Vested Interests in India for Giving In to Pak Blackmail

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

all these policies of restricting certain individuals and groups from Pakistan is first about creating an ideological framework which demonizes whole groups. It is divide and conquer policy.

The mentality is all about building a hoop of fire and making people jump through them. Some will jump.

One thing we must learn from British and Islamics is that they force others to pay heed to their laws and customs. Every time a factory stops because a Muslim has to do his namaz, every time a university reserves a separate room for Muslim prayers, every time the Muslim is forcing the other to acknowledge the preeminence of his faith.

This is about forcing others to bend to one's own categories and laws.

Every time a Muslim, say a Mohajir, takes a visa from Indian Embassy which has a formal precondition about Pakjabis, Islamists and Ashrafs, he is recognizing our system and our categories.

This is what power is all about - forcing others to behave according to one's own whims one can call laws. It is about making Pakistanis dance to Indian tunes and not just those coming from Bollywood.

It is also about delegitimizing the authority of Pakjabis, Islamists and Ashrafs, whose identities are based on birth and ideology. What powerful foreign groups want is recognition as equals, recognition as spokespeople for all whom they claim to represent. What we are giving them is that we are rejecting their right to speak for all people. We are telling them their views may be those of influential people but to us they mean nothing. We don't consider them to be representatives of all Pakistanis. We would deal with Pakistanis as and how we want and they cannot force us into a certain policy.

Since we are clubbing Pakjabis and Ashrafs too with Islamists, we are letting them know that our categorization is not based on fear from them, but our own whimsical notions, and they better accept these.

[RamaY]

^ Thanks!

Thought So. Now we need to take this assertiveness to Bharatiya thread as well.

This is a (invisible) link between Islamism threads, this threads and Bharatiya/deracination threads.

[Prem]

IV Policy
All undesired elements in Poaqalland to be declared Unsecular and not allowed to visit India? Any speach referring to Islam , Kaffirs, Jihad, Muhamamd etc should be enough to disqualify him/her from Indian Visa eligibilty. SarvDharam Sambava statement to be given under oath and signed in the presence of First Class Officer.False statement to be considred felony with mandatory sentence for "Nine Month" in the Tihar Vihar Sabhyachar Vidyalya. Had they been alive,I am sure all the Dead Suffis would have nodded yes to this screening for their followers in Pooaqalstan.

[shiv]

Prem Kumar's post from another thread

Yet it seems increasingly obvious to me that there is a constituency in India which is largely comprised of, and held hostage to, the agenda of some members of the Ashraf Caste of Indian Muslims. Ashrafs are the Muslim Castes who proudly claim descent from a "superior" lineage of foreign pillagers. Ashrafs enjoyed special status under British colonialism, and laid the ideological groundwork for the creation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, even after partition, many sections of the Ashraf Caste did not go to Pakistan and transmute into RAPEs. A very large section of them stayed back in India, and for generations since independence, they have milked the system of state patronage and vote-bank appeasement for maximum profit.

Rudradev: a very valuable post. Its very important that we tear apart the veil of "Indian Muslims are largely different from Pakistanis". Its also important that we analyze the Indian Muslim population and identify the strata and faultlines, like you have illustrated above. However, a Ashraf-Ajlaf distinction might be a simplistic one.

Case in point: see the following post from another thread today. This is in TamilNadu:

Muslims want protection, curbs on Hindu processions

SP denies accusations of 'witch hunting' of Muslims and 'kangaroo court'. The president of the Jamaat of V.Kalathur demanded that the Muslims be given protection from the 'deliberate' actions of the police.

The State Minorities Commission was witness to a poignant scene involving the Muslims and the Hindus of V.Kalathur, a village in Perambalur district, on Tuesday. When the commission headed by Bishop M. Prakash had a sitting at the Perambalur collectorate, the president of the Jamaat of V.Kalathur demanded that the Muslims be given protection from the “deliberate” actions of the police. He pointed out that four streets in the village had a predominantly Muslim population and hence all that they wanted was that the Hindu processions avoid these streets.

There are no Ashrafs controlling this behavior. This seems like well organized local behavior. We see this everywhere - Assam, Bengal etc. We need to come up with a good model of understanding Muslims in India.

Is Islam itself a sleeper cell?

[Karan Dixit]

Let us say we have four people in a room - Mr TM1 (Tamil Muslim), Mr TM2 (Tamil Muslim), Mr TH (Tamil Hindu) and Mr BH (Bengali Hindu). In this scenario, it is very likely that either Mr TM1 or Mr TM2 or both will reach out to Mr TH and convince him by stressing their Tamilness that Mr TH has nothing in common with Mr BH. Mr TH falls for this and breaks all his ties with Mr BH. Now Mr BH is alone in the room. He can and is taken out easily. After that Mr TH is taken out. This is the tactic I have seen all over India. I used Tamils and Bengalis merely as example.

So while I agree that it is good to understand Islam but I think it is more important to understand why Hindus fall for this so easily.

[shiv]

Let us say we have four people in a room - Mr TM1 (Tamil Muslim), Mr TM2 (Tamil Muslim), Mr TH (Tamil Hindu) and Mr BH (Bengali Hindu). In this scenario, it is very likely that either Mr TM1 or Mr TM2 or both will reach out to Mr TH and convince him by stressing their Tamilness that Mr TH has nothing in common with Mr BH. Mr TH falls for this and breaks all his ties with Mr BH. Now Mr BH is alone in the room. He can and is taken out easily. After that Mr TH is taken out. This is the tactic I have seen all over India. I used Tamils and Bengalis merely as example.

So while I agree that it is good to understand Islam but I think it is more important to understand why Hindus fall for this so easily.

I think that is because Islam (and Christianity) as set up like clubs - or old boy's clubs where the religion is the school tie. Membership of the club cuts across all sorts of other boundaries including nationality and language, and those who are not from the school (and do not belong to another school) are "kafirs"

The whole concept of "kafir"/"pagan" was set up as "If you are not a member of this club, you are an outsider"

Hindus do not see themselves as belonging to a Hindu club - but frankly as a humanity club and a "living beings" club.

Secularism is a good way of dealing with this provided that we are clear that the religion club bloody well has to take a back seat. What the religions have done is to pepper Hindus with accusation of bigotry so that anything Hindu is bad and Hindu practices are bad and a Hindu demand is always bad because the old boys club of religion is invariably superior. Macaulayism reinforced the viewpoint among the educated. So there is guilt being attached to educated people who want to belong to a Hindu club - because they are such dastardly bigots. It is OK to belong to any other religion club.

[Karan Dixit]

Unfortunately, we do not practice true secularism in India. For example, a secular society will not tolerate Sharia law but India does. There has to be national level effort to educate Indians on the virtues of true secularism. Indians also need to understand the importance of Dharma. It is the Dharma which binds India.

[shiv]

Well, folks, let us define….”Secular”. Well, language is a funny thing. If day was called “night”, then night would be called “day”, right? “good” can be called “bad”, “bad” can be called “good”, what difference does that make? Its only language, only words. Take the word “sacrifice”. Some people think “sacrifice” means taking the trouble to do something for others or for a larger cause. Some think, it means slaughtering a poor helpless cow or an even more helpless goat, and that too slowly…..very slowly. So that brings us back to “Secular”.

