Secularism and Liberal Democracy

#31 HP, can you point us to the mother-load URL of panjabi politics that you are using ;-)
i thought your expertize was sukkur-panchayat :?

Errata...

Even the new gerry mandering (if accepted) would have still left 35-40% Non-Muslims in Muslim majority provinces....

And how the plan was accepted by the League it did not contain any gerrymandering.

So it was pretty much 44-49%

That means almost 45% non-Muslim seats under the communal award almost

That actually takes Muslim representation at the centre down to 30% from 35%. So 1/3rd representation for 1/3rd minority (As per Harimau)

Harimau,

``You are the guys who thought that the one-third Muslim population of a United India should have more than 50% of the votes in Parliament``

This is such a big and stinking lie that even its most ardent advocate on chowk was made to eat her words...

The demand was for the Muslim Majority provinces to have parity at the centre. Those undivided Muslim Majority Provinces contained 45% to 49% Non-Muslims. Even the gerry mandering that was proposed by league would mean new provinces would have 35-40% seats at the centre.

This would mean that out of seats for the grouping ``Pakistan provinces`` atleast 40%-45% would be for non-muslims. So that leaves approximate 55% of first half from Muslim areas. Muslims were around 15-20% in Hindu Majority provinces... that would give Muslims 20% of second half

So that is 70/200... = 35% seats for Muslims in United India by the biggest stretch.

This alone should tell us who is lying and who is not.

Only one out of four Americans believes life on earth today has evolved through natural selection. Just under half of all Americans believe the natural world was created in its present form by God in six days as described in Genesis. They believe, incredibly, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Like megachurches, you will be amazed at the scale and subject matter of the religious books on display at an American bookstore. Particularly fascinating is the Religious Fiction section. Believe me, we`re not talking C.S. Lewis here. Check out the biggest shelf presence of the lot, the Left Behind series of novels by ``prophecy scholar`` Tim LaHaye with Jerry B Jenkins — 60 million volumes sold so far — and you will get an inkling of the intensity of the apocalyptic ``holy living in an unholy age`` crusade against science in modern America.

In 1999, George Bush gave the idea his blessing in an interview, saying that he favoured the teaching of ``different schools of thought`` and adding: ``I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism ... I believe God did create the world. And I think we`re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.``

Since 9/11 you often hear the argument that the liberal western world must study and learn more about Islam in order to better comprehend the fundamentalist Muslim mind. Maybe so. But you do not often hear people advocating similar inquisitiveness about the fundamentalist Christian mind. Perhaps that too ought to change.

#30 by harimau

Haimau is mad…putting spin on the reality… Yes! Punjabi Hindu did raise the bogey of Hindi to counter the Sikh demand but the Akad Dal was no secular party…it was as communal as Hindu or Muslim political parties are in India

Punjabi Suba was the first religion oriented demand for statehood and Punjab under Akali Dal succeeded in making the first religious state within a secular state. Kashmiris never made such a demand. Maharashtra boasted of it under first rule of Shiv Sena (it became a court case) and Gujarat is glowing with her Asmita today.

Akalis have always highlighted that in Sikhism, religion and polity can never be separated and Akali Dal being the sole representative of the ``Panth``, it combines within it religious, secular and political interests of ALL Sikhs everywhere, especially in Punjab. Sounds familiar?

Master Tara Singh who hated ``Brahminnical`` Nehru, said as far back as early 1950s,

`` Englishman is gone but our liberty has not come. For us the so called liberty is simply change of masters, black for white. Under the garb of democracy and secularism our ``Panth``, our liberty and our religion are being crushed...``

The Arya Samajis of Punjab went on a legal warpath. Firstly, they wanted equal or more importance to Hindi, next they wanted Punjabi to be written not in Urdu, not even in Gurumukhi but only in Devnagari. Finally, the insult came when Arya Samaji D A V College Jullunder filed a petition demanding that it should not be affiliated to Guru Nanak University. On what grounds? Section 4 of GN University Act enjoined upon the State to make provision for study and research on the life and teachings of Guru Nanak and DAV College did not want THAT. The Court had to humbly explain to the Great Arya Samajis, arre Bhai, encouragement of ACADEMIC study of life and teachings of Nanak did NOT amount to Religious Instruction of Sikhism nor did it mean promotion of Sikhism or Conversion of Arya Samaji innocent boys to Sikhism! {Ref: (1971) 2SCC 269; AIR 1971 SC 1737 D.A.V. College Jullunder v. State of Punjab}.

