Secularism and Liberal Democracy

Re: # 48
Please enlighten what difference would it make if a government collects data from religious organization or through people.

The information you get from khalsa leader is wrong. Can you tell what did government achieve by creating haryana. India is divided into different states mostly on linguist lines. Just like Maharasthra, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana. This is to make life easy for people who has to interact with government authorities. Akali Dal loses and wins election.

Re: # 45

``Are you saying that India is not a secular state? I may agree with that…. ``

how would you define a secularaction ?

like france, which would ban religious symbols from every religion.

or subsidize/treat everyone equally.

in mumbai, i have seen portraits of hindu gods in gov. offices, but these are not gov. policies. these are individuals who do that. tomorrow if a muslim occupies the office and puts a photo of mecca no one would stop him.

i have seen muslims wearing skull caps at work.
state muslim employee offering namaz in the gov. state bus building complex.

last year maharashtra gov. gifted land to a dargah of afzal khan, this guy was the same person who came to kill shivaji when his empire was in a nascent stage.

indian gov. has been subsidizing hajj pil. now have started with amarnath too.

but does these make the country less secular?

i think when we talk about secularism it is about equal oppurtunity to all, irrespective of which religion a person belongs to.

BTW, according to your definition even turkey, malaysia would be classified as non-secular , and singapore too (?)

also, i do think we are a ``secular`` country because of commies and ``secular`` parties keep fighting the ``communal`` forces to fulfill the dreams of the founding fathers ;)

Neti,
Check the census numbers...I think currently Sikhs are 60% in Punjab but only about 5% in Haryana. So it may be 50% 50% in one province but I am sure demographics are different after almost 40 years.
Okie dokey… Here it is…

http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Summary%20Sikhs.pdf

03 Punjab 24,358,999 Sikh 14,592,387 59.9%
06 Haryana 2 1,144,564 Sikh 1,170,662 5.5%
02 Himachal Pradesh 6 ,077,900 Sikh 72,355 1.2%

Samosa,
Aap kiyon Naraz hota hain…

How did you know I don`t have guts? my Xray is attached below.

There is no need to provide the web site…You tell me if there is something wrong with the statements that I quoted… As I told Jang I am getting this info from Khalsa leaders and I have no interest in publishing their email addresses. But if you search hard you may stumble upon their web site too. Until then bear with my post w/o web sites… I am not obligated to post that info but I did glean some info from different web sites.

Abb meri chai thandi ho goi! No more help for Khalsa….

The first line of your celebrated link said” The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations.”
Collecting info from the people and from the religious organizations is different…the US does collect religion information but not on census forms…


Neti dada,

``then how would that help sikhs? ``

Look at the census numbers...I was not advising sikhs then:)

Re: # 39

``The language bogey was raised to counter the Sikh demand. ``

Assuming sikh demand was a punjabi state. if present punjab consisted of haryana and h.p. don`t you think that sikhs would been in minority?

then how would that help sikhs?

they would been in minority in greater-punjab itself.

Re: # 45
the parsi gannawala would be sad if you consider him parsi and not iranian zorosthrian.
dont you have guts to produce the website address for your post #31.
You like to quote usa for not including religion in their census then take some time in clicking the following link. US Census Religion.
Its very simplistic to think that there would be no need to common civil code by simply eliminating religion census.
I though do agree that indian consititution is not truly secular as long it determines or defines Hindu.
Punjab and Harayana were split on linguist lines just like gujarat and maharashtra.

#41 by dost-mittar

Are you going to stick with it or you want me to post some more stories?

“The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections in December 1954 returned a verdict totally in favour of Punjabi Suba.”

Punjabi Suba demand started in 1954…. When did arya Samaji Started?

Are you going to say that the following never happened…

``Hindi Hindu Hindustan`` was the famous slogan of Punjabi Hindus, matched by ``Dhoti Topi Jumna Paar`` by the Sikhs.


#42 by Netizen
“I am talking about those who reside in Haryana: devi lal, bhajan lal, chautala. the language they speak is no punjabi.”

Before Haryana the language was called Punjabi… Afaik, There is no Language in India that is called Haryanvi. There is a definite Hindi influence on Punjabi so probably they speak a mixture of Punjabi/hindi/urdu like Punjabi in Delhi do…

“Indian national flag itself has a religious symbol: the buddhist dharma-chakra, kaalchakra”

Are you saying that India is not a secular state? I may agree with that….

