The Secularity of India

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka #111 I checked urstruly`s post #43 after reading your post saying it made you think. I would be interested to know exactly what it made you think.

Author
You seem to have not done your homework at all - I agree with whoever says that you wanted to write a piece for sole purpose of inflamming.

You missed out a very significant discrimination which the Indian Constitution makes on basis of religion. In the Constitution, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists are designated majority and all others are designated `minorities`. Minorities can own their own religious places, religious institutions, own educational institutions teaching their religion. Hindus as the majority cannot own their own temples, cannot run religious institutions, or own educational institutions teaching their religion.

All these provisions were debated in the Indian Constituent Assembly, those debates and who said what are available for all to see what was the reasoning or compulsion behind these provisions.

If this and the issue of different civil laws are being used by you only to hit Indians for being un-secular, as you are doing, fine, thats your loss. It isn`t as if you have demonstrated any interest in the basic reasons why these provisions came about the way they did and what are better (and politically feasible) solutions.

#86
I guess you`re right about the UCC making india not ``truly`` secular. The alternative is a fascist state that forces people to adapt - kind of like the secular state of turkey. I think i`d rather live with a not-so-secular state than a fascisitic one.
India is a grand experiment that is trying to bring together a multitude of nations, peoples, and religions together. The only way to make that experiment succeed is not be dogmatic about things. What works is what we need (altho many things don`t work).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tahmed,

You had raised the issue of Muslim personal laws in India, and how their presence
is inimical to a real growth of the community. I tend to somewhat agree with you,
but with a big caveat. Any change to the stauts quo has to come from within the
Muslim community - anything else will be seen as an infringement.

It`s not just the mullahs who want to retain it. Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, one
of the most eminent social observers and activists in the country, is actually
rather strongly in favour of retaining these laws. He is not a mullah by
any stretch, and has an exceptionally secular attitude in most matters.
Never quite understood why he supports them (the references he gives for
his argument are from the Quran, and well beyond my reach); I tend to think
that he is not alone among the Muslim intelligentsia on this delicate issue.

The govt needs to engage in political consensus building with Muslims across the
board (not the token Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid) and try to bring change from
within. Perhaps economic growth in the community will aid the process. We cannot
just do a Turkey and repeal the laws; it needs a more deft touch.

#116 by rahul_capri
On second thoughts, you are right about not prolonging the debate because we have already made our points. :) Thanks.

#100 by rsridhar
Talk about why you are telling people what to talk about.

Response to 100, rsridhar

You loose respect as soon as you start calling your opponents by non-serious names like idiot. I can call you “ullu ka ……” but that is not my forte! And what does that give me nothing but sheer disrespect from others. That was just a word of advice. I can bet you that you don’t do this in your professional life.

To answer your comments:

In USA there are problems with the proper definition of the term secularism. However the intellects have realized their mistakes and things are moving in the right directions. And since you live in USA you must have read/heard of removing the 10-commandments plaque from various government places. There is a lawsuit to remove the term “under God” from pledge of allegiance. To my understanding the word God will be removed soon from all the government notes/buildings/documents soon.

This is quite contrast to India where there is not even a realization of the problems that cast doubts about Indian secularism. Babri Mosque/Gujarat Incident/ Chruch burning/ Sikh killings etc are PROBLEMS that should be addressed effectively before you can call India a secular country.

And yes the definition of secularism was not handed down by “God!” But we all follow some dictionary. Please consult the dictionary you follow and look up the word “secular.”

Here is a quote from your posting “It is difficult to separate religion from state.” This is quite the contrary to secularism. In a secular country you have to do this.

