Saturday, March 25, 2023
HomeNational InterestModi redefined secularism with Ram Mandir as Hindu voters were fed up...

Modi redefined secularism with Ram Mandir as Hindu voters were fed up of Sonia-Left version

Assumptions that Indian secularism died with Ram Mandir bhoomi pujan are bunk. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and is worth preserving.

Text Size:

Did Indian secularism die on 5 August in Ayodhya? It follows, then, that a new Indian Republic would have been invented, a Hindu Rashtra.

If you accept those two arguments, a third becomes inevitable. Any Indian with a belief in our secular Constitution can then say this isn’t the country I was born in. And, I am going away. To America, where else, but only once Donald Trump goes this winter and immigration eases up.

To be upfront, we dismiss all of these assumptions as bunk. First of all, the rumours of the death of secularism are just that, rumours, and vastly exaggerated too. Sorry, Mark Twain, to drag you into the messiest side of our politics. Second, the death of secularism has been announced several times before; on a rough count, about as often as our commando comic TV channels declare Dawood Ibrahim dead.

Sorry for that odd comparison. But a rumour is a rumour is a rumour. Of course, it is fun if you are a masochist and relish self-flagellation.

A very vast majority, in fact almost all of the 138-plus crore of us here, have no green cards or benevolent uncles or foundations waiting to take us to America. Or Europe. Or that new destination with sex appeal for some, Turkey. We have to live in an India governed by whoever the people choose, based on the same Constitution we hold so dear.

In the past 35 years, secularism has been pronounced dead by the Right after Rajiv Gandhi’s action on the Shah Bano case (1986), the proactive ban on Satanic Verses (1988), the unlocking of the gates of Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi, Shilanyas and the launch of the national election campaign from Ayodhya with the promise of Ram Rajya (1989).

Then, in 1992, with the destruction of the mosque, followed by widespread communal riots. What else could you expect from a prime minister who “wore khaki chaddi (RSS shorts) under his dhoti?” Arjun Singh drafted Sonia Gandhi to come in with Sanjivani Booti, but that had short-lived effect in Kaliyuga. Indian secularism was again pronounced dead in 1996, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee put together India’s first BJP-led government, even if it lasted just 13 days. It was three more than what Congress party’s affable spokesman then, V.N. Gadgil, had predicted it to be, a “ten-day wonder”.

The next time Indian secularism died was in the Gujarat killings of 2002, and then died again and again as Modi kept winning there. It was then that we could foresee May 2014, May 2019 and now 5 August 2020, being scripted. I wrote two National Interest pieces, in the wake of the 2002 and 2007 Gujarat elections, anticipating the inevitable and unstoppable rise of Narendra Modi as a dominant national leader (‘The Modi Magnifier’, and ‘If Modi wins on Sunday’). The second even said Modi’s short-sleeved kurtas would become a political fashion statement.

Am I a Modi fan, or to use that expression fashionable these days, a ‘bhakt’? Not even Modi will accuse me of that. But I am a journalist with eyes and ears open. Indian secularism was pronounced dead in 2014 and again in 2019. But on 5 August, that is earlier this week, it was still alive to be killed yet again. But hang on, you might say, this time I have seen its corpse. You would be right.

Also read: Why Modi doesn’t feature in a list of India’s reformist prime ministers

Something did indeed die this 5 August in Ayodhya. It is just that it wasn’t our constitutional secularism, but a version of it confected after December 1992.

That the Babri demolition and the riots that followed angered a lot of middle-of-the-road Hindus also is a fact proven by election results that followed. This was especially so in the Hindi heartland, particularly Uttar Pradesh. After Kalyan Singh’s BJP government was dismissed, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP and Mayawati’s BSP took turns in power.

Both built their new politics around the redefined ‘secular’ vote. In Bihar, Lalu Yadav had already perfected the formula. The secular vote now came to be seen as Muslim vote.

It was around this new notion that old enemies came together in unlikely coalitions to keep the BJP out of power. The two United Front coalitions on daily wages, under H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral, were both an arrogant negation of the popular will. The only time this new post-1992 “anybody but the BJP” secular formulation won a genuine mandate was in 2009.

The reason we call the post-1992 secularism a new formulation is because of how strongly Left politics and intelligentsia got involved in it. They rewrote the Ayodhya binary as: Did Ram even exist or not? This ran contrary to the Congress party’s cautious approach where minorities were patronised, but Hinduism never mocked.

If the new BJP was dyed deeper saffron, the Congress-led alliance’s secularism was now much redder. It led to a series of blunders: The abolition of POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), as a pre-condition to the formation of UPA-1, because the ‘Muslims’ felt victimised. Never mind that the same government, not soft on terror, simultaneously amended UAPA. Is it much softer? Ask Dr Kafeel Khan.

The Sachar Committee, which raised a question like the count of Muslims in the Army, and serial announcements of Muslim job reservations (which did nothing for Muslims), followed. The UPA government gave the nation’s highest peacetime gallantry award to a police officer killed in the Batla House encounter, and its top leadership then began raising doubts on it, to ‘assuage’ the Muslim sentiment. There were other missteps like Manmohan Singh’s statement on why he thought the minorities should have the first right on the nation’s resources.

Pre-Sonia, you would have never heard a Congress prime minister say such a thing. SP, BSP and RJD were winning power simply by hyphenating the Muslim vote with one or two other large castes, and then providing lousy governance.

At some point the voter, especially the Hindu voter, had enough of it. It is that secularism which finally died this week. Its beneficiaries had seen it coming. Or you wouldn’t have seen Rahul Gandhi’s new Dattatreya Brahmin avatar in janeu, and the big temple visits. Too little, too late.

Also read: With Ram Mandir, Modi has reversed the tide of history more than any other global leader

Narendra Modi would argue that all he has done is redefine Indian secularism according to the will of the people. He speaks with the strength of a repeat mandate. You can blame the people.

Irrespective of what the Constitution says, in a genuine republic, if enough people do not like something, they will reject it. Kamal Ataturk declared Hagia Sophia to be neither a church (which it was for almost a millennium until 1453), nor a mosque, which it had been since. He made it a museum. He was no democrat, but a benevolent dictator, albeit secular. He wanted religion out of politics.

Last month, Erdogan reversed it. Unlike Ataturk, he is democratically elected. Is his decision popular in Turkey or not? Does this, then, reflect the true will of the people? What was secular wasn’t democratic, what is democratic isn’t secular. Politics is a funny game.

You can’t elect a new people. Nor are the people of India such a lost cause. Enough Hindus still vote against Modi, in spite of his massive appeal. What they need is a better proposition.

I take you back to the summer of 1996, the Lok Sabha debate on the vote of confidence that the 13-day Vajpayee government lost. Ram Vilas Paswan, ‘secular’ then, made a brilliant speech. Babur brought only 40 Muslims, he said. They then became crores because you (upper castes) did not let us in to your temples, but the mosques were open, so we went there instead, he said.

Indian secularism is enshrined in the basic structure of our Constitution, further strengthened by the Supreme Court judgment on Ayodhya that shrewdly located the 1993 law protecting all other shrines in India within it. This is worth preserving. Indian secularism doesn’t deserve a tombstone. It needs a new shrine, in the manner that Paswan put it.

Also read: Secularism gave up language of religion. Ayodhya bhoomi pujan is a result of that


Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism


  1. Secularism is dead. (7th edition) Long live secularism. Actually secularism did not start dying with Shah Bano in 1986. Secularism died in 1947 when the country was partitioned on the basis of religion. Secularism (always dying) will die one more death. When the Ram temple is inagurated after 3 years. Yeh, secularism hai ya duracell battery?


  3. Mr. Shekhar. It’s really sad to see a senior and experienced journalist like you give a twist the facts to make sense out of nonsense. I used to be a big admirer of your work earlier. But after seeing your change in colours, it’s obvious to everyone that you too are a sold journalist. Have lost all respect for you Sir.

  4. The point is well made, that with the laying of foundations for the Ayodhya temple in 2020, at long last has the Modi-led NDA government interred (or if you prefer, cremated) the hideously mangled and decayed corpse of what the Congress-Left-Mandal coalition haved described as ‘Secularism’: “What was secular wasn’t democratic, what is democratic isn’t secular.”..
    Perhaps this twisted, stunted thing that they’ve defined as ‘Secularism’, this creature of communal politics, was actually conceived during the Emergency – when in 1976, the Indira Gandhi-led Congress enacted the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the characterization of India in the Preamble from “sovereign democratic republic.”to “sovereign, SOCIALIST SECULAR democratic republic”. With this diabolic masterstroke, the Congress made the people of India believe that they were NOT secular before 1976! And so the wonderful argument began, that the Congress alone could protect “secularism” in India, an argument that quickly morphed into “protecting minorities (read Muslims) from the ‘evil communal Gandhi-killing RSS”.

  5. Hindu voters are dumb. Majority of them vote based on religion, which is the domain of their poverty land. As the Guru amongst them says ” chad ja beta chad ja shooli par, Bela karega Bhagwan. They have been pulling this BS for 5000 years!

    • Raghuraman… stop spreading your venom. To counter your opinion logically… if Hindu voters are dumb, why and how was the congress in power for decades??? was was it it despite Hindu voters??

  6. With your age and experience and your credentials, I do assume that you know the difference between democracy and majoritarianism. So this argument that in democracy, the electorate decide what is to be done doesn’t hold much water. Democracy is not just holding of elections, it is respecting some principles as sacrosanct. With those principles routinely being violated secularism being one of them, we cannot go about pretending to be part of a functional democracy and of course, you may defend it as much as you may like but in the end we as a country will have to pay our share of pound of flesh on the day of reckoning which isn’t much far now.