Jang,
``a stick to beat ``hindus`` with ;-)``

Khalsa power is with me so watch out....I will also send a request for Parsi Ganna to beat hindus up... :)

#41 the misunderstanding is for those who attempt understanding. for some its just a stick to beat ``hindus`` with ;-)

HP:

Indian national flag itself has a religious symbol: the buddhist dharma-chakra, kaalchakra

Re: # 39


``Punjabi Hindu too spoke Punjabi, no Haryanvi… ``

I am talking about those who reside in Haryana: devi lal, bhajan lal, chautala. the language they speak is no punjabi.

Punjab:

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what happened in Punjab. There was never any movement called, Maha Punjab [there was a marginal Vishal Delhi movement, which would have combined today`s Haryana with Delhi]. And the Arya Samajis did not ask for Punjabi to be in Devnagri script; if they had, there may have been less bitterness. There stance was totally absurd, which was that their mothertongue was Hindi and not Punjabi, which they called merely a ``boli`` and not a language.

It all started when Chief Minister, Partap Singh Kairon, implemented the two-language formula in Punjab. Punjab was to be a bilingual state with a Punjabi and Hindi region. In the Punjabi region, roughly corresponding to today`s Punjab, all kids were to learn Punjabi first and Hindi starting in the third or fifth (I am not sure!) class. In the Hindi region, roughly corresponding to Haryana and Himachal, kids were to learn Hindi first and Punjabi, starting at a later stage. The Arya Samajis launched an agitation against this formula. They wanted completed freedom for the parents to choose any language regardless of the region in which they lived; in other words they wanted Hindus the freedom to not learn Punjabi. It was this refusal by Arya Samajis, which consolidated the Sikh support behind the Akali demand for a Punjabi Suba, basically constituting Sikh majority districts. Before this, Akalis were always in a minority and the Congress Party, which supported the two-language formula, won most of the Assembly and Parliamentary seats in Punjab, including predominantly Sikh seats.

An amusing aspect of this battle between the supporters of Punjabi and Hindi was that the battle was fought primarily in Urdu, which was the language most understood by Punjabis who went to school in Pre-Partition Punjab. The Punjabi fight was led by Master Tara Singh`s Urdu newspaper, Parbhat, while the Arya Samaji Mahasha`s newspapers were Partap, Milap and Veer Bharat. The walls of the cities were also littered with mostly Urdu posters of the two sides.

Mantolives #27: ``To preserve secularism in multicultural societies in the east where religious emotions run high,.....Ultimately it is about getting justice, equality, impartiality and fairplay... for all without distinction. This is what is called ``Rule of Law``.

If you are saying, what I think you are saying, the I would have to say you are on the right track.........

Anytime people get addicted to any ism - secular, religion, caplital etc. - they go off-track. For the simply reason that all ism have so many built-in contradictions that one has to literally have an ideological belief in them, to support them. In addition, there is no system to keep them in place, without taking into account the social direction of the populace.....

I don`t think, secularism, as a philosophy will last too long, in some parts of the world. The way it is set up is too contradictory. It is impossible to have the Church in private life but not in public life. Or vice-versa. It is an unnatural balance, i.e. God got it correct in personal issues, but not in public issues. What kind of God is correct only 50% of the time?

Depending on the country, one will take over the other. Either the country will move towards athiesm, socially (like Europe) or towards religion (like USA). And eventually this is bound to show up in politics.........

The aim of any society, in my opinion, thus, should not be an ideological desire to take religion out of politics. That is as ridiculous as trying to force religion into politics. The aim of a society should be to ensure that all citizens get an equal right to justice, economic growth etc. regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, political leaning. This is an impossible task, but as long as it is, ``relatively`` achieved, it is good enough. Even in such situations, some groups like gays etc. will end up getting shafted (no pun intended).

Simply taking religion out of, or putting it into. politics, is neither here nor there. Secular govts. can be as evil, or as benign, as religious ones. The aim should, thus, be to take inhumanity out of politcs. The motivation for which can be drawn from anywhere - secularism, hinduism, islam, athiesm, etc..........

It is a huge grey area, and people who provide sure black and white solutions, based on secularism or religion or anything else usually do not understand the complexities of this grey area, nor the complexities of the societies in which the grey areas exist............

