There is always a big gap between theory and practice, theology and history. Indian constitution, no doubt, is one of the best in the world. It is truly secular in spirit so much so it was secular even when word secular was not added to it until 1975 i.e. during emergency. If it were truly implemented India would be an ideal country to live in especially for minorities, both religious as well as linguistic.
However, as we all know there is big gap between theory and practice, constitution and governance of the country. India was far more peaceful after independence for number of reasons. Firstly, nationalist leaders who had participated in freedom struggle and were instrumental in framing the Constitution were still around and despite various pressures, stuck to ideals and values to a great extent.
Secondly, due to idealism and nearness to spirit of freedom nation as a category and national identity was of great importance and often caste, linguistic and religious divisions mattered less. Thirdly, the process of economic development had just begun and yet people’s demand for share in development on caste and communal lines was not very articulate and loud.
Because of all this identity politics was still subdued and Marathi versus non-Marathi, Tamil versus non-Tamil sentiments were not so prominent. Hindu versus Muslims feelings were not so subdued due to memory of partition but due to other factors communal violence was still limited and had not assumed proportions of ethnic cleansing or genocide like in Gujarat in 2002.
It all began with series of communal riots in sixties assuming great proportions in Ahmedabad in 1969 and Bhivandi in 1970. In Ahmedabad nearly 1000 people were killed in Ahmedabad in 1969 and around 400 people in Bhivandi. But then communal violence remained in check until 1977 when again some major riots took place in several places like Jamshedpur, Aligarh and Varanasi etc.
Again whole of decade of eighties was full of communal violence climaxing in Mumbai riots in 1992-93. The Ramjanam bhoomi movement once again polarized as on the eve of partition. Again there was lull in communal disturbances from 1992-93 to 2002 when Gujarat took place in 2002. Gujarat riots once again made communal situation quite fragile and weakened secular ethos in the country.
Now the identity politics soared quite high and national ethos considerably weakened. Today everyone prioritize once caste, communal and religious identity over national one. National rhetoric, as if, has almost disappeared and even Hindutva forces talk more of Hindu religion than of patriotism or nation. For them too Indian nationalism has been replaced by Hindu nationalism.
For Shiv Sena of course Maharashtra was always more important than the Rashtra (nation) and those Hindus too who spoke Hindi the Rashtrabhasha (national language) came under attack. Several Hindus from U.P. and Bihar were mauled by Marathi speaking zealots belonging to Maharashtra Navniram Sena (MNS), a splinter group from Shiv Sena.
Now recently Christians who were never targeted before by the Hindutva zealots have also come under attack. Christians, a mere 2.2 percent minority and which has contributed so richly to the country in the field of education and health services are being killed ruthlessly. What is going on in Kandhmal district of Orissa and some adjoining districts, is indeed hair raising.
More than 40 Christians have been killed, a nun mass raped, a woman burnt beyond recognition, more than 400 houses burnt and looted and 35 thousand have fled from their villages to relief camps. And what for? A myth has been spread by the powerful machinery of Sangh Parivar that all Christians convert. Remember RSS propaganda “All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims”?
Orissa is another Gujarat both in brutalities and terrorization of minorities. When Christians and Muslims are being so brutally targeted the RSS Chief Sudarshan says that both Muslims and Christians convert and Muslims want every one to become Muslim and Christians want all to follow Christ and so Hindus must give fitting reply. And our rulers just look on.
When BJP was ruling over the country and whole country was communalized we were feeling suffocated and felt liberated when UPA took over and the BJP led Government defeated at the hustings. We celebrated UPA’s victory specially because it was supported by the left which is the only hope for Indian secularism. However, left has withdrawn its support on nuclear issue and once again we are feeling suffocated in the communally surcharged state of affairs in India.
However, what is most worrisome is that it is happening under UPA Government which is supposed to be a secular outfit. Perhaps today there is more suffocation than even under the BJP-led NDA Government. The UPA has forgotten all its promises made to the country and is betraying minorities and jettisoning its secular commitment. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is more occupied with his pet nuclear pact with America than the communal explosion back home.
The communal forces are growing stronger and stronger everyday and the ruling coalition of secular forces is quite indifferent. The Home Ministry is functioning quite in a lackadaisical manner. It has given complete liberty to these forces and they are riding roughshod over our secular values and constitutional forces. They never got such license to function freely.
