The strongest evidence for selective secularism is the personal law asymmetry. Nehru spent enormous political capital pushing the Hindu Code Bills through the 1950s — reforming Hindu marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption — while leaving Muslim personal law entirely untouched, explicitly saying the time wasn’t ripe and reform should come from within the community. Whatever the stated reasoning, the practical result was that the state reformed one community’s religious law by legislation and exempted another’s. That asymmetry is the foundation of the appeasement critique, and it’s not a fringe reading; even sympathetic scholars concede it created a durable double standard that the Shah Bano episode later made explosive. The Somnath temple episode points the same direction for your case: Nehru opposed government association with the reconstruction and publicly disapproved of President Rajendra Prasad attending the consecration, which to many Hindus read as coldness toward a moment of civilizational restoration after centuries of grievance.
Nehru is as much responsible for India’s partition as much as Jinnah is. Lets see if this publication will publish this comment of mine.
Current govt also does does selective secularism. Excluding certain sections of society from UCC in the name of they are not yet ready. Same logic of Nehru still continues.
On the ground, if only congress and others had stuck to being truly secular. It is the policies and practices of appeasement – from looking the other way to outright and blatant favouritism that created the space for the hindutva movement. But dialectical currents have their own rhythm and reasons for existence. This tide shall also turn. And instead of demonising hindutva or pettily comparing days and % ages, an intellectual like Varshney could do well to show a deeper analysis and understanding of the positives and negatives of both , which is hope , can be integrated and eliminated in the next synthesis
The strongest evidence for selective secularism is the personal law asymmetry. Nehru spent enormous political capital pushing the Hindu Code Bills through the 1950s — reforming Hindu marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption — while leaving Muslim personal law entirely untouched, explicitly saying the time wasn’t ripe and reform should come from within the community. Whatever the stated reasoning, the practical result was that the state reformed one community’s religious law by legislation and exempted another’s. That asymmetry is the foundation of the appeasement critique, and it’s not a fringe reading; even sympathetic scholars concede it created a durable double standard that the Shah Bano episode later made explosive. The Somnath temple episode points the same direction for your case: Nehru opposed government association with the reconstruction and publicly disapproved of President Rajendra Prasad attending the consecration, which to many Hindus read as coldness toward a moment of civilizational restoration after centuries of grievance.
Nehru is as much responsible for India’s partition as much as Jinnah is. Lets see if this publication will publish this comment of mine.
Current govt also does does selective secularism. Excluding certain sections of society from UCC in the name of they are not yet ready. Same logic of Nehru still continues.
On the ground, if only congress and others had stuck to being truly secular. It is the policies and practices of appeasement – from looking the other way to outright and blatant favouritism that created the space for the hindutva movement. But dialectical currents have their own rhythm and reasons for existence. This tide shall also turn. And instead of demonising hindutva or pettily comparing days and % ages, an intellectual like Varshney could do well to show a deeper analysis and understanding of the positives and negatives of both , which is hope , can be integrated and eliminated in the next synthesis