Neti dada,

Nobody speaks Haryanvi…I have so much information on this subject that I can drown people in the documents. The language bogey was raised to counter the Sikh demand. Punjabi Hindu too spoke Punjabi, no Haryanvi…

“one state that truly was going to be divided along religious lines is J&K. the ladhaki buddhists are demanding self-governance for a long time.”

If they can prove that it is a majority demand…they should be given not only self-governance but sovereignty… Imo, Kashmiris would just love it….

Dr. Dasgupta:

A constitution, if framed by representatives of the people, is bound to reflect the ethos of the population. The framers of the US constitution, were themselves Christians who represented a Christian population. They wanted to separate church and state because of the intra-christian rivalries of Europe, but they had no problems with religious Ten Commandments common to all sects and jews. They also had no problem with ``In God we Trust``. These are now causing some problems because of the presence of other religons, but mostly because of the increase in the number of atheists and agnostics in the US who seem to be left out in the acceptance of God in the constitution.

``The framer of the Indian constitution, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a mental giant at par if not bigger than Jefferson, drew up a huge but very appropriate constitution for India. That hasn’t stopped interfaith violence, but the general framework is agreed upon and acceptable to most. Several people think that it goes too far in secularism by not only having no link between the state and religion (whichever one you may think
off) but also allows its citizens to have a personal civil legal code which is separate according to religious lines (something which is very rare in the world).``

I am not sure if Dr. Ambedkar would agree with this assessment. What you point out to is ``not going too far in secularism`` but not going far enough. It was not Dr. Ambedkar`s idea but Nehru`s reward to the Muslim ulema for the Congress-Ulema alliance in the pre-partition India. By allowing religion to have a say in the state laws and education, the constitution set the stage for the future growth of Hindu nationalism on the slogan of pseudo-secularism. It also set the stage for Madrassa education, especially those supported by Saudi Arabia, which lay more emphasis on religious teachings, than they do on academic excellence. I am surprised that you are presenting a weakness of the constitution as its strength.

To be successful, a constitution must reflect the ethos of the population. The US constitution reflects its judeo-christian ethos as does the Canadian constitution. The consitutions of Pakistan reflects its Islamic ethos as will the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The constitution of Turkey does not, but it was imposed by a popular dictator and did not represent the will of the people. One could say the same thing even about the Indian constitution, as it was framed by the western educated elite. It still works because the constitution does not go against the Hindu ethos of religous pluralism.

Jang,
I am working with some nice folks of Khalistan:)

Actually they will do all my posts on this subject so that we can have some fun with Harimau…

Next item on agenda Mahant of the 1920s... remember them, Jang?

Re: # 20

HP:


``The issue is secularism and religion is related to that…If you ask about people’s religion you are nowhere near secularism… Have you seen the census form in the US?
Asking about sex and age is important. Asking about religion is not kosher. ``

every country has its own parameters to define. in u.s. how many significant religious minorities are there? maybe as the diferent religious groups become more significant things may change. anyway, i don`t think gathering information about religion of a person cons can make a nation non-secular. india right now doesn`t even know whether the gov. should keep off with all religious groups or equally subsidize all of them.

``Don’t even start me on this… You know what I am talking about and whose pictures are in Railway minister’s office and he is not the only person. ``

thats true. you will see pictures/murtis in offices. as well as in police patrol vehicles. i was just curious whether you saw anything on a gov. building.

``Punjab was divided on religious bases; Haryana is Hindu and Punjab is Sikh. You seem to be missing lots of pages from the Indian History…It was a fascinating tale before Punjab became Sikh and Haryana became Hindu…But that is not the issue here. ``

punjab like bilingual Bombay was divided on linguistic basis. punjab is sikh majority but the ratio is 60:40 its not overwhelmingly sikh. the other parts were haryanvi speaking haryana and pahari/himachali speaking himachal pradesh. in fact since then many more states have been carved out of bigger states like uttaranchal, jharkhand, chhatisgarh. telangana, vidarbha are on the waiting list.
nevertheless regarding punjab, there was a grouse that certain punjabi-speaking areas have been left in H.P., dr.lokraj will be able to throw more light on it.

one state that truly was going to be divided along religious lines is J&K. the ladhaki buddhists are demanding self-governance for a long time.