Police officer Gagandeep Singh is a man from a minority saving another from a majority mob. We’ve allowed the binaries to blunt our perceptions to an extent where we need images like these to jolt us.
The Congress has paid severely for its unrelenting minorityism. It is seeking to move to the secular centre and that’s the message from Rahul Gandhi’s temple visits.
The Constitution of India is dedicated to the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Any identification, beyond that of being ‘Indian' is not secular.
The immediate benefit of Single Tax would be to reduce the sale prices of land to nominal ones. Landowners would no longer find it profitable to keep idle lands, wrote DM Kulkarni in 1960.
It is argued that India-Israel ties are moving from buyer–seller dynamic to one focused on joint development & manufacturing partnership, a shift 'more durable' than traditional arms sales.
If Pathaan gave both conservatives and liberals room to hide, Dhurandhar extends no such courtesy. Aditya Dhar ripped open that tent of hypocrisy and turned the knife.
That’s bullshit of an opinion. Muslims took a big part of the Indian nation and now Congress wants to convince us that Jinnah wins even if India wants to live without being denied is rights. Jinnah has already won if it is not clear to them…we are the asses that lost then and will lose now… Again.
I concur to the ideological / conscientious view that you have talked about in this article. But you also tread on a very slippery slope. Firstly, I am not sure if our constitution treats the word ‘secularism’ in any different way from what the literal meaning does. It is just that the sectarianism is so ingrained in us that, it has become the first go-to tool for a politician (even including yourself) to appeal to a sectarian vote base. Because BJP tries the same with the majority Hindus doesn’t make it much different from other political parties. But what BJP does, that is particularly reprehensible, is the constant targeting of a religion they don’t like. Hindu nationalism is definitely at loggerheads with our constitution.
But –
When we talk about inclusive secularism like the one you described, are we not giving an immunity to religious beliefs from challenging ideas, debates and questions?
When we talk about political secularism as one that involves “a basic symmetry of treatment of different religious communities”, do we have a uniform civil code?
When we talk about Nehru’s idea of a multicultural, multi-religious, multilingual society like India, do we take it as THE BEST idea without question OR retrospect whether it was an utopian concept that looked righteous on paper but not so much in reality?
When we talk about Islamophobia as a global phenomenon, are moderate muslims doing anything to course correct the public image and discourse of their religion?
When we talk about the future of this country, are we sure, 50 or 100 years from now, we won’t have another Kashmir in the Northeast?
None of my comments, although it may seem like, are against Muslims. But against any religious faith gaining an upper hand in guiding our actions rather than scientific temper that the constitution advocates (i.e. to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform).
Right now India is acting out like a typical Hindu majoritarian country under the BJP (within the confines of a secular constitution), but I am sure if we do a role reversal between Hindu and Muslim, India will act as a typical Muslim majoritarian country. What we need is to get the people of India out of the comfort zone that their faith is and will always remain unchallengeable.
Watching the comments section is always interesting. The new generation of dumbed down middle class Indian youth is the worst generation to have been born on this land, the weakest by principle, education quality, and unfortunately fundamentalist. I guess fundamentalism occurs anyway in this climate. So maybe before we speak and debate would be nice to check your IQ in a test, if below 100 then you are obviously analysising cock and bull. In India we have own deplorables. A majority of public isn’t like it. These are so called influencers but all they are doing is making people so angry they will surely vote for congress, even if they had a doubt.
The youth of today are substantially more Intelligent and aware that what you give them credit for. But this is the usual generation issue, the older generation always feels smarter that the current generation!
Would Shashi be fine if the bill included the religion omitted in the Bill? If so, he should say categorically that when UPA or Congress comes back to power, it will amend the bill suitably. Otherwise, all the wisecracks on secularalism and India’s religiousness are known and have no meaning in the context of the purpose of the amendment. If no minority were to be threatened in the neighborhood, the bill was not required. In that sense, this step is necessary to protect innocents from vicious impact of realization of Jinnah’s vision. Shashi should know limits of smooth talking and writing skills and presenting irrevelant arguments.
