12-29-2007, 01:25 PM
From another forum<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
When "seularism" was brought into life in Britain, it was secularism that existed in a basically Christian land.
Governance would have no influence from the Church and in exchange teh Church would be left alone by government as long as it kept its word and did not meddle in governance.
Society in India before Britain came into India was totally religious, and highly communal. Religion existed at the highest levels of Government. Kings constructed temples, or supported one or other religion. India until the British came was a highly unsecular land. It had a fair share of intolerance too.
Then Macaulay came and
1) Stopped British funding of Sanskrit and Arabic education
2) Started English education
3) Introduced a secular penal code.
Macaulay did not impose a secular civil code. The Civil code remained divided on religious and communal lines.
Then India got independence and became a secular republic. The meaning of secular was taken from the British.
I repeat that the Indian Government would not be influenced by the Church (religion) and the Church (religion) would not meddle in governance.
But this was originally an agreement reached in Europe between Church and Christian people after much fighting and killing. It was not a decision taken by Hindus or Muslims, who always had religion as part of their governance.
It was then that the whammy struck Hindus.
The India government introduced a civil code for Hindus. The Indian government indulged in an unsecular albeit constitutionally valid act by introducing a Hindu civil code.
The Muslim civil code was left untouched. (One can read the reasons for this in any history book. I suggest Ram Guha's book)
In other words, the Indian government remained secular towards Muslims and kept its word. But it did not treat Hindus in the same secular way and leave their civil code alone. And the Government continues to be secular towards Muslims and leaves their civil code alone even as sharia is used to whip up terror and intolerant or anachronistic behavior in India.
But that is not all.
The Indian government still allows a skewed kind of secularism in the public domain that it is not supposed to touch, but touches as and when it feels like touching.
The government allows "all religions to be practised and propagated freely". That sounds fair. As a result, both islam and Christianity are allowed to spread their faith. That is obviously fair and secular, and in line with Indian secularism
However, in the process of spreading their faith in India, Islam and Christianity can only get new recruits from the majority Hindus. In order to get new recruits from Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have to inform potential Hindu converts that their religion is false as are their Gods, who must be repudiated.
Someone please explain to me how Hindus are being "intolerant" and "unsecular" if they complain that Christian and Muslims spreading their religions are declaring Hindu Gods as false, to be rejected in favor of a Christian or Muslim God.
If the secularism and tolerance that is expected from Hindus include silent assent when someone, legally protected by the Indian government comes and declares Hindu gods as "false" then I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT BRAND OF SECULARISM AND TOLERANCE. I am not that secular or tolerant.
It does not require much intelligence to understand that I am not being unfair AT ALL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When "seularism" was brought into life in Britain, it was secularism that existed in a basically Christian land.
Governance would have no influence from the Church and in exchange teh Church would be left alone by government as long as it kept its word and did not meddle in governance.
Society in India before Britain came into India was totally religious, and highly communal. Religion existed at the highest levels of Government. Kings constructed temples, or supported one or other religion. India until the British came was a highly unsecular land. It had a fair share of intolerance too.
Then Macaulay came and
1) Stopped British funding of Sanskrit and Arabic education
2) Started English education
3) Introduced a secular penal code.
Macaulay did not impose a secular civil code. The Civil code remained divided on religious and communal lines.
Then India got independence and became a secular republic. The meaning of secular was taken from the British.
I repeat that the Indian Government would not be influenced by the Church (religion) and the Church (religion) would not meddle in governance.
But this was originally an agreement reached in Europe between Church and Christian people after much fighting and killing. It was not a decision taken by Hindus or Muslims, who always had religion as part of their governance.
It was then that the whammy struck Hindus.
The India government introduced a civil code for Hindus. The Indian government indulged in an unsecular albeit constitutionally valid act by introducing a Hindu civil code.
The Muslim civil code was left untouched. (One can read the reasons for this in any history book. I suggest Ram Guha's book)
In other words, the Indian government remained secular towards Muslims and kept its word. But it did not treat Hindus in the same secular way and leave their civil code alone. And the Government continues to be secular towards Muslims and leaves their civil code alone even as sharia is used to whip up terror and intolerant or anachronistic behavior in India.
But that is not all.
The Indian government still allows a skewed kind of secularism in the public domain that it is not supposed to touch, but touches as and when it feels like touching.
The government allows "all religions to be practised and propagated freely". That sounds fair. As a result, both islam and Christianity are allowed to spread their faith. That is obviously fair and secular, and in line with Indian secularism
However, in the process of spreading their faith in India, Islam and Christianity can only get new recruits from the majority Hindus. In order to get new recruits from Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have to inform potential Hindu converts that their religion is false as are their Gods, who must be repudiated.
Someone please explain to me how Hindus are being "intolerant" and "unsecular" if they complain that Christian and Muslims spreading their religions are declaring Hindu Gods as false, to be rejected in favor of a Christian or Muslim God.
If the secularism and tolerance that is expected from Hindus include silent assent when someone, legally protected by the Indian government comes and declares Hindu gods as "false" then I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT BRAND OF SECULARISM AND TOLERANCE. I am not that secular or tolerant.
It does not require much intelligence to understand that I am not being unfair AT ALL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->