Some people can think that “secular” is a synonym for corrupt. For cowardice. For looking the other way, when your wife is getting raped, or your sister, or your daughter or maybe….even your mother. After all, to retaliate against the rapist is, well, being an extremist isn’t it, perhaps disturbing the peace, or be disruptive to communal harmony. Or maybe, some people think being secular is, sweeping acts of extreme violence against our fellow man, under the rug, such as decapitations and torture, systematic conversion by force or through bribes, taking away of our communal property and territory. Sweep such acts under the rug, so that some people can go on robbing the same miserable victims over again via organized corruption misusing their positions of power. Forget about retaliation, even acknowledgments of acts of war against our people, Lord forbid, may interrupt this frenzy of corruption. So, we peddle the word, “secular”. We are secular, we should not retaliate, hell, we should not even acknowledge, in fact we should sweep all those acts by our enemies under the rug, lest our money making is interrupted, lest, our hollowing out of our national security apparatus which includes compromising of our intelligence, our armed forces, our weapon systems, all due to corruption, is found out. How can we go to war when our army and the Defense ministry bureaucrats and the politicians have bought artillery pieces that don’t work, bought planes that fall out of the sky, air force that has problems providing air cover in high altitudes or even at night, an army that is guarding a predominantly mountainous border but has no snow shoes or winter jackets. Wont it all be found out by the poor miserable suckers who we are looting in all other ways anyway? No, no. We cant go to war. We are “secular”, after all. What do you think we are? Those nutty “hindutva-vadis”? Those dhoti and tilak wallahs?

Now let us define the word “communal”. The “communal” is the one who simply wants the freedom to practice his own religion. He doesn’t want his religion attacked, his people considered inferior, his people used as easy prey for conversion, calls out those who indulge in religious warfare (jihad). The “communal” doesn’t attack another’s religion, doesn’t disrespect another’s religion, all he wants is to be left alone to practice his. The “communal” doesn’t believe that there should be less rights for other religions, he simple doesn’t want less rights for himself. He doesn’t even bad mouth other religions, leave aside proclaiming the exclusivity of his own. He of course is “communal”. This is not to say that there aren’t people in India who actually want to persecute other religions, but there are all of 16 of those. A few more than you can count on your fingers. Not even most Sadhu or Shankaracharyas belong to that category. But of course, every self respecting Hindu, who simply wants to be equal and be free to practice his religion is, a “communalist”.
So, words can be hijacked. Just because the word “secular” is hijacked, doesn’t make the hijackers, secular. People can be demonized by throwing words such as “communalists” at them. Doesn’t make the demonizers, secular and doesn’t make the victims, “communalists”. Victims are still victims. Hijackers are still hijackers.

Let, at least us, not fall into the word trap. If 70% of the population constitute the hijackers of the word “secular”, at least let us call them out. Secular can have many definitions, but secular cannot mean the exact opposite of the word. Secular can not mean "non-secular". Up is not down, life is not death, massive corruption of all kind and those condoning the extreme exclusivity of Islamists, cannot be “secular”. And self respect, cannot be called “Communal”.

[shiv]

Sangramji, interesting thoughts, but I believe you have forgotten the biggest example of hijacking of the word "secular" - and that is "Sacular means not Hindu" or "Hindu means not secular"

Hindu has been made synonymous with not secular, and the word communal has been associated with Hindus.

This is rape of the word secular.

Secular means non-religious. Religions are not secular. people who follow religions can choose to be secular.

if a person who follows a particular religion refuses to be secular because his religion tells him that secularism is wrong, then that person is not secular.

Technically any Hindu or any Muslim can be secular in his personal life. Hindu religious leaders tend to speak for secularism. This however is not true of all Muslim religious leaders.

However Muslim religious leaders in countries with secular laws sometimes do rationalize the status of Muslims by saying that secular laws of the land must be respected. But this is not true of Muslim religious leaders on most Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia has fundamentalist laws that would be called human rights abuses in western nations who cheerfully lick Saudi lollypop. Just goes to show what a cheap and changeable concept "human rights" is.

[member_23692]

Sangramji, interesting thoughts, but I believe you have forgotten the biggest example of hijacking of the word "secular" - and that is "Sacular means not Hindu" or "Hindu means not secular"

Hindu has been made synonymous with not secular, and the word communal has been associated with Hindus.

This is rape of the word secular.

Secular means non-religious. Religions are not secular. people who follow religions can choose to be secular.

if a person who follows a particular religion refuses to be secular because his religion tells him that secularism is wrong, then that person is not secular.

Technically any Hindu or any Muslim can be secular in his personal life. Hindu religious leaders tend to speak for secularism. This however is not true of all Muslim religious leaders.

However Muslim religious leaders in countries with secular laws sometimes do rationalize the status of Muslims by saying that secular laws of the land must be respected. But this is not true of Muslim religious leaders on most Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia has fundamentalist laws that would be called human rights abuses in western nations who cheerfully lick Saudi lollypop. Just goes to show what a cheap and changeable concept "human rights" is.

Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular. How ? By simply respecting all religions equally (not excluding his own, and I only put that qualification for Hindus, because it doesnt apply to persons following other religions, no other religion excludes themselves). A religious person can be secular when he or she accepts that there are laws for governance that can be not derived from any particular religion, because then it will be unjust to other religions. He however, practices his religion in the privacy of his home or his religious place of worship. This is true secularism. I for instance am not a secularist, even by that definition, but that is a secularist I can respect.

But secularism cannot mean self flagellation, self hatred, appeasement, kow towing, ignoring the atrocities committed in the name of other religions, tolerance of physical genocide, tolerance and condoning of cultural genocide (total conversion or mass conversion of people from one religion to another is certainly a form of cultural genocide), all motivated by a burning desire among the ruling classes to keep making money, money and more money, and supported by vote banks who also simply want to "extract, extort and take" (in the forms of subsidies and reservations) rather than through creation of a merit based society where there is equal opportunity for all. These people are not secularists, they are thieves, scoundrels, low lives and cockroaches, who have simply wrapped themselves around the word, "secularism", which gives them a cover to indulge in this orgy of thievery that they all indulge in. It is like Hitler calling himself a man of peace (I dont believe even Hitler ever called himself that, Chamberlain may have called him that) or snakes calling themselves tigers.

A muslim, as you say can also be secular in theory, but only if he takes a radically different interpretation of Islam than is currently prevalent even among the most liberal Islamic sects such as the Barelvis or the Ahmediyas. Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity. Hindus for instance dont have that problem. Hindus are permitted as per any interpretation of Hinduism to respect other religions as much as their own and accept civil laws not derived from Hinduism. Therefore, it is not true that there is an equal-equal between Hindus and Muslims. There is no logical contradiction in a Hindu being a practicing Hindu and also be secular, while there is a logical contradiction between being a practicing Muslim and being secular. That is exactly the reason most practicing Hindus are secular, barring an extremely small number, while most practicing Muslims are not, barring an extremely small number.

