You are only partly correct.. Yes, Bangladesh chose to be a secular democracy in its first constitution, but this experiment lasted for a very short time. No politician today dares to call for secularism – the idea died with the assassination of Mujib.

In Pakistan’s case even that short experiment in secularism did not exist. Its constitutional principles were first enunciated in the Objectives Resolution, adopted in 1950, that laid out an explicitly Islamic polity or at the very least one that put Islam above other religions and as the basis for the constituton. The first constitution of 1956 was in line with the OR and took the country further down the path. Until then, the country functioned under the 1935 GOI Act, whic was not a choice made by Pakistan.

Neither of them chose to be Islamic governments when they came into being.

Some people say that the tolerant nature of hinduism is bogus or hint towards that citing some communal instances that support this claim. The very fact that India opted for a secular constitution knowing that there is going to be a hindu majority shows its tolerance at the outset. Why did pakistan and bangladesh choose to be islamic governments? Didn’t pakistan have 20% non-muslims when it came into being? How did they protect their minority rights? By allowing the mullahs to kidnap the daughters of the hindu families and forcibly converting them to islam under threats of rape/murder and making them marry some uneducated mullah as his 4th or 5th wife. To make things worse these idiot mullahs divorce these girls after a few months and they are forced into prostitution to make ends meet? How about the ethnic cleansing in bangladesh? How about the islamization of kashmir? I am sure many indian muslims will comfortably wash their hands off the paki/b’desh and kashmir examples? Well, we had one masjid in india demolished while thousands of temples and sikh gurudwaras and their properties taken away by the govt in bangladesh and pakistan. Where was the tolerance of islam then?

Also many muslims think that the rise of hindutva is the problem. Little do they know that the rise of hindutva coincided with the khilafat and other islamic movements in early 1900s? Did the muslims know that the indian subcnotinent for the first 1000 years of the chrsitian era was a melting pot of religions/trade and centre for knowledge. Did they know how people willingly embraced to buddhism/jainism/zorastrianism/judaism and even islam? So, how did this change? The natives of the region did the biggest mistake of trusting that all other cultures will be as tolerant and liberal. They were only to be killed/raped and pillaged by subsequent invasions by the arabs/islamic caliphate/turks/persians and mongols. Not only did most of the invaders want to plunder its wealth and colonize the region, but wanted to spread islam at the instance of the prophet and the Quran. How unfair was the jizya tax, and the other threats such as ultimatums to convert to islam in the name of allah and the quran. This contnued for 800 yrs till the british came in the 18th century. We hear all about the benevolence of akbar. But the cruelties of the islamization continued even in his period.

It was only in the early 1900s when the first signs of independence from the british came about that muslims were threatened by the possibility of a non-islamic rule or even a neutral rule for the first time in 1000 years. This resulted in the khilafat movement and other cries for islamic rule in india or the creation of a separate muslim state. Gone were the originally hindu/buddhist regions of present day afghanistan/pakistan to muslim majorty populations. Gone were the regions in the kashmir valley where the vedic rishis produced their top notch works on philosophy. The 900 years of islamic rule had fundamentally altered the configuration of the vedic civilization.

During thsoe 1000 years the hindus did not have a single identity. They were ppl who just remained loyal to their ancestral faiths and not giving in to forcible conversions to other faiths. They worshipped what their ancestors worshipped and were proud of it in spite of the aggressive tactics of their muslim rulers. The islamization of the subcontinent as the 7th century caliphs dreamed of was not complete. So, all the ppl of the native faiths came to be referred to as hindus in a united umberella. It was in this environment that the RSS came into existence when the natives finally realzed that mistakes they made 1000 yrs ago cannot be repeated if they had to protect whatever that is left of their vedic heritage. It was this that made the RSS evolve into a protector of the native indian/vedic consciousness. While organizations like the Jamaa-e-islami and other funamentalist muslim outfits include the spread of islam and proselytizing of their faith and possibly establishing an islamic state in the heartland of india, the RSS or the Hindu mahasbha just wanted to protect what is left of the ancient hindu world. They just wanted to make sure that the present day Hindus retained their consciousness and did not forget the mistakes which they had made historically.

For some reason the muslims and islam somehow tried to maintain aspects of the arabic culture which was the birthplace of the religion, Hindus or in this case the native indian traditional followers were more suceptible to external influences because of the fact that it was inherently flexible and tolerant.

Even now the RSS charter says that they would like a secular state which guarantees to protect hindu interests along with other faiths. What they want to guard against is going back to an islamist style of governance.

After a 1000 yrs of getting oppressed by islamic rule and living under sharia law in a region where the hindus were a dominant culture it is easy to understand why people would afraid to trust that islam does not pose a danger to their freedom and not have political aspirations?

