Are you a ‘Secularist’?

There is a mail floating around which includes a presentation called ‘Pseudosecularism’ with the following questions.  Usually I avoid countering such propaganda but when sometimes you see a recurring theme in most people’s arguments it becomes necessary to address it.  This presentation has the following questions which one is supposed to answer for oneself.  I am going to answer them here. 

Are you a Secularist?

I am not sure what that means.  But if it means I believe in the principles of secularism and believe that our country, India, should adhere to the secular principles, yes, I am a secularist.  But it does not mean I am going to demonize other’s religion while praising my own, or denounce my religion while praising others.   I believe that state should be separated from religion – irrespective of whose religion it is. 

There are nearly 52 Muslim countries.  Show one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.

I don’t know if other Muslim countries provide Haj subsidy, but as a ‘secularist’ I oppose India giving Haj subsidy.   As a secularist, I do not agree to state providing Haj subsidy.  But it is also true that no country in the world gives government funds for construction and renovation of private Hindu temples.   Karnataka Government in India has donated crores of money to Hindu temples. 

As a secularist, I oppose Haj subsidies, and also oppose state sponsorship of Hindu Temples. As a secularist, I also oppose state sponsored cow veneration, state sponsored celebration of Hindu and Muslim festivals, state sponsored Hindu ceremonies for government offices, etc.

So, India happens to be a ‘secular’ country in theory which doesn’t necessarily practice secularism, and does all kinds of funny things to promote various religions, including Haj subsidies, and donations to temples.  So, to highlight only Haj subsidies does not do justice to the argument that India somehow treats Indian Muslims preferentially, because it treats Indian Hindus even more preferentially.

Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?

Indian Muslims are not accorded any special rights compared to Indian Hindus.  Having a separate personal law for Indian Muslims is not giving ‘special rights’ but ‘inferior rights’.  An Indian Muslim woman is treated far more inferiorly than an Indian Hindu woman.  I guess, allowing Muslim man to marry more than one woman is considered a privilege by the Hindu fundamentalists, and that must be the reason why they keep talking of ‘special’ rights given to Muslim men.  May be, that is why more Hindu men in India are polygamous than Muslim men.

Show one country where the 85% majority craves for the indulgence of the 15% minority.

Indian Hindus do not crave for indulgence of the Indian Muslims.  It is a false notion.  It doesn’t reflect in any action that Indian Hindus do.  In fact, Muslims are discriminated against by many Hindus.  Muslims are underrepresented in education, employment and opportunity.   Muslims are ghettoed into special areas by denying them tenancy in Hindu apartments.

Show one Muslim country, which has a Non-Muslim as its President or Prime Minister.

Senegal is predominantly a Muslim country with nearly 90% Muslims had a Christian President for nearly 20 years.  [Included this after a friend cited this].  In most countries, elected leaders are usually from the majority religion.  India has not yet elected a Muslim Prime Minister.  United States and United Kingdom did not elect non-Christian President and Prime Minister, though both United States and United Kingdom are secular countries.   Most Muslims countries, like most Christian countries, have Presidents and Prime Ministers of majority religion.  

Most countries do not have such varied population with so many religions as India.  It is a greatness of India that we have had Presidents and Prime Ministers from non-majority religions.   Instead of feeling proud of such uniqueness, why should we start negatively talk about Muslim countries – because even most Christians countries follow the same pattern.

Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has declared a 'fatwa' against terrorists.

This statement is based in laziness. One search on the internet provided me with these on the first 10 results on Google. [Search words: indian muslims fatwa against terrorism]

Fatwa against terrorism

Muslims for secular democracy

 The Fatwa Against Terrorism: Indian Deobandis Renounce Violence but Policing Remains Unchanged

Muslim seminary issues fatwa against terrorism

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks:Fatwa Against Terrorism

Indian Muslims Denounce Terrorism In All Forms

Indian Muslims Criticize Terrorism

Darool-Uloom Deoband issues fatwa against terror

Indian Muslim scholars' league endorses fatwa against terrorism

Basically this allegation is made only to feed into the stereotypes that Muslims do not condemn violence, that they are violent people, and that they do not come out into the open to denounce the violence.  Hindu fundamentalists do not wish to read the statements made by Indian Muslims denouncing the violence and continue stick to their prejudices against Muslims.

Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry, etc. have in the past elected Muslims as CM’s.  Can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of Muslim - majority J&K?

Kerala had one Muslim CM, for less than 2 months, and he was forced to resign after that.   Most other Muslims CMs were appointed by the Congress central leadership.  And their tenure was not very long.  The opposition was too strong against them.  Bihar had one Muslim CM from Congress, for 15 months.  Maharashtra had one Muslim CM from Congress, for 18 months.

First, we have to understand that appointment of CMs by the center does not really reflect the will of the people, but more the will of Congress leadership at the center.  Also, the reasons why J&K never had a Hindu CM is more to do with the Kashmir problem which has been haunting India since Independence, and less to do with the will of the people of that state.

In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%. Today it is not even 1%.  In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30%. Today it is about 7%.  What happened to the missing Hindus? Do Hindus have human rights?

The ‘missing Hindus’ problem is often cited, as if something happened to those Hindus.  They question is always asked, ‘what happened to them? How did they disappear?’ - the way a kid would ask of disappearing bunny from the magicians hat.  In fact, the reality is very simple.  Most Hindus from these countries migrated into India over a period of time, preferring to live in India rather than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.  In fact, many Muslims also migrated into India during Bangladesh crisis so we can talk of ‘missing Muslims’ too.