And most Muslims dont even claim to be secular. If you leave aside Shabana AAzmi and 3/4 of Javed Akhtar, I think you would be hard pressed to find any muslim who even claims to be secular. And we all know that Shabana and Javed are liars of the first order.

So, true secularists, I can respect while disagreeing with them. And I only disagree with them in the current time and context. When Islam and other religions have re-interpreted their doctrine to allow for co-existence, then even I will become a secularist, but not until then. Nevertheless, a true secularist even in today's context, I can respect. But just like I said about true extremist Hindus, there are all of 16 of them in India, I think true secularists are all of 15 in India, not any more. The rest are all scum, using the word secular as a cover to continue to loot, rape and pillage their country, their people and all of us decent people.

[shiv]

Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular.

You are confusing the word "secular" with the definition of a secular person. A secular person can be deeply religious and still be secular.

Secularism means non religious. Please look at the dictionary. Your ideas are not wrong but you are mixing up the word "secular" with behavior of people who may or may not be religious and whose behaviour may or may not be secular.

Please stop and have a think about what you are writing.

[RajeshA]

Considering the polico-philosophical nature of this "secularim vs. communalism" discussion, I have cross-posted it to the "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread.

Please continue it there.

[member_23692]

Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular.

You are confusing the word "secular" with the definition of a secular person. A secular person can be deeply religious and still be secular.

Secularism means non religious. Please look at the dictionary. Your ideas are not wrong but you are mixing up the word "secular" with behavior of people who may or may not be religious and whose behaviour may or may not be secular.

Please stop and have a think about what you are writing.

You are right.

I just want to qualify here that whenever I used the word "secular" I was using it in the context of a person or people. I was trying to define a "secular person", not the word secular. I couldnt care less, what the dictionary meaning of the word "secular" is.

So, I should have written, "A secular person doesnt mean, non-religious......and so on".

[shiv]

Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity. Hindus for instance dont have that problem. Hindus are permitted as per any interpretation of Hinduism to respect other religions as much as their own and accept civil laws not derived from Hinduism.

Sangramji, let me pose a question to you

If a Muslim behaves secular, he may realize that he is doing what is unislamic. He may still continue to behave secular. If a Muslim does that, surely it is the responsibilty of other Muslims and a Mullah to nail him and punish him, isnt it?

It is not your responsibility to do that. In fact, if a Muslim behaves secular and you understand that he is taking a risk by opposing Islam, should you not welcome that as a good sign of a thinking person?

Let me answer my own question, and I request you to read my answer before you post your take on the question.

In India, when a Muslim behaves secular, his behaviour can be observed by both Hindus and Muslims. Let me list their reactions separately:

A. HINDU REACTION TO SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Trusting reaction: This Hindu says "Hey here is a secular Muslim. Muslims can behave secular. I don't know whether he is going against his religion or not and I am not bothered as long as he behaves secular"
  2. Suspicious reaction: Here the Hindu says "Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. Either this guy will be in big trouble or he is a pretender - a muslim spy whom I should be wary of"

B. MUSLIM REACTION ON OBSERVING A SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Not my problem reaction "This guy does things not strictly allowed in Islam. It's his problem I do that sometimes/I don't do that ever"
  2. Traitor to Islam (Mullah) reaction: ""Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. This guy should be punished"

The curious thing here is that both the suspicious Hindu reaction and the Mullah reaction are similar. The reaction is based on Quranic/Islamic awareness and does not take into consideration the possibility of free will and desire on the part of the Muslim who is behaving secular.

Is this secular-behaving Muslim secular? Should he be welcomed or treated like a Trojan horse? Should we curse the Mullah who may punish him and plan to neutralize the Mullah's actions and support the secular behavior. Or should we take secular behaviour among Muslims as a sign that they are double agents waiting to force Islam on us?

[ramana]

Arya Samaj has shown the way in the early 20th century. Many Pakjabi Muslims changed their way. However they and to settle far away from the Pakjab.

[member_23692]

Sangramji, let me pose a question to you

If a Muslim behaves secular, he may realize that he is doing what is unislamic. He may still continue to behave secular. If a Muslim does that, surely it is the responsibilty of other Muslims and a Mullah to nail him and punish him, isnt it?

It is not your responsibility to do that. In fact, if a Muslim behaves secular and you understand that he is taking a risk by opposing Islam, should you not welcome that as a good sign of a thinking person?

Let me answer my own question, and I request you to read my answer before you post your take on the questi

The curious thing here is that both the suspicious Hindu reaction and the Mullah reaction are similar. The reaction is based on Quranic/Islamic awareness and does not take into consideration the possibility of free will and desire on the part of the Muslim who is behaving secular.

Is this secular-behaving Muslim secular? Should he be welcomed or treated like a Trojan horse? Should we curse the Mullah who may punish him and plan to neutralize the Mullah's actions and support the secular behavior. Or should we take secular behaviour among Muslims as a sign that they are double agents waiting to force Islam on us?

Sir,

You seem to be implying that I am in someway doubting the integrity of a muslim person who claims to be both muslim and secular. Before you protest that you are not implying anything, just asking this question would mean that you have a question in your mind that I "MAY" question that person's integrity. Well, my response to you is, why do you even have that question ? Where in all of my long posts do you see me question a muslim person's integrity when he claims to be secular. What I did say was that it is more difficult, even almost impossible for a practicing muslim to be truly secular. This does not mean that if a muslim "claims" to be secular, I disbelieve him. It doesnt mean that I believe him either. But my trusting that person doesnt depend merely on what the Quoran says or what he says. My trust in him also depends on many other factors, such as the person's background other than his religion, his individual character, his history and so on. The fact remains that despite the concept of Taquiyya, I have found that in most cases, even Muslims who lie through their teeth on a lot of other matters, have a very hard time pretending to be secular. There are very few cases in percentage terms, where Muslims even claim to be secular, even false claims. The percentage is a little larger in India or other countries where Muslims are a minority, for obvious self serving reasons. But even in these countries, you scratch the surface a little bit, and the truth comes out. In India though, I have found quite the opposite of what you are implying or questioning. I personally and India in general to an even greater extent, is too eager to believe and trust a guy when he claims to be a secular muslim. Where in India do you find examples of undue suspicion of Muslims in ANYTHING they say, leave aside their claims of being secular Muslims. The question you asked is a typical "manufactured grievance" question that Muslims are past masters at. Indeed if it did not come from you, I would have termed it exactly, that - " a manufactured grievance". This is the sort of question that would come from self-serving, muslim appeasing politicians such as Nehru, Rahul Gandhi, Digvi Singh, Mulayam Singh, Lalu and more recently even Nitish Kumar. I am by no means implying that you have been a victim of "indoctrination" by the canard spread by these so called "secular" politicians. But living in India we all breathe the same dirty air and drink the same dirty water. So, every now and then, the best of us slips, like you have in this instance, merely by raising that question (one of the very few instances, I have known you to slip). You may have inadvertently provide succor to a "manufactured grievance" in this case.

