+- Forums (https://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Ayodhya (/showthread.php?tid=879)
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-09-2003
[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_410600,0008.htm"]Prohibitory orders in Faizabad[/url]
Prohibitory orders were imposed on Thursday on the district, including Ayodhya, till October 31 in view of proposed VHP march on October 17 to the temple town.
"Entry of people will not be allowed inside Ayodhya without proper checking and identification," district magistrate Deepak Kumar told reporters here.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-11-2003
[url="http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=318952"]Gujarat's Tangled Justices[/url]
:furious
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-12-2003
[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_412761,001300020001.htm"]Over 1,000 Shiv Sena activists arrested in Ayodhya[/url]
..
Apart from the state police, over 100 companies of central security forces have been deployed in the twin cities of Faizabad and Ayodhya. Lucknow IG V.N. Rai, an expert in crowd management, has been camping in the town. The first batch of 30 VHP activists, who reached Ayodhya on Saturday morning, was taken into custody.
The government has also asked railway authorities to divert trains to prevent VHP activists from reaching Ayodhya. The police have chalked out plans to seal all roads leading to Ayodhya.
..
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-12-2003
[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1"]VHP will be peaceful: PM[/url]
Responding to questions from mediapersons on the Uttar Pradesh government's moves to prevent Ram Sewaks from entering Ayodhya in the buildup to the VHP's mass awareness campaign on October 17, Mr Vajpayee said, "The VHP is saying they will do everything in a peaceful manner. Us par vishwas kiya jana chahiye (we should have faith in what they say)."
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-12-2003
[url="http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=319016"]The unknown Ayodhya[/url]
"The Week"'s take on this..
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
The Week is a commie newsmagazine, which means they lie frequently and totally.If there is any resemblance to the truth in any of their statements it is a source of great wonder for me. Almost all of their assumptions are false so one doesnt know where to begin. Furthermore they make no distinction between what is an assumption and what is known as fact. A typical exercise in obfuscation.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
I'll ask simple a simple question, would appreciate if I get a simple answer.
Say, some Christian or Jewish or non-abrahamic nation takes over Saudi Arabia and converts their holy places into Churches or Temple. They live their for quiet sometime however looses their power and control after a few decades, or a few centuries. Muslims get back their holy land. Wouldn't the muslims re-build their mosques or would they go for investigations and archelogical survies to see if the mosque ever existed?
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
But Krishna you are missing an essential point here. You see, KSA is not secular and India is. The Saudis are therefore held to a different standard than Indians. Imagine the furor if there were 15 Indians among the hijackers in 9-11. The USA would have practically attacked India. But KSA with all their medieval life style is judged by a different standard than India.
As long as India is stuck with this secularist garbage that hangs around her neck like a noose, India will never be free
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Kaushal,
I'm not against secularism. However, under the disguise of secularism don't wanna be taken for a ride.
Lets face the facts, there are many muslim countrys in the world, and they are free to do whatever they want however the mother of all civilization cannot build a temple on a land no less holy than Mecca, Jeruselam or the Vatican. Surveys needs to be done, the wishes of minorities needs to be kept in mind. I mean, WTF is that. Ayodhya is one Holiest lands for Hindus, and a temple should be there if Hindus choose so, Who the hell is anyone else to say 'No,' or if something existed there before. If muslims in India cannot be sensitive to the values, religion of the majority WhyTF they living in India?
They should go to the land that was created for them.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Now regarding the KSA analogy, how is that fair?
If you wanna judge someone, judge âem based on the same criteria. You cannot have different sets of rules for different people. Itâs like when Iâm batting, Iâm playing on a 22 yard pitch, but you get to bat on a 30 yard pitch?
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Quote:I'm not against secularism. However, under the disguise of secularism don't wanna be taken for a ride.
Most of us are not against equal treatment under the law and in every other respect for all religions in India. But that is not what is meant by secularism in India. In India it means just the opposite. preferential treatment for minorities ( Hajj pilgrimage, independence of administration of masjids and churches which does not exist for Hindu temples - see the latest article by Sandhya Jain - unequal and preferential treatment of Muslims in certain parts of the country e.g. Kashmir, the list goes on.