The recent history in pakistan/bangladesh and kashmir just reinforce their fears. Although many of our muslim brothers have shown to possess a very open mind, it will take a while for the trust to be gained among the hindu populace. The insecurity in their hearts is the result of 1000 years of colonialism. It will take a while to the hindus to erase the memories of a millenium and trust that even if the muslims become a majority, there will not be a danger to their culture and freedom to practice their religion. Heck, muslims in india have been under non-islamic rule for 300 years and have a lot of insecurity and want to protect their interests. How can they expect the hindus who have been under non-hundu rule for a 1000 yrs to overcome their fears?

I think lasting peace in the subcontinent will come only when the threat of cultural invasion subsides. Indian muslims should celebrate their indianness more than the arabic traits derived trough islam. They should embrace an indian/bharatiya version of islam and not view other religious faiths as a threat. After all even as back as the first millenium AD the culture of bharat was to embrace all faiths equally. Pluralism is the oldest faith in Bharath in my opinion. The same applied for Hindus as well. They need to start accepting the moderate or indianized islam as part of the culture. The more extremist versions of the islam like wahabbism etc are the ones that gives the average Hindu the creeps.

On of the reasons many hindus today hate the pseudo secular parties like congress and leaders like nehru- is that they never understood the hindu mindset and where these people were coming from. The parties like congress made the hindus the aggressors while muslims the victims resulting in votebank politics. What they failed to understand is that people of both the faiths are fighting their own demons and betray a sense of insecurity. Both the communities want guarantees that their interests will be preserved. The muslims see the recent history in pak/bangladesh/kashmir and see that being a minority they might meet the same fate if they dont fight proactively or it might be too late. The hindus on the other see the same situations in pak/BD/Kashmir and think that they can survive only as they outnumber the muslims. Unless this issue is overcome there will always be an element of mistrust and doubt in the minds of people n both sides.

Jai Hind.

I agree with you completely. The examples where true brotherhood is manifested really need to be highlighted.

A brilliant example is the Jodhpur stampede, where Muslims donated generously, operated ambulances and even donated blood.

Let us highlight more and more of all this.

The way to approach forward is to higlight the cases in media where there is an act of brotherhood across religions and not to publish idealogies of radical islamic & hindu activist as the voice of the Nation and respective religion.

Like I hear that how common man is brainwashed into being a terrorist, let us teach all hindus, muslims and other religions on good acts N deeds displayed by one community against another.

In democracy majority decides the way the country moves forward. It is not hindu and not muslim. One National Anthem is not a hindu song , it is an Indian song and their should not be choice provided to any religion whether to sing it or not. ‘We should not put religion first and then nation’. Same may be the case with any other policy which is put considering the religion first then nation.

I think Ajad is a bit scared at the prospect of “Hindu Rashrta” just as i am scared at the concept of the “caliphate” spreading from Spain to Indonesia. By doing this both of us have fallen prey to the concept of majority – monority and rightly so.Why do minority fear majority; because by sheer numbers one can control power and resources. So the very basis of politicised- religion or even Talibinization is absolute control of power and resources while using religion. We see examples of this from Taliban’s Afghanisatan to Lebanons Hezbollan and Hamas in the Gaza strip. Today there are more examples of intolerant muslims using the religion to gain power. Lebanon was secular country. Rising islamization of society ( by procreation as well as preaching Mullas) had ensured that the progressive secularists are marginalized. Pakistan is another example of a nation going that way. The question- whether India as “Hindu Rashtra” might go the same way is not very pertinient. What couldn’t be done at the painful time of the birth of the nation cannot be done when the nation is 60+ years old, more educated, more industrialized and arguably less religious. But what can happen is that the 500 million+ poor, mostly ill-equipped to face life Indians- will turn against the state ( this includes perhaps 100+ million poor Muslims as well). Why do we have Naxalites- economic marganilization; why do we Iraq – expected economic marganilization; why do we have LTTE – similar reasons.
I think the root of all such problems is poverty fed by fuel of intolerence giving rise to rebellion that seeks control and power. A state expecting growth and progress has to adderess this. If India cant do this , it will never be successful. A “Hindu Rashtra” or any other rashtra will never be successful if it creates prosperity for only majority people. India has to create prosperity for all of us. People who oppose this have to be taken into confidence though inclusive means. This will ensure that the majority of the minority is with the nation (note that minority= economic minority). Once this is achieved the minority of the minority should be crushed ( e.g SIMI or any other intolerant Hindu or Sikh organization). Then the dream of a “Rashtra” will be realized – strong, prosperous and progressive.
To me its immaterial whether India is majority Muslim or majority Hindu or even Christian. What matters is a Great INDIAN nation that makes all of us proud.