I do grant you one thing though. I am a little more skeptical, but just a little more, than most Indians, when I encounter a claim of "secularism" from a practicing muslim. This is because of my deep interactions since childhood with Muslims and also the fact that I have read the English translation of Quoran and even some Hadiths. But again, I want to emphasize that it is only a little more skepticism than a normal Hindu, which I think is healthy, and I think we in general should be a little skeptical. But that doesnt mean that we should not be totally welcoming of a muslim secular person in our society, once we are convinced that he is indeed what he claims, through words and deeds. Let me give you two examples, even if they are extreme examples, but they do make my point clearly. If His Excellency Abdul Kalam claims to be secular, I would have no problems in believing that, since his entire life and his entire background completely proves that. On the other hand, if Javed Akhtar or Shabana claim to be secular, I will be extremely skeptical. But admittedly, these are extreme examples, there are a whole slew of people who fall somewhere in-between Abdul Kalam and Shabana, who we would recognize as each being secular in different degrees. I mean, even Shabana, as bad as she is, will not be, I believe (but I can be wrong), a 100% comfortable with everything if she were living in the bowels of Taliban country for example or in the harems of Gulf Arabs. So, there is a nuance here as well, of the degree to which a person can be secular.

[RamaY]

The curious thing here is that both the suspicious Hindu reaction and the Mullah reaction are similar. The reaction is based on Quranic/Islamic awareness and does not take into consideration the possibility of free will and desire on the part of the Muslim who is behaving secular.

The above curious behavior comes from the following
1. Secularism is an idiotic construct, if it is understood as defined in the example given. If a person becomes secular based on what/where/how one eats and dresses up, then I only pity the people who build a national constitution based on such "secularism".

2. The Hindu doesn't know when/where/how/for-what the Islam in the "secular" muslim wakes up. Will it wake up when the individual want to marry 2nd women or to divorce his 4th wife, or when some one in a corner of Afghanistan burns Quran or a christian/communist in denmark makes a cartoon of Muhammed or when a Hindu girl in Pakistan/Afghanistan does not wear burkha or when Govt of India goes to recapture PoK or when he burns and insults Amar Jawan memorial when Bangladeshi muslims are conflicting with Burma and so on.

The response of Mullahs is something between the Muslim, his Mullah and Muhammed. It has nothing to do either with the Hindu or Secularism (however idiotic it is).

[shiv]

You seem to be implying that I am in someway doubting the integrity of a muslim person who claims to be both muslim and secular.

No actually you are doubting the Muslim credentials of a Muslim who behaves secular and saying that if a Muslim behaves secular he is ignoring the tenets of Islam and being unislamic. You are making the same judgement as a Mullah might be expected to do. Why are you displaying this Mullah like zeal in detecting the depth of Muslimness of a Muslim who behaves secular? Why is it your business to do that? Shouldn't you welcome Muslim behaviour that ignores the tenets of Islam rather than quoting from Quran and saying that this fellow is not Muslim?

This is what you wrote

A muslim, as you say can also be secular in theory, but only if he takes a radically different interpretation of Islam than is currently prevalent even among the most liberal Islamic sects such as the Barelvis or the Ahmediyas. Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity.

[member_23692]

^^^^^^^

The difference is

I dont consider a muslim who follows the Quoran literally to be a good and moral person.

The Mullah doesnt consider a muslim who doesnt follow the Quoran literally to be a good and moral person.

[shiv]

^^^^^^^

The difference is

I dont consider a muslim who follows the Quoran literally to be a good and moral person.

The Mullah doesnt consider a muslim who doesnt follow the Quoran literally to be a good and moral person.

No disagreement. But when you have a person with a Muslim name who is behaving secular and not like a Muslim why should you get him into trouble by doing the Mullah's job and passing expert comments by saying "This fellow with Muslim name is not behaving like a Muslim". That is what you have indicated in your post when you said:

Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity.

To me it appears that you believe that the minute a man with a Muslim name behaves secular he is no longer a Muslim. Should you not be happy about this rather than going about announcing that this fellow is not a Muslim because he is behaving secular? If you do that the man may be killed. Why are you acting as a force to drive secular behaving people back into the arms of Islam by passing Mullah like comments about their behavior being unislamic? You are behaving like a Mullah in effect. This looks like a tremendous self goal to me.

[RamaY]

How could mullah like people have a life-threatening hold over a citizen's life in a secular country?

[AbhiJ]

Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity. Hindus for instance dont have that problem. Hindus are permitted as per any interpretation of Hinduism to respect other religions as much as their own and accept civil laws not derived from Hinduism.

Sangramji, let me pose a question to you

If a Muslim behaves secular, he may realize that he is doing what is unislamic. He may still continue to behave secular. If a Muslim does that, surely it is the responsibilty of other Muslims and a Mullah to nail him and punish him, isnt it?

It is not your responsibility to do that. In fact, if a Muslim behaves secular and you understand that he is taking a risk by opposing Islam, should you not welcome that as a good sign of a thinking person?

Let me answer my own question, and I request you to read my answer before you post your take on the question.

In India, when a Muslim behaves secular, his behaviour can be observed by both Hindus and Muslims. Let me list their reactions separately:

A. HINDU REACTION TO SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Trusting reaction: This Hindu says "Hey here is a secular Muslim. Muslims can behave secular. I don't know whether he is going against his religion or not and I am not bothered as long as he behaves secular"
  2. Suspicious reaction: Here the Hindu says "Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. Either this guy will be in big trouble or he is a pretender - a muslim spy whom I should be wary of"

B. MUSLIM REACTION ON OBSERVING A SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Not my problem reaction "This guy does things not strictly allowed in Islam. It's his problem I do that sometimes/I don't do that ever"
  2. Traitor to Islam (Mullah) reaction: ""Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. This guy should be punished"

The curious thing here is that both the suspicious Hindu reaction and the Mullah reaction are similar. The reaction is based on Quranic/Islamic awareness and does not take into consideration the possibility of free will and desire on the part of the Muslim who is behaving secular.

Is this secular-behaving Muslim secular? Should he be welcomed or treated like a Trojan horse? Should we curse the Mullah who may punish him and plan to neutralize the Mullah's actions and support the secular behavior. Or should we take secular behaviour among Muslims as a sign that they are double agents waiting to force Islam on us?

Anything beforehand, Islam is a double-edged sword. Only Allah's Supremacy matters at the end of the day.

The base should always be the Quran/Hadeeths for Muslims, even from Kuffar POV. Since the Muslim secular/non-secular out of his desire/taqiyyah is going to be judged by Quran in the end. Going by anyother reference will only hurt the interests and security of the Kuffar.

The Islamic beast should be made naked on the street. If the burkha of secularism wrapped Moderate Muslims get embarrased, its non of our concern. The circus of WKK+Secular Muslims is only masquerading the Islamic beast as a trojan horse for some or as means for cannibalizing Kuffar interests. We should stay sheer away from the circus.

The Islamic beast after eradicating the Kuffar will heap on the WKK+Secular Muslims+ anything left Unislamic who does not submit to Allah. The Secular Muslims + Munafiqs can always plead and say Allah-oh-Akbar and return to the true path. The friends of peaceful Islam will be taken out to achieve Dar-al-Islam.

At this stage, we should throw the WKK+Secular Muslims+Munafiqs in the mouth of the Islamic beast to temporarily feed his hunger rather than becoming the fodder. That would set the stage for WKKs to return to the fold or become wajib-ul-qatl as he can no longer mask the Islamic beast for Anti-Hindu intentions.