So if one says one is for secularism, the question is which secularism ? The one practiced in India or the one practiced in the USA which is completely different from the one in India.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Krishna: That should be the quote of the week:
Quote:I'm not against secularism. However, under the disguise of secularism don't wanna be taken for a ride.
Kaushal, I'm pretty sure Krishna is referring to p-sec prevalent in India.
Krishna:
Quote:If you wanna judge someone, judge âem based on the same criteria. You cannot have different sets of rules for different people. Itâs like when Iâm batting, Iâm playing on a 22 yard pitch, but you get to bat on a 30 yard pitch?Who said life is fair? Mosques are routinely attacked or destroyed in Islamic nations itself - do you hear our Shabuddins/Bukharis condeming it? Muslims Shias are killed in their mosques while praying - do you hear of any outrage by 'moderate' Muslims?
Kaushal:
>>But KSA with all their medieval life style is judged by a different standard than India.
Take away dependence on oil and their status would be worse than that of Bangladesh.
Kaushal (or anyone else): There's a study by some Islamic scholars and historians (in a book called 'Encyclopedia of Islam' or something along the lines) as to what Mohd did when he entered Kabba. Supposedly, Kabba itself was built over some statues/idols worshipped by the locals. Arun Shoorie has mentioned in his 'Indian controversies' book - too lazy to type it all out there. But will do it if there's interest here. If it can be found online, great.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
If you get a chance watch movie "The Messenger", Kabba is built on tribal temple and before entering Kabba, all idols were destroyed as per Mohamad wishes.
In India majority and especially Hindu bashing is called Secularism.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Kaushal, I'm for 'secularism,' by the book, not the one practiced in India or USA (I understand why u mentioned, but from my POV USA is not totally secular either.....that's another topic and we should leave it for another day.)
Regarding the secularism in India, are you supporting how it is played today or are you sayng that's how it should be? ( I didn't get it.
![[Image: confused.gif]](http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/confused.gif)
)Quote:Who said life is fair? Mosques are routinely attacked or destroyed in Islamic nations itself - do you hear our Shabuddins/Bukharis condeming it? Muslims Shias are killed in their mosques while praying - do you hear of any outrage by 'moderate' Muslims?
Viren, what are you getting at?
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Krishna: I was commenting on your " Iâm batting, Iâm playing on a 22 yard pitch, but you get to bat on a 30 yard pitch?" fairness question.
I don't think analogy should be made with KSA at all in the first place. Look at our own house, depsite having the advantage of playing on 30 yard pitch, Bukharis and Shahbuddins are complaining!
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
[quote name='Mudy' date='Oct 13 2003, 02:06 PM'] If you get a chance watch movie "The Messenger", Kabba is built on tribal temple and before entering Kabba, all idols were destroyed as per Mohamad wishes.
[/quote]
Read: [url="http://shourie.bharatvani.org/print/19921001.htm"]http://shourie.bharatvani.org/print/19921001.htm[/url]
Quote:Upon entering, the Prophet went round the Kaba seven times on his camel. He then climbed into the cube -- the Kaba proper. Inside he found a dove made of wood, said in the Encyclopedia to having been possibly devoted to the Semitic Venus. "He broke it in his hands," records Ibn Ishaq, "and threw it away," He then saw paintings of Abraham. Jesus and Mary inside the structure; by one set of traditions he had all of them destroyed, by another he had all except those of Jesus and Mary destroyed. At the noon prayer that day "he ordered," Ibn Ishaq reports, "that all the idols which were round the Kaba should be collected and burned with fire and broken up." That was done. Soon enough idolaters were forbidden from the shrine.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-13-2003
Quote:Kaushal, I'm for 'secularism,' by the book, not the one practiced in India or USA (I understand why u mentioned, but from my POV USA is not totally secular either.....that's another topic and we should leave it for another day.)
Regarding the secularism in India, are you supporting how it is played today or are you sayng that's how it should be? ( I didn't get it.
To answer your question first, i dont support secularism as it is practised in India today.
But the problem goes deeper than that. There is no accepted definition of secularism in India. Because certainly the dictionary definition of secularism is not practiced in India today. For example the opposite of secularism in India is considered to be communalism , but the dictionary definition of secularism has very little to do with communalism or its opposite. In the west secularism is understood to mean 'equal dislike for all religious traditions'. A typical interpretation in the west is as follows;
Quote: secâ¢uâ¢larâ¢ism
Pronunciation: (sek'yu-lu-riz"um), [key]
ân.