Mr Tharoor, I thought you were well versed with world affairs. And I have never ever understood why a well read, well educated person would join a dynastic party which hold sycophancy as its key virtue! But lets just focus on the issue of your article…
I live in Germany which I am sure you are aware let in about 2million muslim refuges and now is in the process of giving them asylum. Smaller numbers have also been taken in other European countries. Most of these refuges are from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and North African countries. The German government and quite a few German people welcomed them with open arms. They accommodated in fairly luxurious camps in towns across the country. Integration classes were held to help them get their way in Germany. Kindergardens and schools were told to accept refugee students on priority. In short every possible help was provided to help them.
What do they give back in return…
– A couple of years back on new years eve in Cologne, hordes of these refugees descended on the city centre and molested and raped women.
– Year before last, truck was driven by one of these refugees in the Berlin Christmas market killing scores. A similar incident happened in France
– There has been an epidemic of stabbings and rapes by these refuges across the country
– In many towns, refuges have been banned from using public swimming pools because of molestation cases
– Salafist movements have started in many places
– Look at what is happening in the rest of Europe, terrorists attacks in France, Netherlands, Spain UK, all perpetrated by Islamists
This is just a small sample of whats happening. Germany in its naivety gave these people refuge but far from being thankful they have actually tried to harm this country.
So which brings us to the question on why should Bharat give refuge to muslims, because if they will definitely cause more problems. If they have problems in their own country then they can perhaps go to another Muslim nation!
Rapes and murder are committed by Hindus also in India. So why are you pointing finger on Muslims only? You only look at the negative side of things but you deliberately ignore countless stories of Muslims who have richly contributed to India. Are you that naive to think we would fall to your argument where you push one part of the narrative while ignoring the other?
Muslims as a religion, as a culture have never integrated with the local culture and try to impose their own religion etc on others by any means. These are facts not fiction. You would have to be really blind not to see this. Germany and other countries excepted them gracefully from hell but they took advantage of that generosity!!
Yes Hindus and others do commit rapes, but why should we import trouble from a people who we know from plenty of examples on how they behave. Again one would have to be stupid, blind and naive to do that.
Ps. Why is it that none of the Muslim nations have accepted any of these refuges? It would have been natural for many of these refuges to go to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc? Because they did not accept them.
The initial argument about multi-faith India is based on the unsaid assumption that the people belonging to different faith especially the “absent” community in the bill were all living peacefully for years without friction; when in fact the people had bore the barbaric and forceful conversions by the invading Arab tribes. It probably thinks destroying the holiest shrines of Hindus, including Ayodhya – was an exercise towards peace building. The fact is that the two communities were like wolf and the lamb – and peace, it at all, was just a pretend activity. But that is in history. I do not think that it should be continued or that any person can be prosecuted for the crimes committed by his forefathers. So I personally have no ill-will because of this history – nor do I want to perpetuate it in reverse. But the fact remains that this history needs recognition.
And what also needs verification is whether the “absentee” community is desiring of co-existence. What I will talk about is, two instances. One that the article talks of. The partition. Who demanded it and for what reasons? The second one, of Kashmir – the only Indian state where the community was/is in the majority. Today all the Hindus from the valley are living in refugees camps and yet the community is still desiring of Azadi; and the infamous interview clip of an Azadi seeker from the self-styled journalist Ms Barkha Dutt, clarifying yet again that the desire is based on the religion. So it seems to me like a pattern for infinite number of partitions where one part will be for the community and the other for the community to experiment and break again.
Both 10% reservation for the general category and making grant of citizenship contingent on religion appear to be constitutionally impermissible. The apex court will clarify the correct legal position.
The policy of B.J.P is praiseworthy. Responsibility of discrimination lies on Muslims. They have failed to eradicate bigotry. An important issue which United Nations has failed to address is blasphemy. The reason for this is that all western religions support blasphemy. All people in the world should be encouraged to have faith in minimum 2 religions or they may have the choice to be non-believers.