  7. Only one thing to say, Shekhar ji (with due credit to Advani ):You were asked to bend; but you are crawling now.We can imagine the reasons for this article, but don’t accept them. You call a goat a dog enough times and you hope people will believe it is a dog.Hope you get one of the Padma awards for your efforts.
    To claim that’s somebody has redefined secularism is like claiming that somebody has redefined truth by claiming that a blatant lie is a redefinition of truth.
    I know Sanghis don’t do irony, but MA Jinnah must be smiling from his grave .His arguments that Muslims will always be treated as third class citizens in independent India has been proven right .
    You can spin it all you like, but the hopeful optimistic vision of India, which was far ahead of its time that India can be a home to people of all persuasions has been given a burial with the ceremony in Ayodhya and the republic is definitely walking back from light to darkness under the current dispensation.

    • Very well told Mr. JAI.
      Shekhar Ji is a man who is trying his best to twist the facts and give an alternate incorrect and dishonest narrative. Sad.

    • Excellent comment Mr JaiPrakash !

      As you perspicaciously point out, the BJP under Modi and the many bhakths who unquestioningly support this so-called “Vikas Purush” are inadvertently validating Jinnah’s claims that Muslims will be treated as third class citizens in India. And in doing so, not only are they transforming India into a country based on Golwalkar’s fascist and bigoted ideas of citizenship, they are also widening the many fissures that already exist between different communities in India today. Instead of mending and healing these fissures and devoting the energies of the nation to development, PM Modi has decided to wake up every sleeping dog in the country and exploit it for narrow political gains, the nation be damned. A strategy that neatly hides his colossal and catastrophic failures on just about every other front but rabble-rousing and minority baiting.

      You hit the nail on the head when you state:

      “.. with the ceremony in Ayodhya and the republic is definitely walking back from light to darkness under the current dispensation ..”

      It reminded me of a quote from the Chinese writer Lin Yutang (1895-1976):

      “When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set”

      One hopes that the voter realises that such small men have done little to put food on their tables and the Ram Mandir does not vanquish hunger. And certainly not the Chinese.

  8. Shekhar Gupta is a fraud, like Gandhi & Nehru. Khilaffat movement was adapted by Gandhi in the name of Hindu-Muslim unity,& Mopala genocide was the result, 42nd amendment made us secular without debate in parliament, operation blue star to hurt religious sentiments of sikhs, that Iron Lady was perpetrator ,Sikh genocide and shahbano case reversal was for sake of secularism by bofor,,s scamster rajeev, cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir is the greatest example of secularism .Is Shekhar Gupta intact to listen the flawed of secularism. He will, is not dead yet.

  9. The Indian constitution enshrined secularism; not the western idea of separating state from church but an Indian version of secularism that treated all religions and all faiths with tolerance and regarded them all to be equal in the eyes of the state. The BJP government has made a travesty of this idea. It has deliberately stoked the idea of Hindu primacy this was never envisioned by our founding fathers. But Hinduism itself is not an unitary faith, there are several strands to it and tensions between different threads are evident in Indian society today. The state pandering to its majority religion promotes disenchantment with the political order as is happening in Kashmir. An “in-your-face” Hindu cultural militancy does not bode well for India.

    • Mr Raghu: A superb comment Sir! Indeed, your comment is the only one here where the connection between secularism and democratic ideals such as equality before the law and freedom of religion has been spotted.

      As you rightly point out, the operationalisation of secularism in India differs from its incarnations in say, Europe. In fact, the form and function of secularism vary considerably from country to country. History, culture, colonial impacts, the population mix, religious make-up and many other factors dictate the precise manifestation of secularism in a given country. Hence, it is an infinitely more nuanced and complex concept than the mere separation of state from church.

      In France for instance, secularism was designed to protect the people from religion viz. the French Catholic Church and also the Vatican. Thus, one of the intentions of French secularism – called laïcité – was to prevent the Church from interfering in the affairs of the state, law making etc. However, laïcité also guarantees a reciprocal non-interference by the state in the affairs of the Church. That principle of non-interference now applies to all religions in France.

      But more importantly, the French laïcité model also guarantees that the state would uphold the principle of equality (égalité) when dealing with citizens, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. That cardinal principle of equality before the law was also enshrined in the Constitution of India in Article 14.

      The BJP’s deliberate dilution of Article 14 has been taking place on many fronts. Muslims are under daily threat from goons linked to the BJP. Their right to citizenship is being questioned and their loyalties are under scrutiny. An already marginalised group has been cynically exploited by both the Congress and the BJP and faces a troubled future in Ram Rajya.

      Of late, even Hindus who sported beards have been called Muslims and thrashed by Hindu mobs. You might want to read about the near lynching of Prasun Goswami, a bearded Hindu researcher by very ordinary, well educated Hindus in an upscale restaurant in Jaipur here:

      As you point out, Hinduism is not uniform and unitary. Hindus worship in many different ways, many different Gods, have many different diets, castes, taboos, places of pilgrimage and so on. And trying to please one set of Hindus is bound to displease another. After all, in Pakistan, with a much simpler religion like Islam, the state is yet to define who a Muslim is and who is not a Muslim.

      As the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca said:

      “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful”

      PS: I have a lengthier comment in another Print about laïcité here:

  10. India needs rule of law, all state institutions are biased against minorities, Dalits and poor. Inequality in society is glaring, a dozen people own more than half the wealth of India __ these are the real issues of this country, unless these are addressed and solved I don’t see India going anywhere.

    • write about muslims,don’t include poor,dalits with them. it is like when muslims talk of preserving constitution.

      • Nonsense Mr Rajendra ! Mr Arif Ahmad Mir makes a valid point with his incisive comment.

        Dalits face the same violence, the same discrimination and the same contempt at the hands of caste Hindus that Muslims face in India. In fact Dalits have been at the receiving end of religiously sanctioned Hindu discrimination for eons. The difference though is that now under the fascist ideology of the BJP, it also receives state sanction and approval. Indeed, you can brutally lynch a Muslim and not only will you not be convicted, you will also get garlands and sweets from BJP Union Ministers. And surely with the approval of your ilk that ostensibly approves of violence against the downtrodden.

        One hopes that India survives as a country that can hold its head high in the comity of nations.

        • Wow.. the biased narrative at work yet again…. you will not talk about Hindus being lynched like in Palghar or Delhi riots or Godhra etc…. you won’t even acknowledge the fascists teachings in Madrassas or Islam … but will play the victim card and label everybody and everybody who exposes jihadi tendencies as fascists and islamophobis….

      • The only thing one can be sure is that India will become a Hindu Rashtra if the BJP continues its reign. Besides of course wealth accumulating to the Ambanis, Adanis and other well connected Gujarathis…

  11. I would not like to comment on Shekar’s article. Nothing more can be expected from him. He is making his struggle for existence. Making his ideas along with toeing twith the inevitable. I don’t where these idiots were, when secularism was given a go away in the name of excessive appeasement.

    Now coming to the survival of media (journalism) if such ideas which are against the popular sentiments are tried to be thrust on readers there necessary will be boycott of such media . It is time to eradicate such model of journalism.

  12. 6:50 It was not UPA, it was Ahmad Patel. He used Sonia Gandhi to hijack party’s ideology. Kya Shekhar Sir?! Are you too good friends with Ahmad Patel? Why are you not taking his name? haha.. He used to sit by Simhasan of Sonia madam all the time whispering in her ear. She was an amateur novice and just loved the feel of power didn’t know about all this. What you are telling the viewers (UPA came across more Anti-Hindu) you didn’t realize it recently. You know this from the start. Perhaps, you should inform the readers completely and not give them half picture.

    • Rahulji, I would have to disagree with you on one count. Sonia was far from being naive, she is a venomous serpent who wants to erase the hindu civilization and identity from India. So she cleverly chose another anti-hindu serpent Ahmed Patel as her close advisor. The duo – filled with hatred in their hearts – set about systematically demolishing the hindus. Unfortunately for the hindus, the duo accomplished a lot in a decade towards institutionally dis-empowering the hindus. It is going to take another 15 years of BJP to undo the damage they did. God forbid, if these serpents return to power in the near future, you can say goodbye to the hindu civilization.

  13. Mr Shekar Gupta writes:

    “.. Modi would argue that all he has done is redefine Indian secularism according to the will of the people .. Irrespective of what the Constitution says, in a genuine republic, if enough people do not like something, they will reject it ..”

    Alas, that is a very naïve and crude understanding of democracy. Democracy is certainly not the dictatorship of the majority.

    Some examples.
    A majority of white Americans wanted schools to be segregated with blacks and whites going to separate schools. Likewise, the majority of white Americans did not want to give black Americans the vote, despite what the Constitution said. Indeed, dubious tests were designed to thwart blacks from voting. As an aside, that rotten tradition that is now getting revived under Donald Trump through various voter suppression schemes targeting blacks. So my question to you Mr Shekar is:

    Because the white majority in the US is against giving equal rights and the vote to blacks, should the Constitution be amended to reflect that majority view as you say?

    In 1959, in the referendum in Switzerland on whether women should get the vote, 67% of male voters rejected the notion of universal suffrage. Was that majority right Mr Gupta?

    That was finally overturned in the referendum in 1971 when women finally won the right to vote.