[AbhiJ]

No actually you are doubting the Muslim credentials of a Muslim who behaves secular and saying that if a Muslim behaves secular he is ignoring the tenets of Islam and being unislamic. You are making the same judgement as a Mullah might be expected to do. Why are you displaying this Mullah like zeal in detecting the depth of Muslimness of a Muslim who behaves secular? Why is it your business to do that? Shouldn't you welcome Muslim behaviour that ignores the tenets of Islam rather than quoting from Quran and saying that this fellow is not Muslim?

Islam is like a dormant virus(as concluded from Javed Akhtars case). It can rise up anytime in the Non-Muslim Muslim. The fear of persecution on the Judgment Day will make it very difficult for a Muslim deviate from the path of Islam. Its only When will the fear ignite in his mind?

Having a secular Muslim away from the tenants of Islam would buy temporary peace but would not hamper the Islamic design by an iota.

Removing the unknown fear from the minds of Muslims would help in pushing back the Islamic design as such.

You cuddle them, they puddle you:

[RajeshA]

Shouldn't you welcome Muslim behaviour that ignores the tenets of Islam rather than quoting from Quran and saying that this fellow is not Muslim?

shiv saar,

I am not really convinced of this. I personally feel an orthodox less-educated Muslim looking after his karobaar is a safer bet than a "secular" educated Muslim, due to the Islamic Slingshot Effect.

[AbhiJ]

Shiv ji,

Once such puddle for today:

Cross Posting:

I'm glad that this closet Islamist Tasleema did not find shelter in India for long.

[member_23692]

The difference is

I dont consider a muslim who follows the Quoran literally to be a good and moral person.


No disagreement. But when you have a person with a Muslim name who is behaving secular and not like a Muslim why should you get him into trouble by doing the Mullah's job and passing expert comments by saying "This fellow with Muslim name is not behaving like a Muslim".

To me it appears that you believe that the minute a man with a Muslim name behaves secular he is no longer a Muslim. Should you not be happy about this rather than going about announcing that this fellow is not a Muslim because he is behaving secular? If you do that the man may be killed. Why are you acting as a force to drive secular behaving people back into the arms of Islam by passing Mullah like comments about their behavior being unislamic? You are behaving like a Mullah in effect. This looks like a tremendous self goal to me.

Shiv,

I think you are groping more and more in thin air. Despite agreeing with me on everything, you are being a typical "argumentative Indian", just looking for an argument where there is none. So, let me sum up your objection in one sentence. You just dont want me to "announce" to the world that a secular muslim is no longer a muslim.

This may come as news to you, but a Mullah already knows that a secular muslim is no longer a muslim, far before I ever came up with that hypothesis. In fact, I wouldnt have known about it, had the Mullahs not been acting in that manner. It was to understand this very behaviour of Mullahs that "a secular person is not a Muslim", which I encountered first as a child, I started to research and read Quoran and other Muslim scriptures to check if these Mullahs had any Quoranic basis for behaving in that way. So, Mullahs already know, and as high an opinion as I have of myself, the Mullahs dont take any education from me.

So, then you may argue, as a good argumentative Indian, that Ok, Mullahs may already know that a secular Muslim is not a muslim, but he may not know that "A Particular" individual is a "secular muslim" and that I am in essence "outing a particular secular muslim" to be then killed by the Mullahs. Well, presumably, this secular muslim is not acting secular in the privacy of his own home. He will be acting secular out in public, will he not ? You are thinking that all secular muslims are spies for the Hindu nation and acting in secrecy, which is not true. I can understand if you dont want me to "out" a spy, but most secular muslims are already "outed" by their behaviour. I am not outing them. In fact, before I will ever even find out that a person is a secular muslim, the mullahs have already got that person pegged, a 100 times over. I am not some sort of an intelligence agency that has advance information of muslims even before the Mullahs.

Lastly, I am not announcing anything anywhere except for in this forum. That is what this forum is for, right ? to talk. This is not a pure "propoganda" forum where we only give out propoganda and minsinformation, is it ? (I dont dispute that there is a need for a propoganda forum too, but I dont think this forum is it and secondly, a propoganda forum has to be quite sophisticated and sublte to be effective, it cannot be brazenly known as a "propoganda forum")

The whole idea that a secular muslim is not already on the target list of the mullahs and will get on it by MY pointing it out is ludicrous, to say the least and I am surprised that someone with your intellect would make a trivial argument like that.

I personally think that there is a greater need to educate NON-MUSLIMS why it is hard for a practicing Muslim to be a true secular, so that they are beware of the "Taqqiya" and I think the advantage of spelling this fact out clearly is far far greater in terms of Non-Muslims understanding the true nature of Islam, compared to the almost non-existent threat that somehow spelling out clearly the true nature of Islam will somehow bring more condemnation on a secular muslim from the mullahs. What more will the mullahs do ? Cut a secular muslims throat even more slowly ? or stone him/her to death twice ?

[RajeshA]

This may come as news to you, but a Mullah already knows that a secular muslim is no longer a muslim

This is not true. As long as one calls oneself a Muslim and does not belong to a sect apparently considered deviant like Ahmadiyyas and is not working for enemies of Islam, so long he would be accepted as a Muslim. His being Muslim is not put into question.

What is put into question is whether he is a "good" Muslim or not! If not, then one is considered munafiq!

So "secular", "moderate", "progressive" Muslims are all Muslims. Mullahs too would not question that. No Mullah in Islam is really busy throwing out Muslims out of the fold, regardless of how tentative the Muslim's relationship is with the mosque. Only those are thrown out who in name of Islam propagate a deviant form of Islam contrary to doctrine. Then they become a liability for the rest.

What we see in Pakistan however is a purification, a distillation process. That runs on different principles.

[shiv]

I think you are groping more and more in thin air. Despite agreeing with me on everything, you are being a typical "argumentative Indian", just looking for an argument where there is none. So, let me sum up your objection in one sentence. You just dont want me to "announce" to the world that a secular muslim is no longer a muslim.

sangramji your detailed analysis of my motives for questioning your posts may indicate some irritation - but they are unnecessary fluff as part of a reply to my question.

Are you saying that a Muslim cannot be secular, or that if he is secular he is not a Muslim? I am merely asking you whether or not a secular Muslim can be considered to have left Islam. If he has left Islam we must celebrate. If you say he has not left Islam it means that a Muslim can behave secular and still be Muslim. You did agree that it is possible to have religious beliefs and behave secular didn't you?

How would you explain the paradox your own argument has created without characterizing me as something or the other - because that constitutes sidestepping my question.

You don't need to love Islam or Muslims. Or even love me. Just explain the paradox your views have set up. Are you saying that Muslims leave Islam temporarily to behave secular and then rejoin Islam? But that is unIslamic too, isn't it. You have read the Quran and all.

[member_20317]

Secularism does not mean non-religious. A religious person can also be secular.

You are confusing the word "secular" with the definition of a secular person. A secular person can be deeply religious and still be secular.

