India’s Great Secularism: Why We Need an Indigenous Model Who Recognizes Bharat


The Muslim clergy, representing the gargantuan share of one of the six minorities notified in the televised debates, claims to believe in the neologism of Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb. They support the dubious and distorted version of secularism, as proposed by Jawaharlal Nehru, while seeking strict actions against any non-Muslim to dissolve their religious feelings are common these days.

Thus, in a way, tacitly underpinning the call to action-jihad, so to speak, against the Mushrik (polytheist).

Former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma wants him to be immediately sentenced under Taliban law, while Kanhaiya Lal Teli butchers in Udaipur should be sentenced under Indian law and years and years of lawsuits.

Again, this brazen display of selective love for the Constitution is blatant.

Steven Ian Wilkinson of Yale University notes that the rise of ethnic violence in India stems from increased sectarianism, a specific religion-based power-sharing arrangement in a democracy, and that no such arrangement can satiate groups and will eventually lead to resentment.

We also witness – irrefutably – many grim and fierce Muslim faces on national television professing and promulgating that Islam is a religion of peace – of course, except for the infighting of the multitude of sects that Islam is vivisected, because Islam has an innate attribute, something analogous to the clash of clans where each clan asserts its ascendancy and its piety.

Except for the fact that the word clan should be replaced by sects – while the radical jihadist terrorism plaguing the world is another startling reality. But the cacophony and popular discourse has been that Hindus are fragmented and that Hinduism is dividing on the basis of caste: not just after independence, but that has been the thesis for centuries as one of the attributes” prominent and highly vaunted egalitarians of the younger variant of the Abrahamic family. Sunnis denounce prayer in Shia mosques. Sunni mosques are forbidden to Shiites. Ahmadis are not allowed either. But claims that Dalits cannot enter specific Hindu temples have always been peddled and amplified at the center of national and international discourse. Not to highlight alleged social wickedness, but to denigrate, vilify and dissolve the Hindu Dharma.

“We worry when the symptoms appear but refuse to notice the deeper disease. Children are taught in the madrassas that the punishment for blasphemy is beheading. It is taught as the law of God…What is taught there should be examined observed the Governor of Kerala, AM Khan, during the beheading of Udaipur.

In an interview, the Honorable Governor remarked that he was not at all surprised by the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur as lessons of hatred are taught to Muslim children in madrasas. He also emphasized some other points which are preached in madrassas.

The first thing is that wherever there are unbelievers and infidels all over the world, such a person has the right to be punished. Second, it is taught that non-Muslims are born so that Muslims can rule them. The third thing, which is not the government of their will and their people, should be overthrown as soon as possible. This only ratified Hamid Dalwai, a Marathi Muslim scholar who in his 1969 book, “Muslim Politics in Secular India”, criticized the appeasement policy as advancing the separatist mindset of Jinnah.

According to him, the real problem was Muslim obscurantism; that Indian Muslims had shunned their doors and somehow escaped public scrutiny. In a way, they isolate themselves from the rest of the majority of the country, that is, from the Hindus. He also observed that Indian Muslims are more likely to blame Hindus than reflect. This “obscurantist medievalism” must be fought instead of evaded by using political chicanery and the masquerade of “minority protection” or “secularism”.

Secularism, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is “the belief that religion should not be involved in the ordinary social and political activities of a country”. With the support of the Nehruvian establishment, scholars, ideologues and activists with political agendas and communist leanings have cleverly promoted secularism and reduced it to holding odious and derogatory views of the majority – the Hindus – and their cultures, demonstrating the emptiness of their “secularism”. credentials” and their “solidarity” with minority communities in India.

“We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, especially the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on the resources,” former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in his speech to the 52nd meeting of the National Development Council (NDC) in 2006.

This brand of Nehruvian secularism, or minoritiesm-per se-has been the sine qua non of Indian politics where political parties would reach, indulging in dog whistling or even rebelling to pander to the Muslim vote bank instead state-sponsored. patronage and preference over the Hindu majority.

A supposedly prominent left-liberal scholar, Neera Chandhoke, in her landmark book, “Rethinking Secularism: A View from India,” notes: “Secularism, however, is in crisis, having been subjected to overuse. While a “thin” and limited concept, secularism, in India for example, had to take on the heavy task of building a nation, taking on the construction of a uniform civil code, taking on the responsibility of reorganizing and equalizing hierarchical relationships within religious communities, and even defend democracy. Unable to bear the weight of too many political projects, it shows signs of implosion. The West, meanwhile, seems to have renounced secularism. ”

As political theorist Rajeev Bhargava of the Delhi-based Center for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) has noted, the only way to emancipate secularism is through a drastic “course correction”, as it is current. And this would justify a “self-reflexivity”, and a “self-criticism” on the part of the laity who, according to him, are as much responsible for the state in which they find themselves as its “external enemies”. The time is ripe for the Indian state to emerge from the Nehruvian variant of secularism of viewing religious minorities as “separate” from the state, which is and always has been designed to emphasize those differences, rather than our heritage. common. The writing is on the wall for us to see if we wish. This is the moot point that needs to be emphasized: where will this appeasement of communities, cults or sects instead of individuality culminate?

The Western concept of secularism was foreign to us, but it was imported and is now deeply rooted in Indian politics, thanks to Nehru’s Westernized vision.

What we covet now is an indigenous model, a system that recognizes the Hindu nature of Bharat.

The threat of Islamic terror and fundamentalism looms over us, just that we have to see it, realize it and acknowledge it to call a spade a spade.

Yuvraj Pokharna is a freelance journalist and columnist. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the position of this publication.

Read all Recent news and recent news here


About Author

Comments are closed.