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
That is why (because of its anti-religious connotation) the phrase is not widely used in the West and no president of the US would be caught dead expressing a desire that the 'US be secular'.
But in India that is far from being the case. it is generally understood in India that it is OK to throw Iftar parties (which are clearly religious in connotation) but politicians should not attend Hindu religious functions. ( in reality of course some break this rule also)
In the matter of education , the discrepancy between theory and practice is very glaring. All Xtian schools and Muslim madrassas get subsidies in one form or the other apart from occupying very choice pieces of real estate in the metro areas. One should ask them how they acquired these in the first place. Government has no say in the way these institutions are run or the masjids or the churches. Whereas in the case of Hindu temples these are for the most part run by the Government. This is of course totally unacceptable. What if the concerned officer was a Muslim or a Xtian or a non practicing Hindu . He or she would have very little incentive to do anything for the temple and in fact would put obstacles in the path of any temple improvements.
Here are some thoughts from Sandhya Jain
Title : Nationalization of the Hindu temple
Author : Sandhya Jain
Publication : The Pioneer
Date : October 7th, 2003
No url pls.
There is a growing sense of disquiet in the Hindu community in several
parts of the country on the issue of state management of temples,
particularly the attitude of certain regimes towards temples well
endowed with lands and funds. While sharing the Hindu apprehension that
this could cause closure of hundreds of temples, I would like to first
express concern at the virtual derailment of the social reform agenda
that has been the distinguishing feature of the Hindu community for the
past two hundred years.
On Gandhi Jayanti this year, I tried to put my finger on a sense of
something missing. I soon realized that secularism and modernism had
taken us so far ahead that we were finally spared the hypocritical
spectacle of political dignitaries queuing up to clean public toilets
previously cleaned by zealous municipal workers. We were also spared
platitudes against untouchability, uplift of women, and other issues to
which Bapu addressed himself so eloquently. No matter what our present
day difficulties with parts of his political legacy may be, on the issue
of social reform Mahatma Gandhi was second to none.
Hence the surprise that his agenda merited no affirmation or renewal
when it is nobody's case that we have resolved the problems Gandhi
struggled to overcome in his lifetime. This is confirmed by the unease
in a section of society in Uttar Pradesh after Mayawati foolishly
squandered her government away. I am most disturbed by caste-based rape,
disrobing, and other forms of abuse of women, which is intended to
humiliate families and communities. I also find it unacceptable that
upper caste Hindus distance themselves from these atrocities by pinning
the blame for such incidents on a certain social stratum. This is too
clever by half. So long as caste-based discrimination persists in Hindu
society, all Hindus will have to be concerned about it.
Temple entry is another issue we have to face. Despite laws, decades of
sensitization and awareness, we still find Dalits being beaten for
entering a village temple. We must end forthwith this negation of the
very humanity and dignity of fellow beings. Until we do so, we lack a
cast-iron case against State encroachment in the religious realm.
Temples that prevent free access to citizens espousing the same religion
cannot in justice claim the freedom to manage their affairs without let
or hindrance.
Having said that we may in fairness examine some of the issues agitating
Hindus in different parts of the country. There is some unrest over a
Karnataka bill whereby private or trust-run temples must pay a minimum
tax. But what is truly upsetting the community is the use of income
collected from Government-controlled temples. One does not know that
veracity of the allegations, but they are serious enough to merit a
public debate.
It has, for instance, been claimed that in 1997, the Karnataka
Government received a revenue of Rs. 52.35 crores from 2,64,000 temples.
Of this, Rs. 17.33 crores was returned to the temples for maintenance;
Rs 9.25 crores allocated for madrasa development and Rs. 3 crores for
church development. The balance Rs. 22.77 crores was diverted towards
government programmes. The situation was much the same in 1998. However,
in 1999, it is alleged, the State collected Rs. 65.35 crores in revenue;
gave Rs. 15 crores for temple maintenance; and diverted Rs. 27 crores
madrasa development and Haj subsidy and Rs. 8 crores for church
development. No details were available about the use of the balance Rs.
