Now before I am accosted by a lot of proponents of ‘secularism’ in India to change my stance or to take back my words, let me make my point. I am a Hindu by religion and am proud of being one. That doesn’t mean I am a fanatic in any which way. I am ‘secular’ by nature and believe that every individual has a right to practice his faith without being questioned as long as his faith, whichever it may be, does not disturb the equilibrium of our country.
Now before I move on to explain why I said ‘Yes’, let me clarify the meaning of secularism and its usage in India: The term secularism was first used by the West which meant a secular state separated the Church from the state and that the Church would have no role to play in the functioning of the government.
Whereas in the Indian Constitution, secularism means ‘every religion should be treated equally’.
Now, going purely by how secularism is defined in the Indian constitution, one would marvel, and rightly so, at the fact that India, demographically being a Hindu country (80% and above), makes place for everybody irrespective of the faith he follows. And this is what separates India from Islamic countries where even an atheist, save a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew or a non-Muslim, is harshly persecuted.
Now, if one takes a unbiased look at how things have shaped up in India under the garb of secularism, it wouldn’t take a genius to realize that the misuse of the much abused word ‘secularism’ has been merely for political gains. The reason behind this is- Although Muslims in India constitute approx. only 13% of the population, they vote in a chunk thereby constituting nearly 25-30% of the total number of voters. Also the majority of people who go out to vote aren’t the educated ones who instead prefer discussing politics over a cup of tea with their peers.
This fact was keenly observed by parties across the political spectrum here and almost every party left no stone unturned to cash in on it. The Congress, Samajvadi party, Aam Aadmi party, Bahujan Samaj Party and many others are only a few examples that consider Muslims as a mere ‘vote bank’.
Now what these parties did under the garb of secularism what entirely contrary to the very essence of secularism as defined by our constitution.
The Congress party, which is largely blamed for a plethora of problems in India, is governed by a woman by the name of Antonia Edvige Albina Maino a.k.a Sonia Gandhi, infamously known for her cunning and political sagacity. Her party was in power for most of the time post independence.
What they did to secure the Muslim vote bank was implement retrograde populist policies which would be very appealing to any community, work in their favor for a moment, but ensure they would remain, in terms of progress and development, where they are and most importantly harmful to national concern.
What the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is probably the only national party which does not treat Muslims any differently from Hindus led by Narendra modi, advocates is a ‘Uniform Civil Code’ implying every Indian be treated equally and equal laws be applied to every Indian thus ensuring that Nationalism precedes religion. This UCC in essence is the very definition of Secularism, which when misused by parties such as the Congress created a ruckus all these years.
Does the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Kashmiri Pandits from their land comply with the definition of secularism?
Does the speedy issuance of Aadhar and Ration cards to the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, when ordinary Indian citizens break their backs trying to get what they deserve, comply with the definition of secularism?
Does a rule which allows only Muslims to have up to 4 wives, disregarding feminist outcries, comply with the definition of secularism?
There are several other examples which would or would not comply with the definition of secularism.
If your answer to the above questions is ‘NO’, then Yes, Hindus have been totally brushed aside under the thinly veiled pretense that is ‘SECULARISM’.
courtsey and source :satyavijayi.com ,21 jan, 2017
Leave a Reply