    Switzerland frequently uses referendums to decide public policy. However, to prevent the tyranny of the majority, the country employs the notion of double majority. In other words, not only should a majority of voters back a proposal, but a majority of the 26 cantons should also do so in order for the proposal to pass.

    I am afraid that as things stand today, India is sliding into a majoritarian style dictator with a democratically elected dictator at the helm.

    One hopes and prays that the nation remains intact at the hands of this Delhi University graduate.

  14. Shekhar gupta ,u r the latest guy to sell Ur soul to Modi. What happened the contributions by like minded people was not sufficient or u realised that Ur old and need that money to sell out your old soul . God bless u .

  15. Quoting communal politoician Paswan who mouths a lie that Babar came with 40 people, you sek to undermine the vicious and murderous nature of Islamic invasion of India and millions of Hindus it killed whom it called infidel/kafirs , in its own recorded history.

  16. Sonia is not a hindu. She is hard core evnagulist christain. Their main aim to convert everyone to christianity

  17. Pramod Patil sahib ; very nice and highly informative to read , your comments on secularism . I think you are absolutely clear about , the reality on ground. Please try to shape these comments , into an artical form . These comments of yours can provide a better guidance for upcoming ,modern democracies , especially the Indo Pak.

  18. India was never secular is true sense of the word. The current disposition has just unmasked all pretentions and called the reality in black and white.

    With secularism debunked let us just call India a Hindu nation and move on. Rewrite constitution, rewrite history and create a future of one religion, one language, one culture.

    • India secularism is already when we use fake secularism, muslim appeasement politics, our tax payer money on hajj subsidy not for improve health care sector and development. Cong, left, opposition is muslim appeasement & casteism politics and BJP is hidu and casteism.

    • KK: That means accept the fact that we want to create in India Jinnah’s visio for what a state ought to be? That is a Hindu Pakistan? And I suppose you know how Jinnah’s idea of an Islamic state with one religion and one language fared right?

      We might move on, but perhaps not as one nation. Just check with Sikhs in Punjab first.

  19. Mr. Gupta, you have repeatedly used the words “Indian secularism”, when there is no such thing! Secularism, democracy, are foreign concepts, and they have no Indian precedent. Western-educated leaders like Nehru foisted these concepts of ignorant, politically immature Indians, regardless of whether they were ready for them. The meaning is the word “secularism”, according to Oxford dictionary is, “an opposition to, or rejection of religion”. This is it. Anything else is bakwas. There can’t be such a thing as “Indian secularism”, or “British secularism”. The secularism meaning “an opposition to, or rejection of religion” is nowhere to be seen in India. What was meant by word “{secular”{ when it was written in the constitution in 1976 by Indira Gandhi? And what good is the constitution, if its operators misuse it, or abuse it? THEN IT CAN BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION! THE SWORD THAT CAN FREE YOU, CAN ALSO ENSLAVE YOU!

    Ambedkar was right when he said, beneath the thin veneer of democracy on the top, there is an undemocratic, hierarchical society in India. Democracy, the secularism meaning “an opposition to, or rejection of religion”, and not what Modi, or Mohan Bhagwat say it should mean, are like square pegs in round holes in India. Modi can’t redefine secularism that is already defined as “an opposition to, or rejection of religion”. Yes, he can fool the people by some mumbo jumbo that he muttered during bhoomi Puja for Ram Mandir. Like you have said, “enough Hindus still vote against Modi, in spite of his massive appeal”, but even those of them who do so, still also wants him to be the next PM! They also rewarded him for his demonetisation stunt! May be they would also reward him for losing Indian land to the Chinese in Ladakh!

    Modi as the PM of India, a constitutionally secular country, shouldn’t have attended the religious ceremony of bhoomi Pujan in Ayodhya. Here are some examples of what some people and objective prestigious publications think about Modi’s attending the ceremony in Ayodhya. 1. New York Times: “Modi Founds Temple on Mosque’ s Ruins, in Triumphal Moment for Hindu Base” 2. Washington Post: “India marks another day of erasure and insult against its Muslim citizens”. Some people within India are wondering, why “No Answer From SC On How Illegally Placed Idol In Babri Masjid Became Deity?”. I don’t see here any redefining of “Indian secularism”. All I see is a cruel joke of democracy and secularism. Both democracy and secularism are suffering in India.

    • Sir, those secular party like congress, communist,opposition are fake secularism. When they applied 370 on kashmir, they against triple those those passed in after 30 year, they against UCC, they provide hagg subsidy on tax payer money this is wasteful and some western journalist like new York Times, washigthon post those praise Bagdhadhi is clerk. BJP is not secular same like congress, opposition and communist

    • I agree with the reader.
      Moreover another columnist Mr. Seshadri cheri in this week’s column has predicted that Kashi and Mathura are next and should not pose a problem.
      So I do not understand how Mr Shekhar Gupta has come to conclusion that secularism is not under threat. Seems to me like another good journalist falling to the awe of ruling dispensation. Very sad…

  20. Sir you Mr Shekhar Gupta are a big fraud. You are a sucker for this intolerant government cleverly disgused

  21. Sir

    1) Does the 1993 law passed by Narsimha govt regarding religious places as on 1993 apply to KASHMIR

    2) YOU have been always saying for past 30 yeàrs that all ” secular ” journalist are neutral. HOWEVER due to arrival of social media. Where people pointed out to fake “secular ” journalist . SAME FAKE ” SECULAR” JOURNALISTS started admitting that ofcourse their POLITICAL PREFERENCES COLOR THEIR JOURNALISM.

    3) Will you admit that ” secular votes ” cannot be expected from a community that is basically continually praying and ignore science as it goes against religious texts.

  22. I wish you would focus on content rather than bombastic words. I stopped reading your article after the first few sentences, not because I could not but because it wasn’t worth the effort to try and decipher where you were going with it.

  23. Secularism has been redefined. And maybe in, just maybe most close to its french meaning in the last 7 decades. No appeasements. Period. No subjugation. No mai-baap.
    It boggles me how Muslim diaspora from sub-continent and many other Muslim majority countries, flocks to the most “secular” “liberal” and “open” societies such as US, UK, NZ, Canada, France, Germany and yet are the class with worst performing indices of the standard of living, education, assimilation, acceptance of liberal values, skyrocketing in extremist and religiously driven crimes.
    It’s not that India’s liberalism has been fractured or our secularism is a bit paler than our western like-minded democracies, it’s the very regressiveness stemming from heir religion that keeps them at the bay of most secular liberal societies. They don’t seek “secularism”- they seek dominion. They don’t want harmony, they seek hegemony. It’s a raging religio-cultural war going and you’d be massively daft if you believe it otherwise.

    I am Hindu, Sikh, Christan, Zoroastrian, Jew, Buddhist, and all those countless indigenous cultures – only if you’re a Muslim, else, I am a decent easy going guy, who sees this world as one, wants our people to seek- love, respect, dignity, liberty, science and pursuit of happiness.

  24. Mr Shekhar Gupta, I think this one of the best articles I have read in years. I think most of Indians would share your views.

  25. Every political ideology is country-specific—be it capitalism, communism, welfare –state , secularism or state religion. Every country and culture , civilization has its own developed ideology which it propagates and practices. Over the period of time it evolves and in decades it may develop into a new kind of specie . Laws propounded by the Darwin — “Survival of the Fittest” is also applicable to ideologies. Here it means that ideology that benefits the majority of the citizens of country or society will survive and grow, otherwise history has big recycle bin pre-arranged for those ideologies.

    The way Secularism was developed and practiced in India since the dynastic accession of Nehruvian dynasty – it has to go under a transformation where its meaning is changed drastically.
    In democracy majority has unquestionable right to make necessary amends to any doctrine, dogma ,practice that is developing in way where it is harming overtly and covertly the interests of the majority and projecting the majority community just weak and of NO-CONSEQUENCES in the running of nations or Government affairs. The backlash by majority will come . It happened in India . It happened in USA ,where white majority found itself victims , (in 2016) also.

    If no tears were/are shed by most us at the abandoning socialistic dogmas of Avadi –session of Congress party of 1956 vintage , that demise of Socialism was inflicted , too , by a Congress PM – Mr Rao . The end of congress –branded Secularism should also get same level of reception by all who think and subscribe to the fact that –Ideologies and policy are always subject to change.

    • ” .. In democracy majority has unquestionable right to make necessary amends to any doctrine, dogma ,practice that is developing in way where it is harming ..”

      Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority as your crude understanding of the term reveals. And then if you wish to replace secularism, with what other ideology will you be replacing it with ?

      Perhaps you should check out the experience of Pakistan which in trying to establish an Islamic Republic, tried to define who a Muslim is. They have been unable to do so for 70 odd years. and Islam is a straightforward, more homogeneous religion with one book. Additionally, history proved that the one nation – one religion theory was bonkers when E. Pakistan broke away to become Bangladesh.

      Trying to make a Hindu Rashtra or disturb secularism will re-ignite the Khalistan conflict for starters, North-South tensions and perhaps even violence in the North-East.

    • As long as Hindus are in a majority, India would be secular. If you have any doubts, check out our neighborhood.

      • Mr Subhasis Ghosh: Nonsense !

        As long as Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution are upheld, India will be secular. And in any case, India secularism under the Congress was a tremendously diluted term long before your itchy-groined gaurakshak friends from the BJP took control of the government.