Secularism means non religious. Please look at the dictionary. Your ideas are not wrong but you are mixing up the word "secular" with behavior of people who may or may not be religious and whose behaviour may or may not be secular.

Please stop and have a think about what you are writing.

Only if a muslim interprets Islam to mean that it allows for co-existence among all religions and permits civil laws other than that of Sharia, can he be a secularist. A very high bar indeed. To be fair, taking such an interpretation will be going totally against what is clearly mentioned in the Quoran. To begin with it would mean a total doing away of the concept of "Kafir", Jaziya, Taquiyya etc. Then he might as well not remain a muslim, as he as given up the essence of Islam - its exclusivity. Hindus for instance dont have that problem. Hindus are permitted as per any interpretation of Hinduism to respect other religions as much as their own and accept civil laws not derived from Hinduism.

Sangramji, let me pose a question to you

If a Muslim behaves secular, he may realize that he is doing what is unislamic. He may still continue to behave secular. If a Muslim does that, surely it is the responsibilty of other Muslims and a Mullah to nail him and punish him, isnt it?

It is not your responsibility to do that. In fact, if a Muslim behaves secular and you understand that he is taking a risk by opposing Islam, should you not welcome that as a good sign of a thinking person?

Let me answer my own question, and I request you to read my answer before you post your take on the question.

In India, when a Muslim behaves secular, his behaviour can be observed by both Hindus and Muslims. Let me list their reactions separately:

A. HINDU REACTION TO SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Trusting reaction: This Hindu says "Hey here is a secular Muslim. Muslims can behave secular. I don't know whether he is going against his religion or not and I am not bothered as long as he behaves secular"
  2. Suspicious reaction: Here the Hindu says "Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. Either this guy will be in big trouble or he is a pretender - a muslim spy whom I should be wary of"

B. MUSLIM REACTION ON OBSERVING A SECULAR MUSLIM

• 1. Not my problem reaction "This guy does things not strictly allowed in Islam. It's his problem I do that sometimes/I don't do that ever"
  2. Traitor to Islam (Mullah) reaction: ""Wtf? This guy is a Muslim, but he is behaving secular. I know what Quran says and Quran does not allow him to miss azan, or eat during daytime in Ramzan. This guy should be punished"

The curious thing here is that both the suspicious Hindu reaction and the Mullah reaction are similar. The reaction is based on Quranic/Islamic awareness and does not take into consideration the possibility of free will and desire on the part of the Muslim who is behaving secular.

Is this secular-behaving Muslim secular? Should he be welcomed or treated like a Trojan horse? Should we curse the Mullah who may punish him and plan to neutralize the Mullah's actions and support the secular behavior. Or should we take secular behaviour among Muslims as a sign that they are double agents waiting to force Islam on us?

Two exciting posts by shivji
First one describes what is Secular and how it is a part of life going on to establish the centrality of ‘Secular’ to the everyday life.
Second one illustrating the pragmatic aspect of it in everyday interaction esp. in the stickier issue of handling a ‘Secular Muslim’.

I am a Matri bhakti. So while I love shiv ji I still have to do what the mother says is good. So here goes.

Shiv ji, your application of something that is non-religious to help a man yoked to difficult limitations on account of his religion is by itself a great effort. At least you took the effort to help us understand your aims unlike some others who just gave up easily. My query is:

1) There are 4 types reactions in your illustration. Out of this universe of reactions two are by people subscribing to a religious outlook (2 knuckleheads). How would ‘Secularism’ help these guys without them having to shoot themselves in the head.

2) Even if we take the definition that ‘Secularism means non religious’, how does it account for Javed Akthar ji who is very Secular by his own claims but is entirely unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2 knuckleheads. Hell he treats both knuckleheads as 400% same to same, which I presume would not be agreed to by the 2 knuckleheads. Is there something that is still unaccounted for by Secularists. Something that allows a Secularist to behave more religious then the religious.

3) About your definition-illustration combo, establishing the indispensability of Secularist approach are there certain other aspects of the illustration that are not stated but that nonetheless flow from, perhaps a definition half unsaid/unused. Basically I want to understand if there is any scope for change in the definition. A change that may manifest a new reaction not yet illustrated by you.

4) Further how do the reactions pan out. I am quite religious. I am certainly more religious than I am secular (Amendment 43 notwithstanding). The way I see it:

i. Hindu Secular has no problems since he did what a good secular must do. Help the Muslim Secular and push back the 2 knuckleheads.

ii. Hindu fundoo has a dharm sankat in his hands and will most likely conclude that he needs to focus on his dharm instead of living the other guys’ wishes. He is in any case limited in his choices. Apparently the other 3 types do not want to agree with him.

iii. Muslim Secular will either backtrack and become a Muslim Fundoo or he too will decide that he needs to take charge of his own life without reference to what others think.

iv. Muslim fundoo has no options he must follow his deen as understood by himself and not understood by anybody else.

So the query is, where is the problem? Would I be wrong in presuming that the problem is with the Hindu Secular because the other 3 are by force of habits/circumstances going to choose the path they are willing to bet on.

5) Supposing the Hindu fundoos outnumber all the other 3 guys put together by say 5 times. What would these 3 guys do when they get their own backside on fire. Worse still what if these 3 guys begin to fight among themselves?

6) Supposing and this is strictly CT (to indulge one of our fellow members), Muslim fundoo has the support of ‘foreign hand’. What should the other 3 guys do. Since this final one is a CT joke, what if all 4 are only pretending and nobody really is what he claims to be.

[ShauryaT]

Ishqiya: tumhara ishk ishk aur hamara ishk sex?

New India needs a secularism embedded in institutional commitments

For those who care about secularism, the politics of who can be labelled secular is a puzzle. Secularism sometimes seems to be reduced to an ineffable quality of the heart. Secularism as a personal virtue is the idea that the individual does not harbour invidious prejudice against particular communities for being who they are. This is an important virtue. But in India this personal virtue has been such an unreliable guide to the institutional practice of secularism. This is what deepens the puzzle. How do people come to be marked as secular in political terms? If people make the transition from being allegedly non-secular to acceptably secular in political terms, like L.K. Advani apparently has but Narendra Modi has not, what are the markers of this transition?

This question is complicated. Religiosity has never been a marker of secularism in India. Some deeply religious people can be good political secularists; many non-religious characters have been perfect charlatans on secularism. Being secular used to be identified with a historical orientation: subscribe to one single Congress-Left narrative of Indian history. This was a paradoxical position. It recognised that avoiding religious strife was an important political task. But it went about this task by disavowing the idea that there could have been genuine religious difference and conflict in the past. It sanitised, almost as if to say that the truth of Indian secularism needed the lie of Indian history. Where secularism lost out was that both secularists and non-secularists were fighting on the terrain of the past. It was something of a liberation when some finally recognised that let history be history, and let it be argued out as such. Crafting a forward-looking community of fate, bound by common values, would be ill served by the narrow interpretations of the Left or the fanatical ones of the right. And so the irony that the Indian political system did not know what to do when figures like Advani and Jaswant Singh took a rather more complicated view of Jinnah. At first, it made them anti-national, then it seemed to have shored up their secular credentials.

