prasad1
Active member
It’s a tough life being a liberal these days, but someone has to do it... Or, in other words, anything is better than being a bigot. Some in India have been mocked and scorned at for being “pseudo-secular”, a phrase which means that they are people who pretend to be “secular”, but are actually pro-Muslim (and/or “pro” other religious minorities) and, thus, anti-Hindu. But this phrase has lost its currency, much like L.K. Advani, the Bharatiya Janata Party doyen who coined it, and has been replaced with “sickular”. Secular means division of church and state. But in the Indian context it means all religions are equally wonderful, or horrible, and no one religion will be favoured over another. Since the now less than new, but more than 100-day-old Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, treated September 5 more like Children’s Day than Teachers’ Day, perhaps one could look at this problem from a Nehruvian perspective. After all, what was once known as the Nehru jacket has already become the Modi jacket in BJP circles. And much as people might like to compare Mr Modi to Indira Gandhi, one hears that he has set his sights on surpassing her father’s legacy. So why should Children’s Day continue to be on Chacha Nehru’s birthday? It could well be whenever Chacha Modi thinks it should be.
In Nehru’s eyes, the “majority” religion had the responsibility not to overshadow and overwhelm the smaller religions. That is why, from Nehru’s point of view, the state had to look after the rights of minorities. A majoritarian democracy is, at the end of the day, not a democracy at all equal rights does not mean the rights of the majority trump everyone else’s. Of course, it is not just Nehru who felt this way and nor is this view unique to Indian “sickulars”. But for those of the non-Nehruvian persuasion, Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi are responsible for all this secular nonsense. In the eyes of Chacha Modi and his friends, anyone who is “sickular” is anti-Hindu and, therefore, anti-national. Ever since he became Prime Minister, Mr Modi does not talk to us as much as he used to. But he did reveal his view of “sickular” folks when he said in Japan, while gifting a Gita to the emperor, that his “secular friends” might object.
Because “sickulars” presumably cannot bear it when much revered Hindu scriptures are given any attention. Might have been interesting to see the reaction of the Japanese emperor had the Prime Minister used the popular “sickular” instead. How does this anathema for the secular, even if presented through a little mocking on an international tour, translate on the ground in India? There’s the incredible assertion that Muslims in Uttar Pradesh in particular have decided to woo Hindu women into Islam to increase the Muslim population and, therefore, votebank. “Love jihad” might sound like a remarkably inefficient way to do so, but the BJP is all set to fight an election based on this anyway. And now a BJP politician from Madhya Pradesh has declared that Muslim men should not be allowed to dance the garba at the upcoming Navratri festival in case they practise “love jihad” on the Hindu women of his state.
Only a “sickular”, it has been said, would question the BJP’s concern about “love jihad”. Or take exception to BJP MP Yogi Adityanath’s extortions to Hindu men to marry 100 Muslim women, be sceptical about claims of stem cell research being found in the Vedas, as discovered and revealed by Dinanath Batra, or worry about RSS’ comments about Hindustan being a Hindu country where all Indians are Hindus, whatever their religion. Indeed, question any of this and you are likely to be instantly labelled as a follower of the Islamic State!
Being ?Sickular?
In Nehru’s eyes, the “majority” religion had the responsibility not to overshadow and overwhelm the smaller religions. That is why, from Nehru’s point of view, the state had to look after the rights of minorities. A majoritarian democracy is, at the end of the day, not a democracy at all equal rights does not mean the rights of the majority trump everyone else’s. Of course, it is not just Nehru who felt this way and nor is this view unique to Indian “sickulars”. But for those of the non-Nehruvian persuasion, Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi are responsible for all this secular nonsense. In the eyes of Chacha Modi and his friends, anyone who is “sickular” is anti-Hindu and, therefore, anti-national. Ever since he became Prime Minister, Mr Modi does not talk to us as much as he used to. But he did reveal his view of “sickular” folks when he said in Japan, while gifting a Gita to the emperor, that his “secular friends” might object.
Because “sickulars” presumably cannot bear it when much revered Hindu scriptures are given any attention. Might have been interesting to see the reaction of the Japanese emperor had the Prime Minister used the popular “sickular” instead. How does this anathema for the secular, even if presented through a little mocking on an international tour, translate on the ground in India? There’s the incredible assertion that Muslims in Uttar Pradesh in particular have decided to woo Hindu women into Islam to increase the Muslim population and, therefore, votebank. “Love jihad” might sound like a remarkably inefficient way to do so, but the BJP is all set to fight an election based on this anyway. And now a BJP politician from Madhya Pradesh has declared that Muslim men should not be allowed to dance the garba at the upcoming Navratri festival in case they practise “love jihad” on the Hindu women of his state.
Only a “sickular”, it has been said, would question the BJP’s concern about “love jihad”. Or take exception to BJP MP Yogi Adityanath’s extortions to Hindu men to marry 100 Muslim women, be sceptical about claims of stem cell research being found in the Vedas, as discovered and revealed by Dinanath Batra, or worry about RSS’ comments about Hindustan being a Hindu country where all Indians are Hindus, whatever their religion. Indeed, question any of this and you are likely to be instantly labelled as a follower of the Islamic State!
Being ?Sickular?