        If a referendum or a Gallup poll were to be held today, it would have shown that most Hindus would want to junk Articles 25-28 and convert India to a Hindu Rashtra. It is only deluded jingoists like you who think that the average Indian, particularly in the chappathi belt is so bloody different from the average Pakistani, the latter of course already has an Islamic Rashtra.

        Indeed, Cricketer Navjot Sidhu was spot on when he said:

        “.. When I go to South India, I can hardly understand a word, except for two-three like vadakkam. I am okay with the food there. I can have dishes like idli but then I cannot have the South Indian cuisine for long. That culture is totally different. But if I go to Pakistan, they speak Punjabi and English and I can relate to them more ..”

        As long as the chapathi belt dominates politics, Indian secularism is in danger. Secularism has little to do with religion but how politicians exploit religion to serve their own ends. And the vast, illiterate hordes of the North are an easily manipulated lot.,

  26. If secularism means anti Hindu policies of Congress Party and Roman Catholic Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi then it better be dead.

    • Mr Hari Sud: With what would you want to replace secularism then? Copy the example of Pakistan which calls itself “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and call India “Ram Rajya Bharath”? “Hindu Monarchy of Modi”? Or perhaps just “Modistan” ?

  27. Why just blame the Congress, LEFT, or regional outfits of Lalu, MSY, Karunanidhi, or Gowda dynasties? Several of your fellow “journalists” peers are also responsible for concocting the “ONLY MUSLIM = SECULARISM”. Politicians will do what they always do – Gravitate votes by whatever means necessary. They will not think 20 years down the line but a journalist must investigate and report facts in a JUST and FAIR manner. DID THE SYSTEM PERFORM ITS DUTIES WELL? You wrote and sold books portraying Muslims as victims in Hindu Rashtra at a time the BJP was not even in power and Kashmiri militants were butchering the KASHMIRI PANDITS. You forced HINDUS into the BJP’s arms because neither the STATE nor the MEDIA would listen to their grievances. The late Bal Thackeray emerged as perhaps the first HINDU HRIDAY SAMRAT because he protected these Hindus. Even PM Vajpayee’s experiments with “Sickularism” were rejected by these HINDUS. So much was the fury. You speak of Turkey and Paswan. Turkey was never wholly non-Islamic. It was the leader of the Muslim world and it now revisiting its Islamic roots and reclaiming the throne- There is more than religion at play in Turkey. Paswan on the other hand also had an Osama look-alike with him and Lalu campaigning and then changed his affiliation to the BJP so don’t portray him “Secular” figurehead. Countries like India, Sri Lanka, and even the US are not very much different. Religion is is a given but not a major part of one’s identity. It only gains credence in the face of the non-majority religion. The MAJORITY is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT BUT THERE IS A LIMIT TO WHICH IT WILL TOLERATE MOCKING AND INJUSTICE. The Press that is now crying foul about the pro-Modi Media, which by the way have substantially higher ratings, are the people responsible for the mess in the first place. THE WORST PART IS THAT THE VICTIMS ARE INDEED THE MUSLIMS. YOU FORBID HINDUS FROM GOING ULTRA RELIGIOUS BUT MADE IT OKAY FOR MUSLIMS TO STUDY AT MADRASSAHS AND CRAWL ONLY IN BLUE COLLAR JOBS TO BECOME HEADLINES FOR YOUR ARTICLES. HINDUISM BECAME PROGRESSIVE AND THE SECOND “HINDUHRIDAY SAMRAT” Mr. MODI COMBINED IT WITH “VIKAS PURURSH”. The “VIKAS” will be a debate for 2024 but the TIMO factor is likely to prevail at least at long as RG remains at the helm.

  28. This article is symbolic of the fundamental disconnect shekar and the liberals have in interpreting events convenient to them as representing destruction of secular ethos and giving a pass to the ifftars chat pujas ganesh festivals moharrams that head of govts in state and center participated. How do you say that India is secular in its history? Was it secular by liberal standards where Maharajas ruled? Was it secular where Nizam Tipu Mughals sultanates ruled…so why it should be secular by Western liberal definition just because in 1947 we has western educated liberals in control of congress ? It failed when muslims pulled out and formed separate coubtry. Forced secular identity was bound to fail…assertion of hindu identity was suppressed all these years…the rise of hindu identity and self confidence in our own ethos and values as against forced western secular boundaries would in fact provide the alternate secular fabric that can stand the test of time

  29. Superb article. I read it thrice to get at all the nuances. I was a part of the anything but BJP till I saw the havoc created by the cobbled up coalitions which was shackling the country. 1991 was a desperate effort by a party that was and is intellectually bereft of any cogent idea of what it sees the country as. I have thought long and hard about secularism and what it means to me. To me it means tolerance… Not love for all religions.. But tolerance. I don’t necessarily love all religions.. But I will not deny you the right to practice yours and I will fight for you keep your right, but still it does not mean love.. It just means tolerance. With this thought I saw what the UPA, and their bandwagon of parties were doing by appeasing the minorities.
    One feels our Indian status at the very borders of the country, the thought that the next one step and you are into another country. What I am getting at is, that you are aware of your self and identity at the boundaries of society. Appeasement resulted in me feeling that I was more Hindu than ever, and that thought made me uncomfortable. The reason why I felt uncomfortable was because the UPA and it’s policy. So I voted against it, and that had to be the NDA. That the NDA does not appease, anyone (going out on a limb here) means that I am no longer aware of my religious identity as I was under the UPA rule.
    So the writer is very correct in the assessment of the death of that facet of secularism.

  30. India will remain secular because hindhuism as it is defined now is too complex to ever become a monolethic religion. we have so many divisions, subdivisions, caste etc that it is really true that hinduism is a way of life than a religion.
    further hinduism does not have a structure for worship like other religions except brahmins who have their rituals. even they now most of them practice it in its breach.
    most of the youngsters today are more agnostic than religious. they don’t visit temples much and don’t have a regular worship session etc.. they would rather call themselves more spiritual than religious. the parents also don’t try to impose the values on them much.
    Our English based education has contributed much to this broadened outlook..
    the general atttude of today’s youth is of live and let live.
    your office has quite a lot of youngsters. you would certainly have seen the above mentioned changes in them.
    but what is more dangerous now is the political divide especially the left and congress intelligentsia trying to paint Mr.modi as a hindhu bigot who is bent upon establishing a hindhu rashtra. that is not true because unlike other religion there is no one notion of a hindhu rashtra. even ram rajya may not be acceptable to the shivites.
    as you rightly said the polarization started after 1992 babri masjid demolition. the ram temple movement started as a solution for mandal politics. it was mandal ve kamandal. v.p.singh wanted the benefits of mandal politics. rss saw it as a threat to hindhu unity and started ram temple movement vigorously. The unfortunate collateral damage was the masjid.
    from then onwards it has been hindhu vs muslim. even godhra and aftermath are as a result of masjid demolition.
    it is time we should put this behind us.
    It can be only done by stop hating mr.modi and then looking at this govt. objectively.
    Hate is a very strong emotion. if a alpha male leader like mr.modi is hated a very strong opposite response comes up which is then branded as a rising militant hinduism. this a wrong narrative. there is no hindhu wave in india.
    Once we realize this then an alternate political leadership can come up based on economics.
    There is a big hate modi industry thriving in india and they would not want to lose their relevance. that is the tragedy.

    • Mr Kasiviswanathan Krishnan: You claim:

      “.. left and congress intelligentsia trying to paint Mr.modi as a hindhu bigot ..”

      – Well, who else but a Hindu bigot would do nothing, absolutely nothing to stop the lynchings of utterly innocent Muslim cattle traders in North India?

      – Who else but a Hindu bigot will stand idly by when Union Minister Jayant Sinha garlands and hands out sweets to gaurakshaks convicted, I re-iterate – convicted – of the murder of cattle trader Alimuddin Ansari?

      – Who else but a Hindu bigot would do nothing when innocent Muslims were being slaughtered, raped and burnt alive in Gujarat? Indeed, when questioned, the man’s reaction was not one of sorrow but a lament that he should have managed the press coverage better.

      – Who else but a Hindu bigot would have let his right hand man and enforcer Amit Shah call Muslims as “termites to be dumped into the Bay of Bengal”.

      I am a Hindu Mr Kasiviswanathan Krishnan and I know when my Hinduism is hijacked by a bunch of North Indian Nazis from Nagpur, turned into a fascist philosophy called Hindutva and sold to gullible bhakths like you as Hinduism.

      You go on to make the preposterous claim:

      “.. There is a big hate modi industry thriving in india ..”

      Well Sir, there is an American PR firm called APCO Worldwide ( which is the ad agency responsible for burnishing the image of Modi and many other dictators and dodgy persons and corporations. There is big, well heeled “love Modi” industry too operating in India.

      And clearly, you have fallen for their slick marketing gimmicks Mr Mr Kasiviswanathan Krishnan !!

  31. these Sonia lead leftists so sedititously occupied the mind space of majority that any association with word ” Hindu” was becoming a shame. These so called like Pratap bhanu Mehta, Brinda karant etc. don’t utter a single word on what happened in Turkey , but if SC mandates event happened , secularism is dead , why ? Because it was ” Hindu” event.
    SG has written a brilliant article , hitting head of the nail. Modi actually politically organise the majority of this country after many many years, that’s giving these secularist sleep less nights. Other religions originated / survived / grown in this country because “Hindu” the majority was secular and it will stay like this. Unfortunately secularist shop has closed now.

