A lot of noise is made about how unsecure Muslims are in India and how Hindus have victimized minorities. Thakeray & Modi are named in the same breath as Osama & Al Zawahiri. Its funny when Indian Muslims also join their Pakistani brothers in highlighting minority victimization in India
However, why is it that Shiv Sena & RSS have been able to get the support that they did in a “secular country” like India. I believe the Indian govt. and the minorities are to blame for that.
History of India after 1945 has been a disgraceful history of minority appeasement and extreme tolerance of minority terrorism. In the 1945-46 General Elections, Muslims in every State in the then united India voted for the creation of Pakistan. The superior rights envisaged and proposed by that Nehru were codified and incorporated in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution.
At that time no one questioned Nehru as to why he was proposing a package of special treatment with special privileges for the Muslims even after they had been given a separate homeland based on Jinnah’s ‘Two-Nation’ theory. Being a clever and unscrupulous politician, after the death of Gandhi, Nehru realised that the only way in which he could create a vote bank for the Congress was by providing superior rights for the Muslims in the Constitution.
Groups such as BJP, RSS & SS have played on this sense of frustration that the Hindus have and thats the only reason they have survived as long as they have. If we are a democracy modeled on UK/USA, we should not be giving different rights to different religious groups. Only then would we truly become secular.
However, why is it that Shiv Sena & RSS have been able to get the support that they did in a "secular country" like India. I believe the Indian govt. and the minorities are to blame for that.
History of India after 1945 has been a disgraceful history of minority appeasement and extreme tolerance of minority terrorism. In the 1945-46 General Elections, Muslims in every State in the then united India voted for the creation of Pakistan. The superior rights envisaged and proposed by that Nehru were codified and incorporated in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution.
At that time no one questioned Nehru as to why he was proposing a package of special treatment with special privileges for the Muslims even after they had been given a separate homeland based on Jinnah's 'Two-Nation' theory. Being a clever and unscrupulous politician, after the death of Gandhi, Nehru realised that the only way in which he could create a vote bank for the Congress was by providing superior rights for the Muslims in the Constitution.
Groups such as BJP, RSS & SS have played on this sense of frustration that the Hindus have and thats the only reason they have survived as long as they have. If we are a democracy modeled on UK/USA, we should not be giving different rights to different religious groups. Only then would we truly become secular.
Hindu fundamentalist like RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal will keep on barking on minority appeasement but would never succeed in forming a fundamentalist government since common Indians have enough common sense. No common Indian would get swayed by your logic. Secular forces will always remain in power and the great NEHRU legacy will continue. INDIA WILL REMAIN SECULAR BY ALL MEANS.
See where BJP stands today: Just Gujrat, Rajasthan and Chhatisgarh
See where BJP stands today: Just Gujrat, Rajasthan and Chhatisgarh
In your zeal to defend "secularism" and pull down BJP/RSS, you have not answered my question. Why does a secular democracy like India have different rights for different religious groups ? According to me, thats the root cause for animosity between religious groups.
See where BJP stands today: Just Gujrat, Rajasthan and Chhatisgarh
U forgot Bihar. U forgot jharkhand, Up it is the main opposition party so is in himachal, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
India should remain secular, no doubt about it. But dont u think there is no minority appeasement in India. !!
Vision of Nehru was an India which is modern, liberal and tecknologicaly advanced. In order to do that one has to get out of the narrow religious customs and rituals and rules. India should have common civil and criminal law. No province should be treated prefrentialy. If people like you can go and live in other coutries where there is no sheria and be happy then why not in India. Is that a too much of an ask. :)
you should be, but a more logical conclusion is that your working towards it and so are your fellow countrymen, expats and all. the word 'appeasement' was brought into recent political limelight by the israelli prime minister, your use of this word here only proves my point in the role you would like the indian muslims to play for you as terrorists.
So someone would rather go for minority votebanks to make their national career and ignore the majority... is that what you are saying? or Nehru according to you was local leader hence focussed on his 'local majority which is national minority'?
Your question seems more like a rhetorical one than an actual question. If you had any idea about Indian politics you wouldnt have been asking this question.
Majority Hindus do not vote enmasse for the same party - hardliners, liberals, Dalits etc. vote for different parties that suits their interests and a lot of middle class Indians do not vote because of the dirty politics.
So playing the minority card works best for political parties, since its easy to unify minorities by giving them special treatment vs. focussing on the majority which is politically divided & hence more effort but less reward.
How did you draw that conclusion ? Read my post again. Muslims vote en-masse, Hindu votes are splintered so it makes sense for political parties to go after Muslims.
Your argument about Nehru is utterly flawed and lacks basic reason. When Nehru was the prime minister there was no visible opposition to him and he had no reason to play vote bank politics. Maybe his successors did, but that is not the point. Nehru was a true nationalist and believed in secular principles. He as a person was not very convinced about the two nation theory. Maybe he would have gone out of the way to make life better for muslims in India. The greatest fear of muslims in India at that point in time was whether if they could follow their religion in peace. This had to be negated.
Your other point was about the growing popularity of organisations like the RSS and the Shiv sena. The world over we are seeing a resurgence of faith based organisations. It is only natural that the average hindu on the street needs an organisation to feel secure. These organisations regularly dish out statistics on how and why hindus would become minorities in a short period of time. This would only increase their fears and then gravitate towards such organisations.
^ Yaar yeh kis kis tarha key Indians a jatey hai yahan par
This guy with the "rash" still has not gotten himself treated...... Yaar sab ko Rash ho jaey ga yahaan par jao dermatologist key pas. Gundey rehney say bohat beemarian hoti hain...
Your argument about Nehru is utterly flawed and lacks basic reason. When Nehru was the prime minister there was no visible opposition to him and he had no reason to play vote bank politics. Maybe his successors did, but that is not the point. Nehru was a true nationalist and believed in secular principles. He as a person was not very convinced about the two nation theory. Maybe he would have gone out of the way to make life better for muslims in India. The greatest fear of muslims in India at that point in time was whether if they could follow their religion in peace. This had to be negated.
Your other point was about the growing popularity of organisations like the RSS and the Shiv sena. The world over we are seeing a resurgence of faith based organisations. It is only natural that the average hindu on the street needs an organisation to feel secure. These organisations regularly dish out statistics on how and why hindus would become minorities in a short period of time. This would only increase their fears and then gravitate towards such organisations.
I completely disagree with you. Nehru was a shrewd politician who could see into the future. He knew that under democracy, it was a matter of time before there would be opposition to him. And he also knew that the opposition could only come from right wing Hindus (post Gandhi's assasination). Since he realized that it was not possible to unify Hindus as a vote bank, he targeted minorities. I think he did go out of his way to appease Muslims.
Pls answer my basic question on why he proposed special rights for Muslims ?
Your second point is exactly what I said initially. RSS/SS play on Hindu insecurity about special rights being given to Muslims. If Muslims can have 4 wives, they would grow at 4 times the rate of Hindus. This population growth mismatch is what is cited to say Hindus would become a minority.
