SECULARISM IS FRAUD ON PARTITIONED INDIA (BROKEN BHARAT)

Date: 7/8/2005

Comment

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85&page=7 /// Secularism: A fraud on the Hindus By M.S.N. Menon /// HINDU India was tolerant to every faith. Buddhist India was not different. Is this the tradition of the Semitic faiths? No. Hindu India kept politics and religion separate. Was this the tradition of the Semitic faiths? No. /// It was the tradition of rajadharma (Politics) to protect all people irrespective of their faiths. And be impartial in whatever the ruler did. Thus, Ashoka, the great Buddhist emperor, gave protection to all his subjects: to the Brahmanas, Sramanas and even the atheists. It was this impartiality which gave the Indian state its moral competence. It was from this that its authority flowed. Are these the traditions of the Semitic faiths? No. Then what is it that Hinduism has in common with Semitic faiths? Very little. /// In Rock Edict XII, Ashoka says (2300 years ago): “A person should not make an exhibition of reverence of his own sect (religious group) and condemn another without good reason.” On the contrary, he says, “the other sect should be shown reverence. By so doing, a person exalts his own sect and does service to another's sect. By doing otherwise, he does harm to both.” This policy came to be known as sarva dharma samabhava (Equal respect to all religions). Does the Pope of Rome look upon other religions with ‘equal respect’? Do the American Methodists respect Hinduism? Does Islam respect other religions? The answer is: No, No, No! /// Then why was this doctrine of samabhava imposed on the Hindus, when they needed no Nehru to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at the bottom to tell them of their ancient traditio to tell them to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not bec to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at the bottom to tell them of their ancient tradition? India wil to tell th/em of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not beca to tell them of their to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because fr the Wahhabis, major Sunni sects, consider the samabhava of Hindus and European secularism as the worst evils. /// Both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions. To denounce Hinduism is a daily routine with their missionaries. That is the traditional way to win converts. The Christians say that Hinduism represents ‘demonic forces’, while Muslims say it (Hinduism) is a ‘false religion’. /// So, was it not a deliberate fraud on the part of Nehru to impose this doctrine of ‘equal respect for all religions’ on the Hindus alone? Didn't he know that Christianity and Islam, both foreign religions, are committed to convert India. Even a man of ordinary intelligence (and he certainly was not so ‘ordinary’) would have called for a ban on conversion to make his doctrine of samabhava meaningful. But he did nothing. He was as cussed to the Hindus as he was when he passed the Hindu Code Bill. /// When the American colonies founded the United States, they declared themselves in favour of secularism. So, when the Mormons (an obscurantist Christian sect) insisted on retaining their Personal Laws including polygamy (as the Indian Muslims have been insisting on) they were told that admission to the Union would depend on their giving up their Personal Laws. /// Was Nehru aware of this episode? Did he have the courage to follow the American example? Perhaps he was more comfortable with the adulation of the Muslims. /// So, the appeasement went on. The Congress party continued to make concessions to the minorities for their votes. Nehru had little to say against minority fundamentalism, but much against Hindu fundamentalism. This suited the Muslims. But this does not suit the Hindus. They want this pseudo-secularism of Nehru to be scrapped. /// The case against religion is that it is divisive. But by introducing the Parliamentary system, with unchecked growth of political parties, the Congress brought in the worst divisive form of government that one could think of. Race, religion, ethnicity, caste, language, region-all these became fault lines in the divisive process. The Indian polity is already highly fragmented. The damage has been done. Thanks to the Congress Party. /// But what is one to make of Nehru, the ‘visionary’, the ‘builder of modern India’ when he went for the ‘first-past-the-post’ system of elections? Was this not done in the full knowledge of its consequences? Of course it was, but it helped the Congress to stay in power. /// Secularism was, therefore, designed to hold the Hindus in duress. In the event, it kept the fault lines open. To close these fault lines, the Indian people must go back to nationalism. One simple way is to insist that the winner in an election must secure 51 per cent of the votes cast. /// In a country of India's diversity, further fragmentation poses great danger. The time is, therefore, ripe for the reverse process. Only nationalism, modified to suit our times, can unite our people. Only nationalism can close the fault lines. ///____________________________ /// ......................000000000

[_private/ftarc.htm]