  32. You are right.Stupid ways of defining secularism by so called secular parties is why Hindus are fed up with them.You should have mentioned the draft of Communal Violence Bill prepared by NAC.It must have been read by millions of Hindus to convince them that Congress has converted itself to Islam.

  33. India is a secular country because Indian Hindus, who constitute the majority, and therefore have a proportional impact upon the political ethos, have created and defended a Constitution that is a remarkable triumph of reason over the temptations of sectarian passion. India is secular not because Muslims need it, but because Hindus want it.

    • Stupid… It is not Hindu or Muslim, it is the country which needs to be secular to be prosperous and developed. All progressive European countries which ranks among top slots of prosperous and livable countries are Christian majority but they follow strict political secularism… Not like India where we want our elected leaders to follow sectarian populism. Having a graduate degree does not guarantee a social wisdom

      • Factually incorrect statement. It is only in France that religion is separate from the state. In every other European country, Christianity is intertwined with the state, how so ever tightly or loosely. For example, in Chez Republic, you can build churches, but not mosques. India in secular, only because Hindus are secular. If you have any doubt, just look at the SAARC countries around us.

      • Factually incorrect statement.

        Religion and politics are far from being strictly separated in the European states..

        The constitutions of five countries (Ireland, Greece, Poland, Germany and Slovakia) point to Christianity as the foundation on which ideas and values are built, and the Christian cultural heritage is mentioned in the preambles.

        Six other countries (Denmark, Finland, Spain, Austria, Portugal and Great Britain) have constitutions establishing a more or less formal marriage between state and church by giving one particular church a special position.

        Great Britain, which has no constitution, has a set of laws prescribing that the country has two state churches: The Anglican Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

        In Malta’s constitution a state religion is established: Roman Catholicism.

        In Sweden state and church were separated by law in 2000 – but the state still pays for the maintenance of the church buildings.

        Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have religious freedom written into their constitutions, but they favour certain churches and religious communities.

        • Nonsense Mr Subhasis Ghosh ! But then, not surprising coming from you.

          There are many forms of secularism to be seen in most Western European countries. History, the previous role of the Church in various matters such as education, functioning as a population register and records keeper, the current role of the Church in these matters, the tussle between the State and the Vatican in Catholic countries such as France, the religious composition of the state etc. determine the type of secularism you see. This historical baggage determines:

          a) the nature of the relationship between Church & State
          b) the degree of separation between Church and State.

          But what you miss in your thinly veiled apology for a Hindu Rashtra by referring to these Western European countries is that regardless of the degree of separation between church and State, the State treats every religion equally in front of the law. In other words, the fundamental principle of equality before the law is upheld by the state and secularism ensures that.

          Let me explain, primarily from a Scandinavian and French viewpoint, these being countries that I know best and speak the languages of.

          Take the case of Norway. Historically, the Church (Kirke in Norwegian) functioned not only as a theological entity in remote communities, it also functioned as a de facto mayor’s office. The Church kept track of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, burials etc. In many areas, the Church also ran schools. In today’s Norway, the Ministry of Church Affairs and Education (Kirke og Undervisningsdepartementet), the Church does receive taxpayer funding for the religious activities it conducts and for a large part of the recordkeeping it does. Additionally, given the historical background with Christianity being the sole religion in Norway until recently, there are a large number of churches, graveyards, clock towers etc. that need to be maintained. Funding is needed for that and that comes from the taxpayer – despite the dramatic fall in church attendance in Norway.

          But, it is important to note that ALL religious groups in Norway receive funding from the government depending on the number of practitioners. Hence, smaller Christian denominations, Islamic, Sikh, Buddhist and other religious centres are also supported by taxpayer funds. This vital fact is something you miss in your rather vacuous post.

          Thus one finds that the Norwegian government funds the AL Tawba Islamisk Senter, Bergen Hindu Sabha, Norges Saivite Hindu Kultursenter, Shri Guru Nanak Niwas and so on. The full list of several hundred religious organisations encompassing 678,433 members supported financially by the Norwegian government is available here:

          As regards France, there is greater degree of separation between Church and State, stemming from Napoléon Bonaparte’s quarrels with the Pope in the early 1800s to the complete abolition of religious schools financed by the state. The French secularism, “laïcité” is designed to protect the people and the state from the Church ! In other words, the French state has sought to prevent the influence of the Church in lawmaking and other policies, such as education. But in France too, the Church has traditionally had a record keeping function and there are many large, ornate Churches, the maintenance of which is partly provided by the state. And again for historical and touristic reasons rather than religious ones. In France too, the state takes great pride in the principle of equality (égalité) in that regardless of your religion, the state will not discriminate. Additionally, the French state enshrines the notion of neutrality (neutralité) i.e. when an individual functions as an official of the state he or she cannot bear visible symbols of religious beliefs. That has adversely affected Sikhs, but that is another matter.

          For a description of laïcité, check out the video at:
          (Alas, it is available only in French)

          BOTTOMLINE: Almost all Western European nations have religious freedoms and practise equality before the law regardless of the religion of the citizen. The vestigial links they have with the Church are symbolic and are a relic of the past which one finds convenient to carry over. And almost all Western European countries provide financial grants to other minority religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. depending on the numerical strength of the believers.

          And please stop regurgitating the nonsense about how secularism works in other countries that your gaurakshak mentors in your shaka must have told you !

      • Factually incorrect statement.

        Religion and politics are far from being strictly separated in the European states.

        The constitutions of five countries (Ireland, Greece, Poland, Germany and Slovakia) point to Christianity as the foundation on which ideas and values are built, and the Christian cultural heritage is mentioned in the preambles.

        Six other countries (Denmark, Finland, Spain, Austria, Portugal and Great Britain) have constitutions establishing a more or less formal marriage between state and church by giving one particular church a special position.

        Great Britain, which has no constitution, has a set of laws prescribing that the country has two state churches: The Anglican Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

        In Malta’s constitution a state religion is established: Roman Catholicism.

        In Sweden state and church were separated by law in 2000 – but the state still pays for the maintenance of the church buildings.

        Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have religious freedom written into their constitutions, but they favour certain churches and religious communities.

  34. Sekhar not mentioned about Babu Rajendraprasad and iftar parties organised
    at PMO by Nehru Ghandhi dynasty

  35. India’s so called secularism has always been a sham. Modi has just called that bluff and put it on prime time Tv.
    Right from the time of Nehru who chose to rewrite Hindu civil code but balked at similarly reforming the Muslim religious laws. The Muslims were allowed to keep the sharia laws and which permitted polygamy and triple talaq. Similar discrimatory laws were maintained with regards to religious places and educational institutions established by religious minorities. Are all these not against the spirit of secularism. You cannot expect one religious community to bear the cross of secularism while others are on a joyride. This could not have gone on indefinitely

    • you are right. secularism in india means the govt. can do whatever it wants with the hindhu institutions like all temple money are governed by the govt. but they will not touch minority institution. similarly they dare not touch their personal laws. secularism means there should be no uniform civil code.

    • Mr Shashwat Mishra: You are right when you say that India’s secularism, particularly from the Rajiv Gandhi period has been a sham and a show. In fact, the Rajiv Gandhi era marked the naked exploitation of secularism for narrow and purely electoral advantages, a phenomenon that is best described as “opportunistic secularism”. National interests were subordinated to the interests of the Gandhi dynasty and the Congress party. Secularism became just another slogan to consolidate party power around the Gandhi clan. Remember Congress sycophant D.K. Baruah’s infamous statement “India is Indira. Indira is India” !!! ?

      Alas, that trait and tendency for self-aggrandizement at party and party levels using some “ism”, ideology, caste or identity is a commonality between all – I reiterate all – political parties in India. And the BJP is no different from the Congress in that regard.

      The BJP under Führer Modi has projected its bigoted, exclusionary and Golwarkarian idea of citizenship as protection of Hinduism solely to cement its power and strengthen Modi’s hand. Simply put, it sells Hindutva camouflaged as Hinduism and the masses don’t see the difference. Or perhaps even don’t care. The BJP uses Hinduism in exactly the same cynical and opportunistic manner in which the Congress used secularism. Thus, when we once witnessed “opportunistic secularism”, we now see “opportunistic Hinduism”.

      During the Congress era national interests came a distant second after the interests of the Gandhi dynasty and the Congress party. Similarly, during the BJP era, one sees that national interests are secondary and the strengthening of Modi’s personal power and that of the BJP are the primary interests with Hinduism being the vehicle to cement power. Indeed, the old slogan of D.K.Baruah would now be “India is Modi. Modi is India” !!

      After all, Modi and the BJP are basking in all the adulation they have now received for having started the temple construction. And clearly, this adulation will translate into votes from the bhakths. After all, haven’t people forgotten the serious COVID crisis, the mismanagement of the economy that was tanking even before the COVID crisis, the strained relations with every, I repeat every neighbour of India, the enormous erosion of India’s soft power globally due to the anti-minority violence and the lynchings, the erosion of press freedoms, the dilution of separation of powers and so on.

      Mr Mishra: You write:

      “ ..India’s so called secularism has always been a sham”.

      But then, so is the BJP’s Hinduism. Just that it is not only a sham but also a con – selling Hindutva packaged as Hinduism.

  36. English words cannot be redfined. They mean what they mean. Securalism means seperation of Church from State / the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions / the belief that religion should not be involved in the organization of society, education, etc.

    The meaning of securalism as mentioned in our Constitution has always been butchered by all political parties at par for political gains. Some can call it ‘redifining’.