For many simpletons for example the silly sounding but emotional grouse was, Hindus got Hindustan, Muslims got Pakistan, and Sikh got nothing.

``Hindi Hindu Hindustan`` was the famous slogan of Punjabi Hindus, matched by ``Dhoti Topi Jumna Paar`` by the Sikhs.

The role played by Arya Samaj and Jan Sangh at the time of 1951 and 1961 census, the Maha Punjab movement which was opposed by Punjabi Hindus, the pressures mounted by Hindu politicians to opt for Devnagari instead of Urdu or Gurumukhi for Punjabi language, the arrest of thousands of Akalis, Master Tara Singh`s fast-unto-death abandoned after 43 days, all these are well known parts of recorded history.

Read this just an interesting story from the past…

1947 The newly formed Indian Government declared Sikhs as criminals. The Governor of Punjab, Chandu Lal Trivedi, issued a circular which was sent to all district magistrates in the State. The circular reads: ``Sikhs as a community are a lawless people and are a menace to the law abiding Hindus in the province. Deputy Commissioners should take special measures against them.`` Interesting the circular recognises Sikhs as a distinct group. -Source. ``History of Sikh Struggles, Vol. 1,`` By Gurmit Singh, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 1989. Page 51.

The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections in December 1954 returned a verdict totally in favour of Punjabi Suba. The electorate in this case was purely Sikh. Yet the Akali Dal was stoutly opposed on the Punjabi Suba issue by the Khalsa Dal, a new party created by Congress Sikhs with the support of the government. The results went overwhelmingly in favor of the former. The Khalsa Dal was put to rout, its tally being a bare three seats out of the 132 contested. On the contrary, the Akali Dal won all the 111 seats for which it had put up its candidates. The remaining seats went to those supported by the Dal—one Independent and seventeen Communists. Sikh solidarity on the question of Punjabi Suba was a proven fact.

On September 3, the Punjab Reorganization Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha and on November 1, 1966, Punjabi-speaking state became a reality. The happiest man on that day was Sant Fateh Singh. A life-long bachelor, he greeted the announcement with the words: ``A handsome baby has been born into my household.``


“kidnapping Hindu girls in Sind, Punjab and Baluchistan but claiming that Indian Muslims are endangered.”

Yes we are learning from our brothers on the wrong side of the border...Some Hindu girls are really good looking… I would get them in a nice way…personally, I don’t believe in kidnapping…

Ref HP #20

[Punjab was divided on religious bases; Haryana is Hindu and Punjab is Sikh. You seem to be missing lots of pages from the Indian History…It was a fascinating tale before Punjab became Sikh and Haryana became Hindu…But that is not the issue here.]

Punjab was divided on the basis of LANGUAGE, not religion. Punjabis demanded a Punjabi-speaking state. All other states had linguistic homogeneity to a very large extent. Punjab was half-Hindi and half-Punjabi. When it was decided to grant a Punjabi-speaking state, all Sikhs declared themselves to be Punjabi-speaking and all Hindus, fearful they would be a minority in a Punjabi-speaking state, declared themselves to be Hindi-speaking even if Punjabi was their first language. A linguistic division thus became a religious divide.

You are painting it as if it happened the other way around. But then that is the specialty of Pakistanis. You are the guys who thought that the one-third Muslim population of a United India should have more than 50% of the votes in Parliament. You are the guys who go around claiming that Jinnah didn`t want Partition but it was forced on him. You are the guys who claim that women who are raped are criminals because they do not invite four pious Muslims to watch the proceedings in its intimate details. You are the guys demanding self-determination for Kashmiris while there is no right to vote in Pakistan. Right now, you are the guys kidnapping young (Muslim) girls from the tent cities in and around Muzaffarabad and kidnapping Hindu girls in Sind, Punjab and Baluchistan but claiming that Indian Muslims are endangered.