Another quote from your post “What is needed in India is a proper understanding of all religions so that each religion is respected.” This is quite true. However the state’s constitution is the ultimate law. The constitution must protect all the people regardless of their religion/faith. SO if a mosque is burned it should be allowed to be constructed again without hindrance/delays. If a Sikh kills a Hindu leader then all the Sikhs should be protected regardless of the cost. The killer however should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This is the difference I was pointing out before. If USA is as non-secular as India then there should have been a mass killing of Muslims through out USA similar to what happened to Sikhs when Indira Gandhi was assassinated.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#111 by stuka on June 4, 2004 9:34am PT

”I agree. Urstruly`s post 43 is indeed a good one and makes one think.”

I beg to differ here! His post needs more than a cursory look, if you think it makes you “think”.

Urstruly is recycling an old theory that just sounds “reasonable” but has no legitimate logic to it. Mostly, He has replaced words Islam and Muslims with Hindu and Hinduism.

He claims that Secularism become popular in Europe when Christian’s “REJECTED” their faith as a measure of Moral values. The struggle in Europe was about the political rights over the state between the people and the church. It was not a war against “faith” per se. Christian values and faith still reign supreme in daily life in most of the western hemisphere. Christianity or Christian values/faith do not dominate the collective way of life or in other words now they do not interfere in running a state.

He further claims “when their religion failed them to address their problems”; The issue was never whether religion failed them or not. The issue in Europe was the political power of the religious leaders. Through out the history Christian’s have never claimed Christianity the religion as a “Complete way of Life” that current Muslim Scholars claim. There is no concept of religion being a complete “Zabta-e- hiyat” in Christainity. The Muslim argument implies that Islam is a complete way of life, therefore Islam does not need any other western inspired ideals to govern Muslim majority countries.

“Are Hindus rejecting Hinduism as their moral compass as well “- Urstruely.

This is another fallacy in his argument. Does Hinduism provide an all encompassing/collective moral compass? It may provide for some values for personal interactions to become a basis for social intercourse between the people but Hinduism AFAIK does not call for the kind of collectivism that is the main plank of neo-Islamic scholars.

“Is Hinduism not tolerant enough to accomodate all others and thus be rejected as a way of life”- Urstruley
Hinduism never declares to be a way of life. So, its tolerance is not derived from the “way of life” theory. It is tolerant to other religions and faiths as common folks are. Hinduism never asks for conversion and that implies that it is tolerant in the community. Islam calls for conversions to grow. Thus, it has a limited tolerance to other religion and faiths.

IMO, Indian Secularism is not some rigid and community ideology. It provides a voluntary minimum standard of social behavior in a multicultural and multi-religious society. It is not a replacement of religion. Secularism is mostly a personal attribute. It can’t be a state decreed creed and that is the distinction people constantly fail to make. There is no dogma attached to secularism. The Indian secularism is not competing with religions for space. It is just providing space to followers of different religions to co-exist.

In contrast to the third standard level of this article, here is a real report on indian politics and secularism.

---

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=48245

All of Avadh’s yesterdays


Good times are in for the Cong in UP, provided it can take over SP’s votebase


AMARESH MISRA



The Uttar Pradesh election result sums up the trends seen during the last 14-odd years, beginning from the time of the Mandal-Mandir phase in 1990. This phase began with the decline of the Congress, the rise of the BJP, Samajwadi Party and BSP. The wheel seems to have turned full circle with the BJP’s decline; but the Congress has yet to rise and the SP and BSP have improved their respective tallies. What kind of a larger picture can be drawn from this confusing scenario?

The Congress realises it can only sweep UP once Mulayam Singh Yadav is finished politically. The freakish nature of support and conflict between the Congress and SP — at the national and state levels — reflects the tussle going on in UP. Indeed, Sonia Gandhi’s resignation and street shows of support are in part aimed at wooing voters in the state. Sonia’s fresh martyr-like stature is bound to generate the much needed intervention from above for a party suffering from a crisis of poor infrastructure.


This intervention would have generated little response, say, in the 2002 Assembly elections. Now the situation is radically different. There is a perceptible shift of the Brahmins, Dalits and Muslims towards the Congress. This is not reflected in the numbers of seats (nine) won by the Congress or its vote share (12). Yet a pro-Congress revival is stark.