To begin with, the word ‘secularism’ is most abused and repulsive word that was inserted into the the Constitution by an insidious agenda, presumably codification. The much touted examples cited above of excellence is due to the exceptional talent and skill displayed by those individuals and nothing to do with religion. The reviled Congress always sought to and seeks to convert every topic into compartmentalized comment, be it caste, religion or class.
Even after 70 years, this extra intelligent courtier prefers to fall back on instilling fear using the religious card.
That’s bullshit of an opinion. Muslims took a big part of the Indian nation and now Congress wants to convince us that Jinnah wins even if India wants to live without being denied is rights. Jinnah has already won if it is not clear to them…we are the asses that lost then and will lose now… Again.
I concur to the ideological / conscientious view that you have talked about in this article. But you also tread on a very slippery slope. Firstly, I am not sure if our constitution treats the word ‘secularism’ in any different way from what the literal meaning does. It is just that the sectarianism is so ingrained in us that, it has become the first go-to tool for a politician (even including yourself) to appeal to a sectarian vote base. Because BJP tries the same with the majority Hindus doesn’t make it much different from other political parties. But what BJP does, that is particularly reprehensible, is the constant targeting of a religion they don’t like. Hindu nationalism is definitely at loggerheads with our constitution.
But –
When we talk about inclusive secularism like the one you described, are we not giving an immunity to religious beliefs from challenging ideas, debates and questions?
When we talk about political secularism as one that involves “a basic symmetry of treatment of different religious communities”, do we have a uniform civil code?
When we talk about Nehru’s idea of a multicultural, multi-religious, multilingual society like India, do we take it as THE BEST idea without question OR retrospect whether it was an utopian concept that looked righteous on paper but not so much in reality?
When we talk about Islamophobia as a global phenomenon, are moderate muslims doing anything to course correct the public image and discourse of their religion?
When we talk about the future of this country, are we sure, 50 or 100 years from now, we won’t have another Kashmir in the Northeast?
None of my comments, although it may seem like, are against Muslims. But against any religious faith gaining an upper hand in guiding our actions rather than scientific temper that the constitution advocates (i.e. to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform).
Right now India is acting out like a typical Hindu majoritarian country under the BJP (within the confines of a secular constitution), but I am sure if we do a role reversal between Hindu and Muslim, India will act as a typical Muslim majoritarian country. What we need is to get the people of India out of the comfort zone that their faith is and will always remain unchallengeable.
Watching the comments section is always interesting. The new generation of dumbed down middle class Indian youth is the worst generation to have been born on this land, the weakest by principle, education quality, and unfortunately fundamentalist. I guess fundamentalism occurs anyway in this climate. So maybe before we speak and debate would be nice to check your IQ in a test, if below 100 then you are obviously analysising cock and bull. In India we have own deplorables. A majority of public isn’t like it. These are so called influencers but all they are doing is making people so angry they will surely vote for congress, even if they had a doubt.
Very well said!
The youth of today are substantially more Intelligent and aware that what you give them credit for. But this is the usual generation issue, the older generation always feels smarter that the current generation!
Would Shashi be fine if the bill included the religion omitted in the Bill? If so, he should say categorically that when UPA or Congress comes back to power, it will amend the bill suitably. Otherwise, all the wisecracks on secularalism and India’s religiousness are known and have no meaning in the context of the purpose of the amendment. If no minority were to be threatened in the neighborhood, the bill was not required. In that sense, this step is necessary to protect innocents from vicious impact of realization of Jinnah’s vision. Shashi should know limits of smooth talking and writing skills and presenting irrevelant arguments.
Mr Tharoor, I thought you were well versed with world affairs. And I have never ever understood why a well read, well educated person would join a dynastic party which hold sycophancy as its key virtue! But lets just focus on the issue of your article…
I live in Germany which I am sure you are aware let in about 2million muslim refuges and now is in the process of giving them asylum. Smaller numbers have also been taken in other European countries. Most of these refuges are from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and North African countries. The German government and quite a few German people welcomed them with open arms. They accommodated in fairly luxurious camps in towns across the country. Integration classes were held to help them get their way in Germany. Kindergardens and schools were told to accept refugee students on priority. In short every possible help was provided to help them.
