. You want to censor what folks say or believe, when the reality is we can only deal with actions.
This is a secularism thread yet even this place has turned into a relentless whine about Christian this or that. Is Hinduism really that fragile? In my experience not so. The Catholics constantly try to convert Protestants, the pentecostals try to poach every person they can, the mormons try to convert everyone, the hare-krishna crowd are every where with their tracts, one of my cousins now follows someone called Adi-Da, incredibly I had a buddhist who tried to suck me in at a karate meet of all things. We all put up with this constant drone. The USA/UK is now 1% Hindu and rising. Everyone is adjusting. Why this constant kola-vari.
Did the USA give up 1/3rd of its land for a Muslim nation without population exchange & genocide of white Christians?
Did the USA have an anti Christian inquisition like the one Christians ran in Goa against Hindus for centuries or the prolonged and brutal colonial Christian British tyranny?
Does the USA have separate civil laws for Muslims, haj subsidy, constant terror attacks and riots by Muslims?
Does the USA have lakhs of white Christian refugees rotting in refugee camps for the last 20+ years after being ethnically cleansed from an entire state by Muslims like the Hindu Kashmiris?
How was the USA built?
By Christian extermination of Native Americans.
So what exactly is comparable between India and the USA?
A fraction of the shenanigans that Abrahamics pull regularly in India will get their butts kicked badly in the "oh so tolerant" USA if Muslims or Hindus pulled the same. Let Muslims demand and carry out a Partition of UK or US with ensuing genocide of Christians, see how many Muslims these great "adjusting" saints of USA & UK will leave alive after that.
A couple of riots like Bradford riots and "grooming" have led to formation of groups like the EDL, these are kids play when compared with what pious Muslims are doing to Hindus everyday in India.
Hindus should always bend over, adjust, tolerate any humiliation, this is the essence of secularism it seems. Thanks but no thanks.
Wonder how well Americans would "adjust" to a Hindu terrorist organization demanding "South Carolina for Sri Krishna" the way NSCN-IM demands "Nagaland for Christ".