The NDA Government liberally recruited RSS inclined candidates in all key positions and they captured important academic positions too. Also, RSS trained teachers and journalists also were recruited on large scale. It is because of this that we find communally minded people in all walks of life. The media also has been communalised as never before.
Today be it communal riots or terrorist attacks most of the newspapers and T.V. channels publish police version unabashedly as if it is ultimate truth. No questions are raised and it appears as if investigative journalism has become story of the past. Media plays most important role in strengthening democratic values and democracy cannot survive without a critical and alert media. But it seems except for few papers and magazines media has been completely communalised.
Even a well-known Daily from south which was known for its strong commitment to secularism appears to have developed, of late, subtle communal slant. It is indeed very critical period for India. India is well known as largest secular democracy in the world. But first Gujarat and now Orissa has dented its secular image thanks to Hindutva forces. Manmohan Singh was faced with the most embarrassing situation abroad and he had to admit that what is happening in Orissa is ‘shameful’.
But having described developments in Orissa shameful what has he done to redeem it? He is quite hesitant to ban Bajrang Dal and resisting demand of some of his own Congress party colleagues to ban it saying we are watching and waiting for reports from Chief Minister of Orissa. It is indeed more shameful than communal carnage in Orissa. Any truly secular government would have dismissed Navin Patnaik Government for its complete inability to control communal violence.
So far I never believed that Indian communalism could take form of fascism as many leftists had been saying all along. Today we see the footprints of fascism in India. The situation is very similar to that of Germany in the thirties. The unemployed hordes of lower middle classes have joined Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad in large numbers and hailing Hindutva leaders. Some of the text books in Rajasthan and Gujarat, both BJP ruled states are praising fascism and Hitler.
Also, the Central Government is appeasing these communal forces. It appears though the Government at the Centre is of secular UPA but agenda is of Sangh Parivar. The police appears to be taking orders from Sangh Parivar rather than from ruling Congress or UPA. Riot after riot be it in Orissa or Digras, Pusad or Dhule the police just looks on when mobs loot and burn even during curfew hours.
It is indeed very very worrisome situation. The UPA Government is assisting the Sangh Parivar in every way possible. The police is riding absolutely roughshod over minorities and latest example is Batla House ‘encounter’. Though the print and electronic media abdicated its responsibility the human rights groups raised questions and pricked holes in the police claim of encounter of ‘dreaded terrorists.
The situation is indeed very grave and unless secular forces unite and play determined role things can get far more worse.
Photo: Gateway of India
One more thing.
The Shariah can and should be introduced only in Muslim countries
In India, Muslims should be regulated by a Uniform Civil Code
Milind Kher,
I condemn any kind of violence on innocent people, be it hindus who got killed in the train or muslims who got killed afterwards..
if you think, that few people who did that bad deeds to muslims shows the intolerance towards muslims, then what would you say about muslims terrorists who are fighting in the name of Islam?
What do you say of Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger memon?
Even I can tell you, to check the msulims get together, how the spread hatred for hindus..and it’s a fact in some gathering. See, it is easy to generalize things, but question is – will it going to help in bringing peace?
Same way I can say that even Hindus are sufferring because of Muslims.. and we will kepp on pointing fingers on each other. Instead, how about we take a step and create awareness in our own communities and bring them together.
do you agree that we both are culprit to some extent? can we do some introspection and see where we went wrong and try to make it right?
Niceguy,
I do not support Dawood Ibrahim or Tiger Memon. Nor do I support “Islamic” terrorism {an oxymoron because Islam and terrorism are mutually exclusive}
There are enough and more Muslims making the effort to reach out, there needs to be a quid pro quo from the Hindu side.
@niceguy
Is secularsim a threat to Muslims – In a worldly perspective, not a single Muslim country which adopted this idealogy has been successful. Many issues contribute to its failure as an idealogy (seclarism) to address the concerns and problems of a faith-based society and if it is overwhelmingly Muslim then it stands no chance as it clashes directly with Muslims belief.
Have muslims stopped following Islam – I don’t think so! A recent survey by an American Institute showed that more than 70% of Muslim Population in Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Indonesia said they wanted Sharia as their ruling system.