The third marker might be institutional behaviour. But here the story gets puzzling. Rajiv Gandhi's regime, in a short span, took more anti-secular decisions than any government had in living memory, achieving the rare feat of making every community feel targeted. You might ask the question: which government has gone by its rajdharma in the face of imminent riots? Even the redoubtable Tarun Gogoi seems to have a difficult time preventing the largest internal displacement of Muslims. Here the record turns out to be mixed. The Congress's legendary inaction for four days during the Mumbai riots, documented by the Srikrishna Commission, is up there in the abdication of rajdharma. And how can we certify that Narayan Rane or Chhagan Bhujbal's change of heart was more genuine than that of any other lapsed secularist who professes now to be secular? Are Muslims less likely to be targeted for being who they are in terrorist investigations or riots in Congress-ruled states? The evidence from Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan suggests not. Then there is the question of how close you have to be to communal forces to vitiate your secular credentials. Why does the fact that NDA allies did not pressure Vajpayee more forcefully to act against Modi not count against them on the secular question?

There is a nauseating use of the 1984-2002 pair in public argument. One side says, since 1984 happened don't ask questions about 2002. The other responds by saying Rajiv Gandhi has passed away, while Narendra Modi is a live political issue. But here is the problem. What do you make of a government that appoints a CBI director who gives Tytler a clean chit as governor? You don't have to prejudge Tytler's case. But the appearances are damaging to justice and erode trust. You have to wonder why this act of messing with institutions does not warrant the communal tag. You have to wonder why clamping down on art in Baroda University is communal, but clamping down on free exchange of ideas on the Jamia campus is not. Is it because of a construction of secularism that regards it as a matter of ineffable intent, not one that assesses institutional conduct? Or is it a version of the hilarious line from Ishqiya: tumhara ishk ishk aur hamara ishk sex?

The point is not to pick on the Congress. Despite its veneer of pedigreed gentility, it is rotten enough to be an easy target. The point is this: it is worth reminding us why the terms of ideological discourse are still very much set by the BJP versus Others, not by the Congress. Nitish has his opportunistic calculus. But his speech could draw lines in the sand more convincingly than Rahul. The second point is more conceptual. Secularism has been conflated with a rather shadowy personal virtue that seems to survive all kinds of institutional perfidy. Even within the BJP, what distinguishes Advani from Modi? After all, Advani's autobiography gives the same narrative of 2002 that Modi does. Or is it simply that secularism means consecration by passage of time? Often, secularism is a kind of gesture of reaching out, as Nitish Kumar hinted: recognising that the topi has the same place as the tilak. Faced with the organised violence of rightwing mobs, this is a valuable gesture. But this politics has limitations. It rests on creating coalitions of fear: the topi being swamped by the tilak. It rests on boxing people into identities, which you then protect. It does not recognise that a robust secularism now needs a new institutional language: one founded on individual freedom, dignity, rule of law, building institutional accountability and so forth. This version of secularism also personifies it: the knight with benevolent intentions providing protection. This was Mulayam Singh's model: a benevolent protector presiding over a rotting state structure, secularism embedded in his persona even while the institutions that should embody it go to the dogs.

Modi's own answer to the question on the meaning of secularism was bizarrely off the mark. Secularism, he suggested, means putting India first. It aligned secularism with some kind of personal loyalty test, a move with an insidious history. But again, missing the element new India needs: secularism embedded in a series of commitments — individual rights, freedom of expression, dignity, equal treatment by the state, rule of law. But then he might be forgiven. Between opportunist cant and ineffable virtue, the institutional foundations of the idea long disappeared. Which is why the three-cornered fight over secularism seems a contest between the shallow, the hollow and the callow.

[shiv]

Is there something that is still unaccounted for by Secularists. Something that allows a Secularist to behave more religious then the religious.

This might be the real problem. People who call themselves secularist are often more fundoo religious than the next guy. I had illustrated this in a sarcastic article i had written and posted some years ago about the Hindu fake liberal. I think Brihaspati - in a recent post mentioned a similar observation in which he said that some Hindu secularists basically hate Islam and Muslims and need an India Pakistan conflict to remain unsolved because it allows them to draw lines between what they hate about Islam while claiming to be oh so secular. If Brihaspati reads this - I apologise for any misinterpretation.

About your definition-illustration combo, establishing the indispensability of Secularist approach

Actually I was not aiming to illustrate the "indispensability" of the secularist approach. All I was trying to say was that "secularism" in the Indian context is a mode of behavior. Hindu secularists have assumed that they should suppress Hindu religiiosity to be secular. Muslims have no such hang up, They simply say burger off and stay religious and claim that secularism cannot touch their religion. they are right in a sense. It is the self-defined secularists who are wrong.

There is a third group of Hindus (the vast majority actually) who are perfecty and openly religious - but that religious Hindu behavior accepts and allows secularism in the guise of pluralism and "sarva dharma sambhva". The open Hindu behavior of these people offends the secularists who feel that "Open Hindu behaviour" needs to be suppressed for secularism. This is rubbish. You can be fully religious and behave secular in your interactions - say in a shop or workplace. The Muslim on the other hand, with his sense of grievance sees Hindu behavior and Hindu symbolism everywhere in India. India is still steeped in Hindu culture and some Muslims find the entire world (including the signs of Hinduness) as alien and unIslamic that calls for jihad. That too is bullshit that is unacceptable.

I am not calling the following as a "solution" but I think it may be a start:

Secularism is needed only for interactions like government and business. Everyone should be
1. Openly religious
2. Be perfectly free to express what they dislike about the other religion

The former seems to work in India. The latter is suppressed for Hindus in the name of secularism, while Muslims are allowed to say what they oppose about any other religion simply by quoting their holy books which are deemed to be above criticism by common consent. This situation is not secularism.

It is astounding that unsecular people have grabbed the "secularism" word and given it a political identity in India.

[RamaY]

Apologies if posted already!

Liberal mask slips and ugly Islamist face for everyone to see.

[ShauryaT]

Secularism is needed only for interactions like government and business.

True and that too each government has varied "conventions" of the use of that word. From a legal perspective in India it means "equal" respect to all faiths - not the concept of a divorce between the state and faith groups, as practiced in say the United States.

There is another question that is associated here, Secularism has a particular history in the context of organized church and its struggles in European nations. We neither share this history nor the concept of organized and exclusivist faith organizations. Which does beg the question - Is secularism even applicable in the Indian cultural context?

Truth be told, Secularism has become a tool to appease the "foreign" inspired minority communities in India, for a majority of the Indian people, cannot figure, what the hell is the fuss all about, in the name of Ram!

[shiv]

There is another question that is associated here, Secularism has a particular history in the context of organized church and its struggles in European nations. We neither share this history nor the concept of organized and exclusivist faith organizations. Which does beg the question - Is secularism even applicable in the Indian cultural context?

Truth be told, Secularism has become a tool to appease the "foreign" inspired minority communities in India, for a majority of the Indian people, cannot figure, what the hell is the fuss all about, in the name of Ram!

