The National Interest

National Interest: Secularism is dead!

By Shekhar Gupta in Indian Express:

The headline is misleading. Though inside he went on to write about India’s secular credentials, but I can understand his compulsions to please someone up put a juicy headlines. This is what called news-traders attitude.

Have these people ever been to real college, or if they claim to have been studied journalism, where History is a subject. These borders are ignorant, prejudiced, narrow minded and  dangerous liars has different motives.

“We the people” have the right to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – and we can claim these right on our own, not dictated to us by a small, sinister political/news traders.  

ONLINECLASSES 

What is secularism?

In India anything that is anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim or pro-Christian is called 'secular'. True secularism will be seen when all citizens are treated by the state exactly the same - no special privileges to anybody! Please do write about such truly secular ideas!! When will we get one set of laws that every equal citizen of the nation has to follow? When will identity based Vs economic status based government programs, departments, ministries get shut down?

In every other country of the world, that is the definition of 'secularism'. It means 'equal citizenship' for all. It does not mean special rights for minorities. It means if you are poor, you will get help to prosper. It does not mean if there are a few of your type, you will be helped to multiply until you replace the host culture.

Indian Muslims can, in fact, complain that over the decades, they have been taken for granted and offered a minimal political deal in return for their votes: to give them physical protection from the Hindu right. I know some will argue that even that promise was never really kept. But the truth is, the Muslim vote has been hostage to fear. Explaining why he had joined the BJP now, M.J. Akbar said to me that in the “Congress/secular” view so far, the Indian Muslim had to conform to one of three stereotypes: the decadent, decrepit feudal with sherwani fraying at the collar, as portrayed in the 1960s’ “Muslim socials” like Mere Mehboob, a riot victim like the crying Gujarati with folded hands in that infamous 2002 portrait, or a petty criminal in the image of Haji Mastan, even if sometimes with a sacrificing heart of gold. Read More

The author also should have taken little more time to talk to Shahi Imam of Delhi also and questioned him what was he said in 2003. To remind the author’s memory hole, let me put it.

Pointing to Congress leader Arjun Singh, he said, "It was his party that triggered the Ayodhya controversy. They opened the locks, performed shilanyas and the [Babri] mosque was brought down during their regime. In 1984, his partymen instigated anti-Sikh riots."

"What secularism are you and your president [Sonia Gandhi] talking about?"

Turning to Lok Janshakti Party chief Ram Vilas Paswan, Bahujan Samaj Party leader Arif Mohammed Khan, dalit leader Udit Raj and others, he said, "The Paswans and Mulayam Singhs rule after we vote them to power, but it is we who are the ultimate sufferers."

DAYTON-FREIGHT-LINES 

What your article or the author actually fails to see is that now people of India have aspirations in tangible material terms. They would not be so distracted by identity politics based on religions. By no means are they talking about secular ideas. There is no wave of thinking that carries practical separation of state and religion. Secularism is the concept of equal citizenship. How can a nation that permits polygamy for only one religion's adherents ever even claim to be secular?

People of our country want a leader who does not misdirect, misguide them and promote secularism and equality of religion, they want to see real development and the legal accountability of the government as to where from the  money in the form of tax is been spent, is it for their welfare or not.  

If you like the post, give your opinion and share it. Thanks.