What’s stopping them from becoming Truly Islamic – Interference from West by attacking countries and maitaining their military bases in Muslim countries. And yes, had you googled little more about Caliphate you would have learned how these Muslim Countries are being stopped from becoming Islamic by the Great Western Democracies (Don’t forget to read the comments on Caliphate by Dick Cheney (the great dick), W. Bush (the idiot), Donald R (the lame duck), Tony B (the witch blair)). And they do this simply by supporting despotic regimes in Muslims Lands like Royal Families in Saudi Mainland, in Egypt n all.
How is affects India and Indian Muslims – the truth is Islam was never meant to be fixed and followed in the deserts of Arabia. It is meant to show the true light to the whole of humanity. So I will not hide behind any apologetic statements that Islam or Caliphate will not look towards India, it will but not at this moment. Another reason, because India is host to nearly 1/4th of Muslim Population in the world today. We can’t just ignore their plight and treat them as step brothers just because they live in hindu majority country. Anyhow, India is typical situation where mostly it is unbiased towards Muslims if some events are ignored. So even if Caliphate is established I dont think India will need to fear.
@Milind,
I do not support Dawood Ibrahim or Tiger Memon. Nor do I support “Islamic” terrorism {an oxymoron because Islam and terrorism are mutually exclusive}
even no Hindu supports any “hindutva” terrorism. Hindutva and Terrorism are mutually exclusive. Let me go further one step further – If you know Sanatan Dharma – always prays for getting Peace from universe, plants, actions and even Peace.
There are enough and more Muslims making the effort to reach out, there needs to be a quid pro quo from the Hindu side.
Please tell me what exactly do you think, missing from Hindus side?
Also, tell me what actions Muslims are taking?
@banusiddiq
Thank you for the honest reply.
You said:
Many issues contribute to its failure as an idealogy (seclarism) to address the concerns and problems of a faith-based society and if it is overwhelmingly Muslim then it stands no chance as it clashes directly with Muslims belief.
What I am inferring fro your reply is – Would it be OK to say that Muslim belief clashes directly with Secularism ideology?
If that’s the case, do you think Indian Muslims feel the pinch of ideological clash living in a Secular country like ours? Can this be seen as suppression of Muslim belief?
OR are Muslims OK to live in Secular country if they are in minority, but not OK with Secularism if they are in majority?
If Islam and Secularism are antagonistic ideologies – How can Secularism protect Muslim rights?
What right does Muslim have to ask for Secularism – if Secularism itself clashes with Muslim belief?
you said: It (Islam) is meant to show the true light to the whole of humanity.
Let me ask you, what are the rights of Minorities in a Muslim majority country – Do non-muslims not given step-brotherly (actually I should say unfriendly) treatment?
So, this true light is for Muslims only or does “humanity” include humans of all other religions too?
Lastly, I should add my friend – We can solve 90% of problems in India –
- if Muslims and Christians stop propagating their respective religion with the objective of converting the whole India. What do you think Hindus won’t feel cheated?
- If we can have a Uniform Civil Code that goes beyond religion. Sharia or any religion based laws can not be seen as legal in a Secular country (as you have already pointed out).
What do you think?
Niceguy,
A number of Muslims of very reputable standing have spoken out against terrorism and very firmly identified themselves with the NATIONAL cause.
When the Jodhpur stampede took place, Muslim organizations were in the forefront of relief operations.
I have nothing whatsoever against Sanatan Dharam. Sanatan Dharam and Islam are respectively very different from Hindutva and Islamism.
Milind,
I vehemently disagree with you on your statement “Shariah can and should be introduced in Muslim countries”. Here’s why:
- Regardless of whether we define a muslim state as one having a majority muslim population and/or one in which Islam is the state religion, it is against HUMANITY to treat HUMANs, be it even of the same religious group, based on a set of laws that are provenly discriminatory esp. to more than HALF of humanity (viz. women).
- Given that neither the Sunni nor the Shia sub-communities within the Muslims have a common Shariah code it is unknown as to WHICH version of Shariah they would each agree to follow?
Instead, a uniform and HUMANly devised and alterable civil code, like (but not necessarily the only one) the UDHR, should be applicable accross the entire human race.