    • How much the State is separated from religion in modern India or Pakistan is a question that is not even worth asking as the answer is evident to anyone and everyone whose job does not depend on his not seeing it.

  37. Secularism is nothing but a cultivated resource devoid of syncretic synergies and a rewarding tool of exchange in the rituals of farewell and renewal. The Presumed proponents and the perceived recipients are on the voyage of delusion. Let secularism born in its true spirits and the search will never cease. The script is a courteous reminder

  38. We have got it wrong all along if we expect politicians to define secularism (religion) and absolve religious leaders and the public at large in the process. Secularism should flow multilaterally and not unilaterally.

    What exactly is meant in secularism? In religious matters it should simply mean that every religion should be free to pray to its God in a manner each wants – that is assuming that every religion has a God and every one professing that religion wants to pray. In effect, (religious) secularism should simply mean that each religion accepts each of the other religion on as is where is basis.

    The leaders of these various religions should repeatedly announce to its followers that “there is not only one way (their own) to reach GOD but there are many ways. What the other religions follow are also paths that lead to GOD. Those who practice religions other than ours are also believers of God”. Tell the followers that there is only one God with many names…call it/he/she by any name. Teach the kids this in Schools of all types. All politicians, self-styled “activists” of all types and THE MEDIA should convey this message always and all times. Why is this NOT done? Why are these people especially the activists and the media not seeing it this way?

    I am afraid we are doing this all wrong by looking up to politicians to define secularism

    • It is not just that, the government should strictly distance itself from any act of religious things in its all official activities and official premises… Then only secularism can thrive in the the country and with 20cr Muslims 7 cr Christians, equal number of other religions and 28 SC and ST population, secularism and tolerance is only way forward to take this country to prosperity and true development.

    • No. Secularism simply means separation of Church (read religion) and the state. It is precisely because of muddled thinking like this that we are in the current sorry state of affairs.

      • Seperate state from religion is precisely what I said in the above comment… We never did since our independence be it iftar party or ramlila maidan event or performing poojas, religious ceremonies inside Govt offices and buildings… The state allowed religion a free run in their day to day governance…. This has to reach to thos extent, it is inevitable.

      • In that case any rule, our constitution that distinguishes people based on caste and religion, is not secular, though it has the word added in the preamble!!!!
        For a secular Nation, evry citizen g=has to be secular in that each religion has to accept every other religion as is where is. and NOT propagate and practice that”my GOD is the only GOD”.

      • Can this happen when our constitution distinguishes people based on caste and religion?
        though the word “secular” has been added in the preamble as an aftethought !!!!
        For a secular Nation, every citizen has to be secular in that each religion has to accept every other religion as is where is. and NOT propagate and practice that “my GOD is the only GOD”.

  39. First the work of David Reich has made it clear that all people in India and Pakistan (excluding some outliers like a tribe in Andaman ) have the same Genetic make up of a mix of Ancestral North Indian (Aryan ) and Ancestral south Indian (Harappan) ancestry, There are no descendants of Babur or Vikramaditya except perhaps in the imagination (spiritually in nonscientific terms). Second both the founding fathers of India and Pakistan knew that the extremely heterogeneous artificial countries* left after the departure of the British would need some glue to keep them together. Jinnah used his peculiar interpretation of Islam while Nehru used his peculiar interpretation of Hinduism which he called secularism. Both Jinnah and Nehru firmly believed that religion has no role in modern political systems but was merely a political tool. However a glue is only so strong. First Pakistan and then Bangladesh emerged as as an outcome of a process of the natural evolution of the subcontinent and this is still a work in progress. Will a Ladakhi be more thrilled when Modi reminds him of the glorious Aryan rule that he is living under or when President Xi smiles at him. I leave the answer to Mr.S.G and to the discerning reader.
    * David Reich has pointed out that genetically while the Han Chinese are a single large population India because of endogamy has thousnds of different populations. Culturally the difference between a Bengali, a Punjabi and a Tamil needs no explication.

  40. राम विलास पासवान ने संसद में कहा था कि बाबर के 40 फौजी थे और हिन्दुओ ने दलितों को मंदिरों से वंचित किया इसीलिए दलित बाबर के मुसलमान बन गए ।
    उन्ही दलितों ने बाबर के साथ मिल कर काफिरों को मारा, उनके धर्मस्थलों को तोड़ा। तो क्या उन दलितों को मुसलमान बन कर मन्दिर तोड़ने ओर काफिरों को मारने का अधिकार मिल गया।

    माना जातिप्रथा ओर छुआछूत एक सामाजिक बुराई थी। उस बुराई को आज के हिन्दू ने खत्म करने के लिए सब कुछ किया और कर रहे हैं। उस बुराई के लिए आज को सवर्णों को बुरा भला नही कह सकते।

    एक तरफ छुआछूत की सामाजिक बुराई ओर दूसरी तरफ इस्लामिक धार्मिक कट्टरता,असहिष्णुता ।
    इन दोनों में से धार्मिक असहिष्णुता ज़्यादा खतरनाक है जिसमे मूर्ती पूजकों के विनाश की बात कही गई है।
    छुआछूत में किसी के विनाश की बात नही है।छुआछूत को स्वर्णो ने बुराई माना और उसको खत्म करने के लिए सविंधान में ओर कानून में व्यवस्था भी की,समाजिक जागरूकता का अभियान भी चलाया।ओर आजतक हम इसमें सफल हुए और आगे भी सफल होंगे।
    समाजिक बुराई को दूर करने के लिए हमने बुहत कुछ किया और किए जा रहें है।
    क्या हमने बाहर से आने वाले हमलावरों की धार्मिक कट्टरता ओर असहिष्णुता के खिलाफ कुछ किया? जो उनके शिकार हुए उनकी भरपाई की?
    नही की, क्यों?
    अरब से आने वाली कट्टरता ओर असहिष्णुता के खिलाफ कुछ करना तो दूर की बात,उस किताब के अनुयायियों द्वारा तोड़े गए धार्मिक स्थल का भी उद्धार नही किया।
    अगर दलितों के बदसलूकी के लिए सवर्णों को बुरा भला कहा जा सकता है , तो उन मुग़लों ओर उनकी विरासत के दावेदारों को क्यों नही बुरा भला कहा जाता।

    दलितों को आरक्षण दे कर , कानूनी सुरक्षा देकर उनका उद्धार हो सकता है तो उन हिन्दुओ का क्यों नही जिन्होंने मुग़लों की कट्टरता को बर्दाश्त किया,अपनी संस्कृति, अपना धर्म अपने अराध्य अपने धर्मस्थलों को अपमान देखा,अपनी बहन बेटियों को लूटते देखा।
    इस बर्बादी ओर बर्बरता को कालीन के नीचे नही छिपाया जा सकता। इस को सामने लाना होगा और उसकी भरपाई होनी चाहिए। जर्मनी ने नाजियों के कृत्यों को छुपाया नही। उनकी किताबों में पढ़ाया जाता है,इसलिए कि उसको दोहराएं नही।
    भारत मे ऐसा कब होगा।

  41. Sekhar is generally right that we cannot say that secularism is dead just because the Rammandir is being built. This has came abut as a due process of law. However any attempt to demolish mosques standing at Mathura or Varanasi which stand next to temples will violate the Act passed in 1991 and ratified by the SC., which preserves the character of a place of worship as on 15th Aug 1947. Mass hooliganism to achieve the above or Govt pressure on the judiciary for this aim will certainly mean that secularism is dead.

    • A people fighting for their religious and cultural rights, and for the just redressal of their amply documented historical grieviences are indulging in mass hooliganism? And protestors, reciting the preamble and using the tricolour only as a Flag of Convenience like pirates on the high seas, and rampaging and pillaging our cities with diabolical intent, against a law ( CAA ) duly passed by both the houses of Parliament are paragons espousing democratic dissent and ideal citizens talking truth to power? If roles were reversed, would it have taken 500 years to settle the issue. The answer may well enlighten you as to how the Hindus have conducted themselves, in their own country and Homeland, to bring their beloved God home and into their hearts. If you have followed the course of the tortuous litigation through our courts down the decades, you might have noticed how Secularism and a special brand of Appeasement has time and again given a long rope to the AIMPLB to shift the goalposts at will in the face of an incontrovertible mass of evidence presented by the Hindus. And true to type, Secularism is once again egging on and shaming the Hindus to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
      Secularism died at the midnight hour long back only it’s ghosts have spread nameless terrors in the dark night of India, that is Bharat’s, soul.
      Today, I hold my head high and the mind is without fear. Do come along. No hard feelings.
      Jai Siya Ram.

      • Why be so defensive about the formation of Ram mandir ? It came about via a legal process. NO one is contesting that.

        • What legal process Mr Sudarshan Nityananda? Under your fascist friends in the BJP, the judiciary, like the executive is under BJP control. After all, Modi was even acquitted of the pogroms he engineered didn’t he ? Worse still, Hindus like you will vote for the man as long as he keeps killing or marginalising Muslims won’t you ?

          As a Hindu, I find it disgusting that educated men like fall for the fraudulent false equivalence perpetrated by a bunch of semi-literate Gujaratis and their itchy-groined handlers from Nagpur – the false
          equivalence being Hindutva us the same as Hinduism.

          Pathetic and deeply worrying.

        • That’s well said by you.

          People who don’t respect the Supreme Court want only one thing – they (the left leaning types) are the best and only arbiters of justice.