17.35 crores.
In 2000, the temples generated a revenue of Rs. 69.96 crores, but
received only Rs. 13.75 crores for maintenance. The madrasa-Haj subsidy
rose to Rs. 35 crores. In 2001, temple revenue further rose to Rs. 71.60
crores, while maintenance grants shrank to Rs. 11.50 crores, and madrasa
development funds rose to Rs. 45 crores. Church development received Rs.
10 crores. In 2002, the State received Rs. 72 crores as revenue,
returned Rs. 10 crores for temple maintenance, and granted Rs. 50 crores
for madrasas and Rs. 10 crores for churches.
Hindu friends protest that this studied neglect of temples under the
direct control of the State Government could cause as many as 50,000 of
the 2.6 lakh temples in Karnataka to close down within five years. Many
ancient temples are in an extremely poor condition, and managements and
priests carp at inadequate funds. Even salaries are not disbursed
regularly, and priests are forced to survive on donations made by
devotees in the arti plate.
In neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, the State Government withdrew a demand
for Rs. 36 crores from the Sri Venkateshwara Temple at Tirupati in July
after a public furore and litigation in the High Court. There is,
however, a move to take away temple lands and distribute them among
poorer sections in the name of social justice. Around three thousand
acres of temple lands have been identified for takeover. Yet, government
sources themselves admit that nearly 80 percent of the State's temples
have no income other than that received from the vested lands. Thus,
once the lands are seized, many temples may fail to conduct daily puja.
What is more, the Andhra Government has failed to pay Rs. 28 crores
compensation towards temple lands previously acquired for building bus
terminals, police stations, and other public utilities.
There can be little doubt that this is a grossly unfair situation. Many
issues are involved here. To begin with, state presence in the
management of Hindu temples makes a mockery of the separation of
religion and state. But even worse, it militates against the fundamental
right to freedom of religion because State intervention is creating
obstacles in the functioning of temples by depriving them of their
legitimate funds and putting their very existence in jeopardy. This is
an act of cultural vandalism, consistent with the agenda of a Communist
State; the respective State Governments should therefore clarify their
political ideology and agenda.
It is suspected that there is a purpose to this de facto nationalization
of Hindu temples. The strong economic foundations of temples are being
bled to support activities inconsistent with the legitimate goals of
Hindu dharma, which is what the Haj subsidy, madrasa and church
development, must be acknowledged to be. These monotheistic creeds are
not only at variance with Hindu dharma, but their very raison d'etre is
expansion by the eradication of Hindu dharma and culture. Hence, when
the State acts in a blatantly partisan manner to promote these faiths,
the adherents of Hindu dharma certainly have a genuine grievance.
Above all, at a time when Governments are rushing to abandon the
commanding heights of the economy, State presence in the management of
places of worship is incongruous to say the least. Hindu temples were
once great centers of learning, and even today illustrious spiritual
leaders like Sri Sathya Sai Baba and Amritanandmayi Ma have inspired
magnificent medical and educational institutions through community
service. The argument that the managements of cash-rich temples are
necessarily corrupt and need regulation is simply irresponsible and
arrogant, especially when it is the established corruption of
state-controlled managements that is prompting Central and State
Governments alike to shed equity in the public sector! It is high time
the State similarly retreated from the temple precincts.
Of course the real question is why in a secular state,should the state be running Hindu temples at all (but not Xtian or Muslim place of worship).Nobody in a position of Government authority has explained this conundrum to me in a satisfactory manner
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-14-2003
Our Ayodhya, and Ram's
Indian Express
October 14, 2003
The mandir-masjid issue has led to Islamic and Hindu extremists
feeding on each other. And endangering India
RADHA KUMAR
[url="http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=33358"]http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.ph...ontent_id=33358[/url]
I generally don't write about domestic policy issues because I work
on foreign policy, but the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute is fast
becoming a national security concern for India, and therefore a
concern for all the countries that seek to deepen their engagement
with India. It has also affected India's relations with Muslim
countries adversely, to an extent the Indian government is yet to
take on board.