Sridhar,
You have misquoted me. You left out the word “only” which I used in my statement. This alters the purport altogether. When you leave out the word “only”, it becomes a prescription, whereas incorporating that word implies a restricted concession. I am sure you can decipher that.
It is YOUR belief that Islam discriminates against women. A majority of Muslim women would disagree with you. Never hold your personal opinion as a Universal truth. For instance, I can say “It is my belief that Islam is the best religion”. I cannot say, “Islam is the best religion.
@Milind
When you said The Shariah can and should be introduced only in Muslim countries
Why should Shariah be imposed on minorities in Muslim countries?
and in the same breath you said In India, Muslims should be regulated by a Uniform Civil Code
Going by your argument – why not Hindu religion code be imposed in India as India is Hindu majority country??
So, if Muslims are in majority – Shariah is good; otherwise Secularism?? Don’t you think it is double standards??
Also, if Muslims prefer Shariah to Secularism – don’t you think they will TRY to be in majority so they can impose Shariah.. hence my argument – the CONVERSION CHECKING comes into play, as conversion can lead to decrease in the value of Secularism.
Milind,
It is not just my belief but a fact that Shariah as it is interpreted and wherever implemented as law today is provenly discriminatory as confirmed by several human rights groups like the HRW. I think you well know the countries that have implemented it in the strictest sense. So, it is not just my opinion.
As for the majority of muslim women thinking Shariah is not discriminatory, may I ask you a question – do you have any unbiased statistics/survey that has been conducted where they have stated so.
However, as a matter of principle could you give me a rational answer to why one human should be differentiated from another on the basis of their gender/belief?
The point here is not which religion is the best – the point here is that religion should NOT be the basis on which humans should be differentiated.
Sridhar,
Flawed interpretations and therefore incorrect applications of the Shariah do not negate the value of the Shariah per se.
I do not need an “unbiased” report. I first hand know enough Muslim women who endorse my viewpoint.
A lot of people sit in judgment on Islam without really understanding it.
Milind and Sridhar,
Talking about Shariah, here’s an article I found about conditions of religious minorities under Islamic Republic of Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Religious_minorities
and for women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Women
However, with the establishment of the Islamic republic in, women’s rights in Iran were severely curtailed, and women almost immediately began to protest.[201][202] Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed, female government workers were forced to observe Islamic dress code, women were barred from becoming judges, beaches and sports were sex-segregated, the marriage age for girls was reduced to 13 and married women were barred from attending regular schools .[203]
Female university enrollment has risen steadily, reaching 66% in 2003.[204] The authorities are increasingly alarmed by this development.[205][206] There are large numbers of women in the civil service and higher education, one example being the 14 women who were elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly in 1996. On the other hand, the Islamic revolution is ideologically committed to inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the the civil code; and especially committed to segregation of the sexes. Many places, from “schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses”, are strictly segregated. Females caught by revolutionary officials in a mixed-sex situation can be subject to virginity tests.[207] “Bad hijab” ― exposure of any part of the body other than hands and face — is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment.[208][209]
In recent years under the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, women have faced curtailed rights, and multiple reports of women being beaten, jailed and persecuted have been reported.[210][211]“
Milind,
As is by your experience, mine too has shown that women in Islam are regarded as DIFFERENT to men, dare I say, WEAKER. So, just as you go by your experience, mine too is equally true. Does it make it true in general? If each of our experiences in equally tru, then at best then the status of women in Islamic societies (if not Islam) varies from truely equal (by your experience) to inferior and subservient to men (going by mine).
Besides, you have not answered my question on why people should be differentiated on the basis of their religion/gender. Why should people of one region of this planet be any different to any other because they follow a different religion?
It’s time ALL HUMANs are regarded and judged by a COMMON and HUMAN law that basis itself solely on EVOLVING ETHICS. Religion then becomes solely a personal affair THROUGHOUT the world, thereby leading to a more peaceful world.
Conflict is inherent in the human psyche. Therefore, if not over religion, people will fight over something else.
Hitler, Stalin and Changez Khan were not driven by a RELIGIOUS zeal. World War 1 and World War 2 were not fought on the basis of religion.
However, that does not detract from the fact that nobody should discriminate against somebody else on the basis of caste, color or creed.
Milind,
My question was not about conflict. It was about an ethical principle of “equality of all human beings”.