          Like how their ideologues administered justice in communist Russia (20 million dead) and China ( 30 million dead). That is the road along which these losers, who can’t even accept the SC judgement, want to lead India along.

  42. The author states…. “Rahul Gandhi’s new Dattatreya Brahmin avatar in janeu, and the big temple visits. Too little, too late.”
    Yes, definitely too late – Indian people know a fake when they see one.
    And this man is not only a fake, but he is also a half-wit. That’s a losing combination.

  43. The secular fabric of the nation is too deeply ingrained in India’s DNA to be undone by a few years of Modi rule. Secularism, in its digital avatar, is again deeply embedded in to the psyche of the millennials, to be undone by its alleged Modi-fication. This is regardless of how enterprising the fringe elements within the ruling dispensation may get. With their minds shaped in a digital age, and their headcount sizeable, millennials are likely to call the shots as India heads to the world-stage. So, the so-called Modi-fication is a temporary distraction which should get sorted once the focus shifts to Artificial Intelligence, and such matters that are of interest to millennials.

    Meanwhile, journos can have a go at Modi-fication, as it’s quite understandable, they too need to run their shops.

  44. Please decide if Ram mandir is a “master stroke by modi ji” or “Modi has no role in ram mandir decision”.

    Let me tell you one thing, Swamy was very clear that it’s the latter. So please wah Modiji wah karne se pehle thoda socha karo kya bol rahe ho.

  45. Most of the Useless Modi Bhakthas are usual modi is strong leader. Let them First What Strong Decision he took so far to minimize the sufferings of common people. Only religious faith. By the way How you people can say Supreme court verdict is correct based on facts. If so Why such idiotic judge was given a Rajya sabha MP Post and Why that lady was given Post again. Is this way to get Rama Rajyam in india.

  46. No Secularism is not dead, its just that it never existed in India. The only form of secularism we had was to appease the right wing forces of minorities to get their votes. The current Indian state is a Hindu state, i am sorry to say that knowing many would not have benovelent uncles abroad.

  47. As usual Shekar Gupta is bang on in his quintessial style. It is fact Sonia with her minority appeasement ruined Cong beyond repair

  48. So in short Shekhar is saying that India is secular as it is hindu and democratic. The corollary of this is that Hinduism are democratic as various changes have happened in religion via parliament. This brings up important question ..all world religions have more or less accepted supremacy of the Parliament except Islam.

    • @ Aditya, you are right about Islam, but the same is partially true about Christianity too. In outwardly secular Europe, except in France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxumbourg, in most countries the state and the church are linked.

      The constitutions of five countries (Ireland, Greece, Poland, Germany and Slovakia) point to Christianity as the foundation on which ideas and values are built, and the Christian cultural heritage is mentioned in the preambles.

      Six other countries (Denmark, Finland, Spain, Austria, Portugal and Great Britain) have constitutions establishing a more or less formal marriage between state and church by giving one particular church a special position.

      Great Britain, which has no constitution, has a set of laws prescribing that the country has two state churches: The Anglican Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

      In Malta’s constitution a state religion is established: Roman Catholicism.

      In Sweden state and church were separated by law in 2000 – but the state still pays for the maintenance of the church buildings.

      In both Hungary and Slovenia, a proper separation of church and state is written into their constitutions.

      Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have religious freedom written into their constitutions, but they favour certain churches and religious communities.

      • Does it really matter if some european countries give precedence to church or not. What is the percentage of christians in those countries. >95% ?? have they ever faced communal disturbances (except jewish purge).

        India is a different setting. Founders of india have always wanted to keep india secular not because majority of india says so. But for the correct rational thinking mind secularism is civil.

        Building an exclusive hindu structure at ayodhya, mathura or kashi isn’t a death knell to secularism if it is done with a rational reasoning. It should have come through an act of parliament rather than as a property dispute won in court.

        It is also not secular behaviour when the opposing party is not going in for a negotiated settlement when such avenue was offered. Looking at the relative importance of the place for both religion, there wasn’t a case at all. Looks like the opposing party put the secularists on the knife.

        In my view, secularism in letter and spirit have to be separated from now. Letter is dead, but spirit is totally intact.

  49. Couptaji, you have written a sensible article after a long time. Let us hope the sensible streak lasts for a few weeks more before we have another Coupta article.

  50. As usual, Shekhar is on both sides and looks like he wrote a brilliant essay on -Indian secularism past, present and future for Civil Services Exam! However, a few points cannot be missed such as : 1- for a typical Hindu (i.e. any person of Indic religion and culture), equal respect ( and not just tolerance) for any other religious practice is the basic faith and hence, there is no concept of conversion to Indic religion. Besides, religion is a private affair of a person and her approach to the Supreme. This concept of secularism ( much beyond just separation of religion from politics) is thus in built in the Indic religions. 2- Hindu Rashtra as a concept is not different from a Constitutional State that India is today. Hindu Rashtra or Ram Rajya is based on Dharma which is about governance, duty to oneself and society and observing rules of law. Hence, as it is, India is a Hindu Rashtra, though politics from time to time can give it a different color for the time being. 3- We ought change definition of religious minority and include only those whose population is very small percentage of the total, say a threshold of maximum 5%. This will settle the politics out of this issue and the so called minority will feel powerful and will share the power proportionately with responsibility. 4- Modi is seen as decisive, effective and acceptable leader by most of the voters. Besides, BJP has effectively broken the old caste divisive politics in the country. Hence, its political rivals have to come up with a strong leader who can be posited against Modi. As of now, there is none and hence, Modi is likely to continue even after 2024. He will of course finish all the pending items on the political agenda of BJP, through the constitutional means, whether one calls it majoritarian politics or whatever. Let us be ready for this, unless you find a new leader from DMK, TMC, NCP, JDU or Shiv Sena!

    After SC judgement based on the historical records and facts of the case, Ram Mandir was a settled issue whether from cultural, religious or legal perspective. So the event of Bhoomi Pujan is a just a step in the series of events leading to construction of Ram Temple.

  51. Finally even the paid up voices are grudgingly admitting a small element of the truth…..”….voters are fed up with Sonia”.
    There is much more to it than that. Voters are also seeing through the false secularism and many other factors.

  52. Wonderful article by Shekhar Ji. We don’t know why the so-called intellectuals & secularists have realised this point of view. All these parties and politicians were appeasing the Muslim community for their support base. Because they vote in numbers plus with the votes of few major castes & fence-sitter’s vote they used to form the Government & as you rightly pointed about the lousy & corrupt governance.
    But no more such formula works now since the Muslim community has realised their game plan & their lives & lively hood is not improved much except their so-called Muslim leaders.

    Also, Hindu voters are realising their negligence voting in groups and bulks irrespective of their cases comes under as a Hindu this development because of the realisation of their valuable votes. Muslims refuse to vote for these parties & their leaders, rather not going out for voting booths.
    Thanks for a good write up.
    Nagesh Rao

  53. As usual, an excellent article.I would like to express a doubt of mine. Does secularism means an individual can not be a believer ? I am a proud Hindu by birth and belief. I also know Advaita does not leave any scope for intolerance.
    As a revered saint has put it Toleration is the very breath of Hindu creed.
    I raise this doubt , as many learned folks state that some one going to temple and such other acts make him the today’s fashionable “HINDU”
    An individual is free to have his own faith and practise the same. Now, one is left to wonder whether one can only be a Hindu of the fashionable variety !

  54. Secularism in the real sense under Modi is alive n kicking. Muslims need to repose trust in Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas, Sabka Visvas.
    His policies on ground reflect that. Muslim brothers n sisters are better of in India than the Muhajirs. CAA is a non issue raked up by loose bunch of Hindu leftists who tirelessly instigate them to hit the road and abuse motherland at drop of the hat. Had Hindus been fanatics they would have forcibly constructed Ram Mandir soon after Independance, rather than awaiting a peaceful n just resolution for 75 years. These trouble makers should be isolated n ignored by one n all, so that the nation can move on the path of developement!


    • Islam is incompatible with secularism. If you have any doubts read the constitution of Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to speak of any other Islam country.

  56. There was nothing like Sonia-Left secularism. It was plain anti-Hindu diatribe, running down the Hindus, calling Hindus terrorists, while every other day, people died of Islamic bomb blasts. Under ten years of UPA rule, Evanglists thrived, especially under Samuel Rajashekara Reddy of AP. UPA promoted minority (=muslim) communasism. False cases were foisted on right wing Hindu leaders, which is now emerging from the closets. Thank people like P Chidambaram and Sushil Kumar Shinde, Digvijay Singh et all for the death of this perverse secularism. If India remains secular, it is because of Hinduism, not because of left-liberal intellectuals or Owaisis.

  57. The basic surmise of Shekhar babu’s article is valid – Indians have not rejected secularism – they have rejected the present-day Congress version of it. There is a uniquely Indian version of secularism which all parties need to strive to achieve. This version of Indian secularism enables everyone to get along with each other in a vast country inspite of differences in religion, language and customs.

    The lesson for the congress party/or any party desirous of replacing the BJP is that it doesn’t make sense to compromise with this unique Indian version of secularism to gain or retain power. The congress compromise with Deve Gowda/Gujral/Communists/SP/BSP etc has brought it to this sorry pass. If there is a fractured verdict in any future election, it is better to sit in opposition than let your name get besmirched by associating with anyone else who isn’t completely on board with your agenda.