When secularism was defined in Europe, religion in the community was all Christianity and in the community there were few or no religious differences. So "communalism" as seen in India was less likely in most instances (except in some pockets like Ireland)

In India there are open religious conflicts in the sense that anything Hindu is anti-Islamic going by strict Mullah definitions. The solution for this cannot be suppression of Hinduism as seems to be promoted by secularists. Is it a coincidence that secularists are often also Macaulayites for whom the western colonial model of suppressing any pagan religion as required was standard procedure. The same secularists have tried to bend over backwards to promote as rigid a practice of Islam as possible by allowing 4 wives and easy divorce (so Hindus convert out of sheer randiness) and subsidized holiday in Saudi (thankfully now opposed by Muslim groups themselves).

Secularism in India has set up Indian Muslims to be poster boys for "freedom in Islam" while Hindus are required to treat Muslims like temporary guests who must not be offended.

[RamaY]

^ yet we want secularism in the preamble of constitution, demand that the discussion forums remain secular and propose that Hindus should accept the "secular behavior" of minorities at the face value lest they will go back to the loving hands of Mullahs.

[RamaY]

Modi's own answer to the question on the meaning of secularism was bizarrely off the mark. Secularism, he suggested, means putting India first. It aligned secularism with some kind of personal loyalty test, a move with an insidious history.

Idiots galore!

So far we have seen multiple definitions of secularism on this forum as well as in public, government, media and constipational discourse. Let us see if the above stamens stands to the logic in these definitions or not,

1. Secularism is separation of church/religion and state: why this was done? To ensure that the state is loyal to Comstitution and the nation and the church/religion cannot work against that constitution or purpose of nation-state. Let us assume a scenario where the state that is politically representing the nation is at odds with a religion that doesn't accept the stand taken by the state. Who is paramount in that scenario?

2. Secularism is equal respect for all religions: By whom, is the question. If the answer is "state" then what happens in above scenario? If it is by the individual (a) what role the state has in ensuring the citizenry is secular in their social transactions and (b) who is the legal arbitrator when the indivial's religion is at odds with state or with other citizens?

In both definitions the final arbitrator in the event of conflict between state and religion is not defined, and thus left to the individual or most effective "coercive" element; Shivji says it would be Mullah w.r.t Muslims.

Narendra Modi says that the final arbitrator is state and the individual must put state ahead of religion.

And people blame he is not secular.

[ShauryaT]

Shiv ji: True, our "deracinated" leadership has latched on to secularism as the answer to a communal issue, which was not what this concept was all about. IMO: We should have gone about it in other ways than latching onto a western framework to manage the issue. However, we need your aunt who had a dick, for such things, unfortunately the only dude who had any remote chance to pull this off was too old and wasted by the time these things came to a head. Also, for every mad mullah out there, there is no dearth of mad Hindutvadis to scream their lungs out as they know fear and tribal affiliations are weapons most powerful in a democratic polity.

[shiv]

Shaurya I believe a course correction is still possible and desirable, if delayed. People who howl that they are themselves secular while others are communal need to be called out and shown a mirror. Particularly Hindu liberal secularists have simply appropriated the word secular while they are as communal as they come. Their main defence is to accuse other Hindus of being communal and be non committal about the question of secularism and Islam.

The question comes back: If you are a devout Muslim can you also be secular without facing the wrath of your religious leaders who have control over your family life?

If the answer is no, you cannot be Muslim and secular, what the fuk are the self defined secularists of India barking about?

[RajeshA]

Secularism is needed only for interactions like government and business. Everyone should be
1. Openly religious
2. Be perfectly free to express what they dislike about the other religion

The former seems to work in India. The latter is suppressed for Hindus in the name of secularism, while Muslims are allowed to say what they oppose about any other religion simply by quoting their holy books which are deemed to be above criticism by common consent. This situation is not secularism.

It is astounding that unsecular people have grabbed the "secularism" word and given it a political identity in India.

This is exactly what secularism means. It is obligatory for the state to provide its services to its citizens independently of their religious affiliation - security, justice, rights, education, health, retirement benefits, utilities, administrative services, etc.

NOTHING more than that belongs in "Secularism".

We have discussed at length in the Bharatiya Thread, that a Rashtra should additionally act as a facilitator for progress of the native civilization of the nation - Bharatiya Sanskriti. This of course can in fact be packaged without taking recourse to "religion".

The question however is can a state give preference to a religious community, can present itself as representing a particular religion and still be "Secular"?

In Britain, the Sovereign, the Monarch is the Head of the Anglican Church, and still UK calls itself secular. In Germany the state collects the Church Tax from the people for the Church, and still Germany calls itself secular. United States of America proclaims often that its policies are guided by Christian values and still they call themselves secular.

I am giving these examples simply to point out that it is possible for State to show a particular preference for a religion and still be considered secular. One can call it "Weak Secularism".

Under this definition for the State to be considered secular it suffices for it to be impartial to a citizen's religious affiliation when providing him its services even if the State is partial to a religious community as a whole in terms of preference and support.

Recapping:

• Hard Secular: State does not allow any expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens and religious groups alike. (France, ex-Soviet Union)
• Soft Secular: State allows free expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens and religious groups alike.
• Weak Secular: State allows free expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens alike but gives preference to one religious groups over the other.

I think India is a "weak secular" state, which in itself is not wrong, but what is wrong is that it gives preference to Islam and Christianity rather than the religion of the native civilization - Sanatan Dharma.

Many states which practice "weak secularism" actually do it in spite of proclaiming themselves as "soft secularists". Indian State calls itself "soft secular" but is actually "weak secular".

It is because of the perverted "weak secularism" of India, where Islam and Christianity are given preference and support, that practicing communalists, Islamists and Christianists, can claim the 'secular' label.

[shiv]

Recapping:

• Hard Secular: State does not allow any expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens and religious groups alike. (France, ex-Soviet Union)
• Soft Secular: State allows free expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens and religious groups alike.
• Weak Secular: State allows free expression of religion by its citizens in public life. It treats all citizens alike but gives preference to one religious groups over the other.

Rajesh, while I agree with this beautiful classification I object to somethng about it which I will explain.

As an analogy, you find that a whole lot of Indians, Eurasians, central Asians and Europeans are all positive for the R1 genetic haplotype marker. Pakistanis too are positive for R1. But as you go into more detail you find R1a R1b, R1a1, R1a7 etc that tell a different story.

The word "secularism" in all three definitions of yours is the equivalent of the unqualified name "R1".

Everyone is secular.

But for India we need to go into more detail and say what is wrong with that secularism. For that reason your definitions are perfect, but your nomenclature helps obfuscation. I say this with confidence because I know drug companies in India deliberately use a similar trick which helps unethical drug sales.

For example they popularize one drug that is sold as under brand name X. Because X is poplar they want to make sales of new drug Y ride on the X brand name. They then market drug Y as X-a. Then when they need to market drug Z, they promote it as X-b

So your nomenclature looks like
Hard Secular
Soft Secular
Weak Secular

All being secular, it allows Indian non secular secularists to hide behind a label that gives them an unfair advantage and screws everyone else - particularly Hindus. Hence I worry about your nomenclature. A minor point - but the fact is that a whole lot of Indian political groups cover themselves with a fake cloak of secularism and your nomenclature does nothing to uncloak them