Since the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the temple
movement has progressively polarised Hindus and Muslims and has
inadvertently become a spark for Muslim terrorism in India. The Hindu-
Muslim riots that followed the mosque's destruction were a turning
point for criminal trader and mafia boss Dawood Ibrahim, who
engineered the Bombay blasts of 1993 in retaliation. Today Ibrahim,
who has sanctuary in Pakistan, is a major financier of jihad in
India.
Though at first sight the Bombay blasts appeared to be a one-off, we
have found that they were instead the first salvo in a mounting war.
Bombay has suffered regular terrorist attacks since 1993, which have
multiplied following the Gujarat riots of 2001. Those riots too were
set off by an Ayodhya-related destruction â the burning alive of a
carriage-load of temple activists by a small group of angry Muslims.
The retaliatory riots that ensued in Gujarat, in which upwards of
2,000 Muslims were killed, sent shock waves through Muslim countries
worldwide. The impact was greatest in West Asia, whose Muslim states
had generally been sympathetic towards India, especially over
Kashmir. Antipathy towards India has become so deep in West Asia that
the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is considering admitting
Russia as a member, but is resolute in refusing India's longstanding
application.
The Gujarat riots were also a shot in the arm for groups such as the
Lashkar-e-Toiba, whose leader Hafeez Sayeed lost little time in
calling on all Muslims to launch a jihad on all Hindus. Prior to the
riots, the Lashkar was composed predominantly of Punjabi Pakistanis â
it was unable to recruit non-Pakistanis, even in Kashmir. The latest
terrorist attacks in Bombay, however, indicate the Lashkar and
similar jihadi groups have begun to find recruits within India.
This is not to say that the temple movement is the root cause of
Muslim terrorism in India â nor, for that matter, are the Gujarat
riots. If there is one root cause, which many would debate, it is
surely the failure of India's elites, both Hindu and Muslim, to
integrate their communities or offer them hope of betterment and
justice.
This failure is glaringly obvious when the Gujarat government points
to the scandalous record of the Congress in the 1984 Hindu-Sikh riots
as justification for its own unlawful acts 18 years later.
A less glaring but equally obvious failure is when some human rights
campaigners accuse temple activists of deliberately setting fire to
their own brethren in order to provoke riots. Is there no limit to
the evil we are prone to imagine?
India appears to have become so inured to communal brutality that its
response to it is more and more tepid. Thus we hear the ruling
party's spokesman accuse the Central Bureau of Investigation of
being ``politically motivated'' when it presents evidence that
several ministers of the present government stood and watched the
mosque being destroyed â some even celebrated.
Couldn't M. Venkaiah Naidu have, instead, praised his party in
government for letting justice take its course? And why, when Murli
Manohar Joshi so creditably resigned as minister for human resource
development upon the court's ruling that charges be framed against
him, did the Prime Minister persuade him to withdraw his resignation?
With the temple activists demanding that the government enact
legislation for a Ram temple to be built on the Babri Masjid site,
the Ayodhya dispute is once again set to become violent. As a result
many Indians now feel Hindu and Muslim leaders should arrive at a
settlement that will allow the temple to be built, with provision for
a new mosque nearby.
But such a solution will not settle the problem â indeed, the danger
is it might exacerbate it. Muslim radicals will see the solution as
further evidence of Hindu fiat, and more of them will turn to
violence in revenge. And Hindu radicals will take it as an invitation
to force similar solutions for Kashi, Mathura and a long list of
other contentious Hindu-Muslim sites, to which Muslim radicals will
again respond with terrorism. In other words, terrorism will increase
rather than decrease.
The tragedy of it all is that there is a way out of the problem if
India's leadership were willing to espouse it. The Archaeological
Survey of India's excavations show a prior structure existed under
the site and have turned up artefacts that go back 1,000 years. Why
not continue the excavations with the goal of turning the site into a
public monument of the richness of India's history, warts and all?
One part of the site could preserve the ruins of the Babri Masjid as
an object lesson in what happens when India's different religious
groups seek to forcefully impose their demands rather than negotiate
them peacefully, while maintaining the Ram lalla shrine as it is.
Another part of the site could display the different levels of
excavation and their finds in situ, as a type of physical history
lesson that we still don't have in this country whose archaeology is
so great.