Muslims have made the decision to come back to the Congress. In a high profile meeting at Barabanki, before the May 5 polling, Muslims of Avadh decided to vote for Mulayam but garlanded two Congress leaders, one Hindu and the other a Muslim, as their future candidates.

Muslims are slowly edging out Mulayam not just because of his pro-BJP tilt. There is a new mood, a sort of backlash against the caste-communal politics of the previous years. Muslims see an opportunity to defeat the BJP decisively with the Congress weapon. At the same time, they visualise a revival of UP’s composite culture or Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb.

The recent May 30 rally of Shias and Sunnis in Lucknow, against American intervention, is a case in point. Lucknow is known for its Shia-Sunni conflict. The city is less than 100 km from Ayodhya, site of the Babri Masjid demolition in Avadh, the heartland of Ganga-Yamuni tehzeeb and Hindu-Muslim religious disputes. But, remember that the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute began in 1855 under British rule but only two years later Avadh witnessed a great show of Hindu-Muslim religious and cultural unity against infidel firangees.

The May 30 demonstration saw Hindu Dharmgurus rubbing shoulders with Muslim Ulemas once again against firangee (in this instance America). The Hindu Dharamgurus were very specific in saying that today Muslim religious shrines are under attack in Iraq, tomorrow Hindu shrines can be targeted in India.

This kind of surprising, often unbelievable developments is part of the post-2004 general election mood. Even elite Brahmins echo this sentiment. The Brahmin tilt towards the BJP was due to the climate of insecurity generated by the social churning and the rise of backward power groups following the Mandal trauma. That threat has passed. It is important to remember the UP Brahmin sees his role in the national perspective.

Dalit posturing, though invincibly pro-BSP, has undergone an important shift. Only bad handling by the SP made Valmikis and Pasis, two large non-Chamar groups (they constitute about 10 per cent in a total Dalit population of 21 per cent), veer towards the BSP at the last moment. Even then, sections of Pasis and Valmikis, even Chamars, especially in eastern UP, voted for the Congress and SP. Dalit are increasingly looking at non-BSP options.

The writer is the author of ‘Lucknow: The Fire of Grace’

1956 ammendment to hindu family law (thanks gujju for a summary) here

http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/hsa.html

Interestingly, hindu law is applicable to all ``local`` religions (hindu, jain, buddhist, and sikh). Main reason for 1956 ammendment was 1) to abolish sectarian variations in hindu law and 2) to bring in gender equality.

Hindus apparently had little unrest at the time of these ammendments. Currentlly, the ``Hindu Undivided Family Trust`` thing is used by a few marwari and bussiness families (not clear what the benefits are) according to a lawyer i talked to, but mostly inheritance of non-ancesteral estate is secular. For ancesteral dwellings, there is an interesting thingy which makes it sexist.. here it is (i think this is what notme alluded to). this is why, duaghters are supposed to get ``dowry`` equivalent of their share of the dwelling at the time of marriage..fathers kind of know that the male brothers will not give up stuff easily. Patak family male brothers of pickles fame in UK argued their case in UK claiming hindu succession, but offcourse failed as the british-sahib court tossed it out as naitve mumbo-jumbo.

23. Special provision respecting dwelling houses
Where a Hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both male and female heirs specified in class I of the Schedule and his or her property includes a dwelling-house wholly occupied by members of his or her family, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the right of any such female heir to claim partition of the dwelling-house shall not arise until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein; but the female heir shall be entitled to a right of residence therein:

PROVIDED that where such female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling-house only if she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is a widow.

Muslim family law is onother matter..it is also sectarian.

re:#121 by asfand
This is the end of my debate with u. I can`t debate with morons.
sridhar

i`m there K

gladly khamkhwa watever the hell `takra` means

nikki man shuddup already