You have agree that humans should not be discriminated on the basis of caste, colour or creed. I assume your intention was also to include gender.
If so, then why not put it to practice? Why have a different bill of rights for muslim countries and one for non-muslim ones? BTW, what would be your definition of a “muslim” country?
Sridhar,
Of course, there can be no gender based discrimination. In any case, no society can progress unless utmost respect is given to women’s rights. My belief is that in many vocations, women may even steal a march over men.
A Muslim country is one which is inhabited by a Muslim majority. Yes, you may have Muslim nations and secular states like Turkey. That is the best model. Enjoy and practice your religion, but acknowledge that there are too many hurdles in running an ISLAMIC STATE, and therefore have a Common Civil Code.
A great article, seems written with great research, but i dono why articles are always biased when they write about secularism, when i see articles most of the times they blame only certain religion but none of the others.
Firstly i would like to ask what did the communities that seem to suppressed or “victims” of such brutal things have done in the first place ? Why is that point always neglected ? Wasn’t all of the riots ( expect 1991) where initiated by the ones who are suppressed or “victims” ?
lets take Gujarat roits, wasn’t the mastermind who planned everything from “Congress” ? Why is that point neglected ? Does that mean Congress should be banned ? On February 27, 2002, 58 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children[16] were burnt alive in a railway coach in the town of Godhra, Now lets take a analogy once when a lorry accidentally killed a lady in Uttar Pradesh, Suddenly a community got raged, rioted & burned down lots of lorries, for one accidental killing, which happened by sheer bad luck, can a community roit but why does it make a lot noise so much when they deliberately stings another community kills Men, Women & children ? Does it think that are other community fools ? Is there not a saying when you play with fire, you will be burned by it ?
Lets take Hyderabad, Before Chandra Babu naidu came riots where a regular thing, after he was CM none happened expect for one when a person from MIM, got killed in a private feud, & volia there were riots, hadn’t the strong CM taken steps it would have spread like wildfire, now who is to blame in this case ? Is it a certain community which turns a private ting into a public outrage & colours it into communal ? Is it not the belief of Muslim’s Belief of Martial race a reason for so many things ? why don’t people introspect ??
Now lets consider another community which has given so many schools & hospitals in fact i studied in a Christian Missionary School, now lets see the working of most of this , they give all & say Christ is Lord, He died for you, Its time you need to change your religion, Man, i know umpteen number of cases where people were lured to convert by the various baits ranging from passing a exam (lots of Christian Schools in Hyderabad)to using hard cash to convert poor people (For example, Just check West Godavari District of AP) & mind you this kind of activities were happening from before independence !
Now lets see orissa, was it a religion persons attacking another religion persons or was it a certain community (Happens to be poor tribals who were utterly neglected by the people who run hospitals & schools & were the people who were experiencing some attacks) attacking another community (who were change coats, who were regularly attacking other community people because they they stood true to the faith) & final straw being a great guru who always spoke for peace & harmony on behalf of tribals gets killed, another intresting ting here is that the persons who were Master minds of the final straw i.e., killing of a piou person was none other but from congress, so after reading & cross checking this lets see how many think banning Congress is a good idea ?
My dear writer of tis article i have written this article just to bring some articles, if you want to write secular articles please write but with addition of all facts & not certainly blaming a certain community show all the people,expose all the players mistakes !!
Jai Hind !!
opposing Hindus,killing hindus by terrorists,not doing anything if victims are hindus..that is anything anti hindu is the meaning of being secular in India
Lot being said about secular and politics, Them Main thing is INDIA doesnt exist any more, In elections or online people talk about BJP, Congress, Hindu, Muslim, Marathi Manus Bla bla bla.
What about INDIA Why elections and News media and bloggers does not talk about India as Entity. INDIA has problems not Indian Muslims or Hindus have problems when there is not sufficient electricity, No better roads, School or Jobs, Medical facilities, Fire Brigade is ill equiped, Governance is full of redtape and babugiri.
There is poor infrastructure.
If we concentrate on these, religious and other differences will be minor issues.
Take China, Government only concentrate on economy and military. No religion is official, territory is decided by governing body.
Yes public is ruled with Iron fist. We can sure learn some good thing and leave the bad part behind.