07-23-2009, 08:48 PM
I have been thinking about the kind of secularism practised in India. I think the ref to the word crept in to sort of assure the minorites against percieved majoritarian tyranny which could develop later as the republic aged. So its reverse millat point of view. In practise it included shoring up minorities and browbeating majority. This was termed pseudo-secularism as it does not really mean the Western sense of the state not allowing religion to guide it.
On reflection I think it really is crony secualrism where particular cronies (from minorities and modern Hindus(Ramachandra Guha types)) are given privileges and propped up to hold the discourse.
By calling it pseudo-secularism the adherents get away as they do believe in what they are doing. However crony secularism has a negative connotation and is the right description for what passes as secularsim in Indian politics. This way the practioners and non-practioners are both the same except the practioners award privlileges to their cronies and browbeat the non-practioners.
On reflection I think it really is crony secualrism where particular cronies (from minorities and modern Hindus(Ramachandra Guha types)) are given privileges and propped up to hold the discourse.
By calling it pseudo-secularism the adherents get away as they do believe in what they are doing. However crony secularism has a negative connotation and is the right description for what passes as secularsim in Indian politics. This way the practioners and non-practioners are both the same except the practioners award privlileges to their cronies and browbeat the non-practioners.