    The lesson for the RSS on the occasion of one of their greatest victories is that they should know that their victories are due to Modi-RSS successfully demolishing the Congress’s definition of secularism not India’s definition of secularism. The RSS today is following Jinnah’s path of the 1940s by playing on religious sentiments of upper caste Hindus – continuing on it will either lead to loss of the present Indian republic (like Jinnah’s Pakistan) or ruin of the RSS itself similar to what the Congress faces today.

  58. Everything accepted, beautiful blunt truth said by Ram Vilas Paswan, at the same time in Islam n Sikhism are totally clean., does not make sense.
    The view point of print is not practical approach, you have to listen to the common people, who wanted the Ram Mandir to be built n on top of it the honorable Supreme Court gave a very patient hearing to both the parties involved.
    It is not question of death of Secularism. I think what matters what the people of the country in majority wanted. It is not that what I want or what Print wants – what matters is what majority of the people want.
    Why cannot the Muslims give the right to claim of 4 properties on which Hindus want to make temples, we need to make those temples. Muslims razed to the ground countless Mandirs, Muslims justified Jaiza, taking money from Hindu worshipers for visiting religious places of Hindus n Hindus cannot 4 temples, excuse me this called by your Article, you are being a diplomat n playing the so called Cheap Card Politics.
    Your article should be treated as offense as you have hurt sentiments millions of people..

  59. As always Shekhar Gupta is spot on….Yes we have rejected the congress’s and the leftists version of secularism…But long live secularism… the hindu way… acceptance of all religions….As as long as Hindus are a majority in this country…Secularism, Democracy will thrive…..Constitution will continue to be supreme….

  60. We Hindus want Hindu rashtra not secularism anymore but people like you can cry all you want.You are a PAID Congress supporter so this nothing new.No newspaper wanted you so you begged Congress and ‘The Print’ became their mouth piece.JAI HIND.

  61. It cannot be denied that India’s long term direction is towards one Religion domination. Though constitutionally , we will be secular but not in practice. All Political parties have changed course and are driving in one direction.

    • The definition of secularism of Congress and the Left was best captured by Shri Manmohan Singh – Minorities have the first right on the resources of the country. It is this definition and its implementation that the country has rejected.

  62. Indian Constitution represents the soul of Hinduism. Even before the Constitution came into existence, India was secular due to Hindus only. Any thing associated with RAM, Krishna, Shiva would always remain secular as during those times India didn’t have Muslims and Christian, the two hardcore militant and anti secular religions today. RAM Rajya is perfectly secular. Secularism forced by Congress was not the secularism but a divide and rule conspiracy of leftists.

    I wonder why Librandus have not yet left India even though many of them had said they would leave India if Modi becomes PM.

  63. While the overall premise of article us right, i am disappointed that the otherwise well informed SG ji mentioned Guj riots but not Kashmiri pandit exodus. Well I guess all sections are equal in India’s secular, but some sections are always more equal. Even in death.

    Look there are a lot of Modi supporters who are not asking for abolition of secularism as an idea. What we seek from different political org across spectrum is to recognize and admit that india is a civilisation of 1000 yrs and not born in 1947; secularism is the bedrock of peace in diverse societies and to not swing it to the Left for votes; Correct all forms of legal perversions inserted under the garb of secularism (temple control but no control on other bodies) etc. That’s it. Don’t appease anyone. Not even hindus and we can all spare ourselves from these discussions “secularism is dead”.

    • I think, editor feels public who votes modi again and again are fool , …editor pretend he is smart and educated and we are uneducated as we vote to modi…

      He is a reported and i thin khe should stop teaching us on secularism as we also care for country….

      As editors thinks that it is his constitution right to write such crap, then it is also publics constitution right to elect leople of our choise. And as editor expects respects for his write uo , he should also respect out right tooo..

    • I agree. the secularists in india always feel some sections deserve more rights than others.

  64. Once again Mr. Shekhar Gupta has raised the most pertinent and yet the most complex and highly debatable issue. I would like to contribute my viewpoints thereon: (1) The first and the foremost – what has the nation gained by the persisting and futile debate of ‘Hinduism versus Secularism’ debate? It has corrupted our polity for more than seven decades and yet has not contributed anything to resolve the fundamental issues of economic growth, eradication of poverty, health, education and job creation. (2) No matter where one stands on the issue, can anyone erase the fundamental historic reality that this country was partitioned on the basis of a religious divide and consequent to the migration of Hindus from Pakistan to India, it has a predominant Hindu majority population? Now, if India has more than 80 per cent Hindu population, is it not logical that its polity will be dominated by the Hindus? What is wrong in this trend, so long as the minority population is treated in a fair just and democratic way without any prejudice and discrimination? Surely, the minority cannot desire, as Mr. Jinnah had insisted, the pre-partition demand of political parity and a political veto-right to influence and dominate the entire democratic process. Surely, the minority must be granted all the constitutional rights and protections as well as fair and equal opportunities for economic development. But at the same time the minority cannot demand any special privileges and status just on account of being the minority. (3) At the same time, let us not forget the majority Hindu population is not a homogeneous entity. It comprises of multiple sects, castes, creeds, faiths with varying religious practices and beliefs and is thus afflicted with internal conflicts, contradictions, disparities and anomalies and is subject to segmental political rivalries and competition. And yet, magically, on several occasions it cannot just forget its Hindu identity and rises to stand as a unified social, cultural and political entity. The Hindus, as a social entity is afflicted with many ills and practices- blind faith, caste discrimination, overindulgence in history and its consequent politicization. Social reforms is a continuous process and the Hindus need to adapt to the changing scenario and challenges of the twenty-first century in order to survive and compete in fast changing era of the fourth industrial revolution. The first thing the Hindus must discard is the centuries-old attitude of intellectual isolation from the rest of the world. We are undeniably a part of the global community. Hindus have spread to various part of the globe and are subject to the process of globalization. We are expected to follow the globally accepted political and social norms and all our actions are subject to the inevitable global scrutiny. Discrimination on religious grounds, riots and lynching of minorities fueled by bigotry and hatred has to stop. Furthermore, our ancient history and mythological Puranic books do not provide answers to the complex issues of the twenty first century. Scientific temper is a must if the Hindus have to survive and prosper. Political and cultural Hinduism within the reasonable constitutional ambit can be acceptable, but not the tendency of obstinately preserving harmful social and religious beliefs, traditions, rituals and practices. ‘Discard ancient beliefs, adapt and reform’ is the mantra that Hindus must follow. (4) Considering all the above, building a Ram temple at the controversial site is just a minor issue. Let us not blow it out of proportion. The temple is being constructed after following the due and protracted judicial process. The same judicial verdict also directs construction of a Mosque, albeit at a nearby place. An MIM leader has remarked “Babari Masjid existed, exists and shall exist in future”. I have no problem in mosques being in existence and construction of new mosques in India. But who was Babur? Was he not an invader, who considered himself of a Turkey origin? No doubt, his grandson, Emperor Akbar was fully Indianized and realized that he would not be able to rule India unless he had some kind of political understanding and coalition with the majority Hindus. His successor, Aurangzeb willing destroyed that alliance and political understanding, which led to fall of the great Mughal Empire. The historical importance of the Mughal rule was not that it was a Muslim dynastic rule, but it provided a centralized political authority and army that protected India from external aggression. We now have this kind of a centralized constitutional authority and army that provides us protection from external aggression and yet the constitution grants rights to the individual states. In sum, the Constitution is our Gita and Quran. Let us protect the Constitution and focus on economic development. The ’ Hinduism versus secularism’ debate is just a waste of time and the nation will gain nothing out of it.

    • Pramod Patil sahib ; very nice and highly informative to read , your comments on secularism . I think you are absolutely clear about , the reality on ground. Please try to shape these comments , into an artical form . These comments of yours can provide a better guidance for upcoming ,modern democracies , especially the Indo Pak.

  65. Who will preserve it Gupta Ji? The Supreme Court! Failing to act upon to protect very basic aspects of the Constitution ie the constitutionalism was the last nail on it coffin? I feel disgustingly uninterested to see CJI posing Super Bikes or playing with pet dogs… higher judiciary of the country reducing to become another arm of political executive to further its own narrative.

    • @ Baba, as you sow, so shall you reap. We Hindus call it the Karm, anglicised version of which is Karma. It was Bharat Ratna Smt Indira Gandhi who brought in the concept of committed judiciary. It was she, daughter of a recipient of Bharat Ratna and mother of another, who superceded 8 Supreme Court judges to have one of her choice. The NDA has strictly followed the seniority protocol.

  66. A Brilliant article by Shekhar Gupta…as you would expect from him. Although there were things I disagree with, but a truly a recommendable read

  67. Muslims became crores because they butchered more than 100 million Kafirs & destroyed more than 60000 large Hindu Temples, such that you have no temple older than 200 years in entire North West India.

    Islamic invaders were true Muslims & followed the teachings of Islam. They raped, butchered, plundered and their heirs broke this country into 3.

    Now the one who voted 90% for formation of Pakistan & shamelessly stayed back to complete the agenda of GHAZWA-E-HIND are teachings Hindus Secularism by declaring openly how over decades once the demography changes they would revert Ram Temple to a mosque again.

    That’s the bigotry you are dealing with & here we are singing the qawali or Secularism.

    QURAN (98:6) “Surely the unbelievers(IN MUSLIMS) among the people of the Book and the idolaters, will abide in the fire of Hell. THEY ARE THE WORST OF CREATURES .”

  68. India is secular because it’s a Hindu majority, its a fact and we all know it. You suppress Hindus and expect no waves?

Comments are closed.

Most Popular