What do they give back in return…
– A couple of years back on new years eve in Cologne, hordes of these refugees descended on the city centre and molested and raped women.
– Year before last, truck was driven by one of these refugees in the Berlin Christmas market killing scores. A similar incident happened in France
– There has been an epidemic of stabbings and rapes by these refuges across the country
– In many towns, refuges have been banned from using public swimming pools because of molestation cases
– Salafist movements have started in many places
– Look at what is happening in the rest of Europe, terrorists attacks in France, Netherlands, Spain UK, all perpetrated by Islamists
This is just a small sample of whats happening. Germany in its naivety gave these people refuge but far from being thankful they have actually tried to harm this country.
So which brings us to the question on why should Bharat give refuge to muslims, because if they will definitely cause more problems. If they have problems in their own country then they can perhaps go to another Muslim nation!
Rapes and murder are committed by Hindus also in India. So why are you pointing finger on Muslims only? You only look at the negative side of things but you deliberately ignore countless stories of Muslims who have richly contributed to India. Are you that naive to think we would fall to your argument where you push one part of the narrative while ignoring the other?
Muslims as a religion, as a culture have never integrated with the local culture and try to impose their own religion etc on others by any means. These are facts not fiction. You would have to be really blind not to see this. Germany and other countries excepted them gracefully from hell but they took advantage of that generosity!!
Yes Hindus and others do commit rapes, but why should we import trouble from a people who we know from plenty of examples on how they behave. Again one would have to be stupid, blind and naive to do that.
Ps. Why is it that none of the Muslim nations have accepted any of these refuges? It would have been natural for many of these refuges to go to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc? Because they did not accept them.
The initial argument about multi-faith India is based on the unsaid assumption that the people belonging to different faith especially the “absent” community in the bill were all living peacefully for years without friction; when in fact the people had bore the barbaric and forceful conversions by the invading Arab tribes. It probably thinks destroying the holiest shrines of Hindus, including Ayodhya – was an exercise towards peace building. The fact is that the two communities were like wolf and the lamb – and peace, it at all, was just a pretend activity. But that is in history. I do not think that it should be continued or that any person can be prosecuted for the crimes committed by his forefathers. So I personally have no ill-will because of this history – nor do I want to perpetuate it in reverse. But the fact remains that this history needs recognition.
And what also needs verification is whether the “absentee” community is desiring of co-existence. What I will talk about is, two instances. One that the article talks of. The partition. Who demanded it and for what reasons? The second one, of Kashmir – the only Indian state where the community was/is in the majority. Today all the Hindus from the valley are living in refugees camps and yet the community is still desiring of Azadi; and the infamous interview clip of an Azadi seeker from the self-styled journalist Ms Barkha Dutt, clarifying yet again that the desire is based on the religion. So it seems to me like a pattern for infinite number of partitions where one part will be for the community and the other for the community to experiment and break again.
Both 10% reservation for the general category and making grant of citizenship contingent on religion appear to be constitutionally impermissible. The apex court will clarify the correct legal position.
The policy of B.J.P is praiseworthy. Responsibility of discrimination lies on Muslims. They have failed to eradicate bigotry. An important issue which United Nations has failed to address is blasphemy. The reason for this is that all western religions support blasphemy. All people in the world should be encouraged to have faith in minimum 2 religions or they may have the choice to be non-believers.
To begin with, the word ‘secularism’ is most abused and repulsive word that was inserted into the the Constitution by an insidious agenda, presumably codification. The much touted examples cited above of excellence is due to the exceptional talent and skill displayed by those individuals and nothing to do with religion. The reviled Congress always sought to and seeks to convert every topic into compartmentalized comment, be it caste, religion or class.
Even after 70 years, this extra intelligent courtier prefers to fall back on instilling fear using the religious card.