A solution of this kind would rescue the Ram of Tulsidas, Valmiki and
Gandhi from the degradation the temple activists have inflicted upon
him. Most important of all, it could pave the way for Indians to say
that they will never again turn to violence as a way of settling
religious disputes, nor to revenge as a substitute for justice.
That in turn could pave the way for seeking a collective solution to
the disputes in Mathura and Kashi, two tinderboxes waiting to be lit.
India is on the threshold of a bright future. Isn't it time to say
goodbye to the iniquities of the past, both real and imagined?
The author is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, New York
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-14-2003
[quote name='Kaushal' date='Oct 13 2003, 05:26 PM'] secâ¢uâ¢larâ¢ism
Pronunciation: (sek'yu-lu-riz"um), [key]
ân.
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.[/quote]
By that definition no country in this world is secular. Not one!
I'll tend to go more with the idea of 'Equality.' All men, and women, are created equal. No difference based on religion / color / caste / etc.,
By the definition of 'secularism' you posted, none of the partyies in India are secular.
So where do we stand?
BTW. The article that you posted about money earned from temples diverted for mosques / Haj / Churches is news to me.
Ayodhya - Guest - 10-14-2003
Quote:By that definition no country in this world is secular. Not one!
That is not entirely true . Most of the communist countries (before the breakup of the FSU) and a few even today like China, Albania, Vietnam, Cuba follow these precepts fairly faithfully. My point was just as the word secular is very popular with Communist countries, it is not so in the US as it is considered to be synonymous with anti-religious doctrine. Furthermore , Indian communists, unlike their comrades in China who happen to be first and last Chinese patriots and happy to be called jingos, do not follow these precepts. For the Indian communists basically secularism means there is nothing good that can be said about Hinduism (why - for no other reason than that it is the religion of the majority and their unity must be smashed at all costs). My contention is not that many countries follow such a brand of secularism , but that such a meaning for secularism is widely accepted as a secularist concept and that therefore secularism is not widely used as a philosophy or an ideology in America. You can glance at any newspaper and see how many times the word secularism pops up on any given day and compare the same to a english language newspaper in India. In India secularist dogma dominates the debate in english language media and is constantly hurled as a Brahmastra against bewildered Hindus who have always considered themselves pluralistic in their acceptance of other religious beliefs.
Quote:I'll tend to go more with the idea of 'Equality.' All men, and women, are created equal. No difference based on religion / color / caste / etc.,
I agree with you that this is an acceptable definition of secularism namely equal treatment of all humans , regardless of religion, caste, creed etc and i would have no problem if this was faithfully applied in India. But that is not the case . There is no question that preferential treatment of minority religions is written into the constitution and under the guise of secularism they have been skimming of temple funds to subsidize the Hajj pilgrimage and subsidizing churches and masjids, all based on the supposition that the Hindu is either gullible or too meek to raise a voice in protest. Thus the secularism that is followed in India adheres to no definition and is an adhoc proposition made up to garner minority votes.
As far as the constitutional bais towards minority religions, a particular odious instance is Article 30. Subhash Kak has this to say about article 30;
[url="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/india/debate4.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/in...ia/debate4.html[/url]
Quote:Dr. Kak's Response:
The primary strength of the Indian constitution is its affirmation of equality for all citizens. Its primary weakness is its form and size.
It is more than a thousand pages long and perhaps only high court lawyers have seen the entire text. It is a recipe for bureaucratic control of the state. The constitution has a lot of empty verbiage on things like socialism, without defining such terms. It also has the infamous Article 30 that has caused much resentment and may be the underlying cause of religious discord in India. According to its current interpretation by the courts, the state must financially support schools run by minority religious groups but not those by the majority religious groups. It is a marvel that things are quite peaceful in India in spite of this Article 30. Imagine what would happen in the U.S. if the federal and the state governments gave funds to Islamic schools and not to Christian schools. I bet there would be bloodbath.
Article 30
[url="http://www.unesco.org/most/rr3indi.htm"]http://www.unesco.org/most/rr3indi.htm[/url]
Quote:Article 30 Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutionsÂ
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.Â
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.Â
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
Note that if you are defined to be part of the majority religion, you have no such explicitly stated rights.
QED - Secularism in India does not adhere to the egalitarian principle that all religions should be treated equally.