In contrast, in India, Muslim population has gone up from 10.4% in 1951 to about 14% today; whereas Hindu population has come down from 87.2% in 1951 to 85% in 1991. Do you still think that Hindus are fundamentalists?

The question ‘Do you think Hindus are fundamentalists’ has nothing to do with the growth of a certain population.  The question is posed to mean: ‘If Hindus were fundamentalists, would they have allowed Muslims to make more babies?’ That’s a stupid question.  Hindus could be fundamentalists, and yet, population of Muslims could keep growing.  ‘Being discriminated against’ and ‘making more babies’ are not related.

Also, this data feeds into stereotyping of Muslims that they make more babies than Hindus.  Clearly, compared to Hindus as one group, Muslims growth was higher.  Both the Hindu and Muslim population has gone up, but at different rates.  While Hindus as a group grew by 20.3% in the last 10 years, Muslims as a group grew by 29.5% clearly showing a faster growth for Muslims.   But is this growth a clear function of the religion, as Hindu fundamentalists would like to us to believe, or is it a function of socio-economic status of that group?

Clearly, the religious group of Sikhs is considered a forward socio-economic group, and their population grew only by 18.2%. Now, let’s take a look at the population growth of SCs, a backward socio-economic group between 1981 and 1991. While the whole country grew by 23.8%, SC population grew by 31.0%. That’s because of lower literacy and higher poverty in this population group. This high growth is more a result of backwardness of that group, not because of their religion. The same holds for Muslims in India. 

Sachar Report and Ranganath Mishra Report clearly indicate that the poverty level and literacy level of that religion is one of the primary reasons. 

In India today Hindus are 85%. If Hindus are intolerant, how come Masjids and madrasas are thriving?

How come Muslims are offering Namaz on the road? How come Muslims are proclaiming 5 times a day on loud speakers that there is no God except Allah?

Masjids and Madrasas thrive even if Hindus were intolerant.  Even in dictatorships and theocracies, places of worship of targeted religions continue to thrive.  Even when Europe was being intolerant towards Jews during Middles Ages, synagogues were thriving.  The fact that Masjids and madrasas are thriving is no indication that Hindus are not intolerant.  Such a conclusion is baseless.

When Hindus gave to Muslims 30% of Bharat for a song, why should Hindus now beg for their sacred places at Ayodhya, Mathura And Kashi?

It’s arrogance of Hindus that they think that this subcontinent belongs only to them, and that Pakistan was formed on the land given to Muslims by Hindus.  Such arrogance needs to be combated.  Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Jains have home in this sub-continent.  So, Hindus did not ‘give’ Muslims the land for Pakistan, but the Muslims of that land made a nation out of their home. 

Hindus are not begging Muslims for their sacred places.  Instead, they are fighting this nation and it’s Constitution which was founded on secular principles.  They are asking this nation to give preferential treatment to Hindus, so that this nation can bend its secular laws, and give Hindus certain favors.   What happened during the time of Babur cannot be equated or challenged in the modern secular nation of India. 

Why Gandhiji objected to the decision of the cabinet and insisted that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public fund, not government funds. When in January 1948 he pressurized Nehru and Patel to carry on renovation of the Mosques of Delhi at government expenses?

Myth.  Nothing to substantiate this.

Why Gandhi supported Khilafat Movement (nothing to do with our freedom movement) and what in turn he got?

Gandhi supported Khilafat Movement to bring Muslims of India into the cause of Independence Movement.  Before Gandhi did this, Muslims were alienated from the Indian National Congress and the Indian Independence Movement.  No Hindu leader tried to include them in the fight against British.  With the support to Khilafat Movement, Gandhi performed a major achievement of bringing millions of Muslims into the fold of Independence Movement.  Why should this action be criticized? In fact, it should be celebrated.

If Muslims & Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar etc., are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya etc? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states?

Muslims and Christians are minorities in India, NOT in a particular state or district.  If we start going to by each start, one can go by each district, and we will get different results, and then we can go by each constituency, and we will get different results. 

And the most important thing to understand is that there are no ‘minority rights’ given to anyone.  There are certain privileges given to minority groups, but then there are privileges given to backward socio-economic groups like SC/ST also.   In the state of Andhra Pradesh, women get 33% reservation in education – those are not special rights, but privileges.   One should not equate privileges to rights.

When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai & Kailash Mansarovar are taxed?

A good question.  The only relevant question in the whole presentation.  We ‘secularists’ oppose Haj subsidy.

When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, Why Hindus cannot teach Gita or Ramayan in our schools?

Hindus already teach Gita and Ramayan in Hindu schools.

Do you admit that Hindus do have problems that need to be recognized?    Or do you think that those who call themselves Hindus are themselves The problem?

Hindus do not have any problems other than the problem of arrogance that the majority is right.

This is not prepared by/for any political party/group.  These are the observations  the thoughts of a Citizen Of India

This citizen of India does not know its constitution nor does he understand what India stands for.  Such citizens of India are the reason why India continues to have communalism in this country, why there is lawlessness, corruption in this country, why rules are broken, why certain people are targeted and discriminated in this country.  Such citizens need to know more about India before they start propagating such nonsense to impressionable young minds.