People like you are just plain sick.

Re: # 27
Ditto!

bhaskar-da,

Take the time to be careful and precise. When you say things like:

[quote]
Take a look at the Ten Commandments. Each and every one of them is represented in the US as well as the British system
[/quote]

You are quite wrong. Here are the first four commandments (hebrew bible)

---

``I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt...`` - This commandment is to believe in the existence of God.

``You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...``

``You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord...`` - This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. In Exodus, the text reads ``in a vain oath`` (ìà úùà àú ùí ä` ìùåà), while in Deuteronomy it reads ``in a false oath`` (ìà úùà ùí ä` ìù÷ø).

``Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy`` (the version in Deuteronomy mentions ``Keep`` rather than ``Remember``)

---

Do you really think there laws in the US that reflect these controversial ideas??

To preserve secularism in multicultural societies in the east where religious emotions run high, the best option is to work towards an unofficial consociationalist democratic system which would slowly integrate the communities to the point where the religious distinctions would ultimately disappear.

Unfortunately in Pakistan ``secularists`` turn out to be as dogmatic as our ``Islamists`` when they think that simply by berating people`s long held beliefs, rational or irrational, they would achieve a secular state.

Ultimately it is about getting justice, equality, impartiality and fairplay... for all without distinction. This is what is called ``Rule of Law``.

shishapa/khurram #: Both of you have hit at the heart of the current debate on secularism that is currently taking place and dividing the Western world. The gay marriage issue to the Western world is like the Ahmadi issue in Pakistan. It is the benchmark on which the future of secularism will be decided......

Marriage is purely a religious concept. Yet every Western secular state heavily legislates on it. Thereby mixing Church with State. The state decides who can get married, what kind of benefits they get, etc.

``The keyword is secular democracy.``

Secularism stands on its own. One cannot attach adjectives to it. Democracy cannot be used to vote out secularism. In Pakistan, an overwhelming majority thinks that Ahmadis are not Muslims. However, such a, ``democratic`` opinion would be against secularism. The same goes for gay marraige.

Secularism is not supposed to be subordinate to democracy. Yet in the present govt. systems it is made subordinate........thereby mixing Church with State....

``This can be endless. Then somebody will bring up a proposition to allow marriage to a
minor and that will be defeated and Texas will be declared non-secular, somebody will prop a propostion to allow marriages to animals``

Yes. This is exactly the dilemma. It is a huge philosophical dilemma. What does one use to define the boundaries of ethics. Uptil now, it had actually been religion. Even in secualr countries. But gay marriage is turning it on its head. This is why proposols on opposition to gay marraige are called ``Protection of marriage act.``

The world is currently at a critical time, on defiining ethics. There is no correct definition. Secularism demands it not be based on majority rule. And that it not be defined by any religion. So what will the world use?

Immediately after gay marriage gets passed in USA, there are people in Utah who will petition for allowing polygamy. Once the govt. gets out of the business of marriage, people will start petitioning for incest and whatever else they want. How will the ethics be defined?

This is why the first question I always ask anyone pushing secularism is whether they support gay marriage. If they say they don`t, then they are supporting a combination of church with state and are not really secular............They are only conveniently secular. No different than the person who says that the state should not legislate against Shias, but it can against Ahmedis...........

Afsand bhai

That is pretty much nonsense. Hindus don`t look at ``God` in that way. According to us, there simply isn`t any old man sipping on his hookkah out there somewhere in the universe.

Since there is no ``God` in the sense you mention, the question of the poor fellow`s mouthing moralities for our supposed guidance doesn`t arise.

Moralities are our creation. In fact, so is the kind of `God` you have in mind.

#19 by masadi on November 28, 2005 5:28pm PT



Also Social Darwinism has been a tool of bigotry and racism with its proponents claiming that the higher evolved were the european ``white`` races and as a result their policy recommendations have been to restrict and control other races


right...and we all know religious people don`t preach the superiority of their own religion...



Also, religion cannot be neatly classified under a biological label, simply because of the diversity of teachings and functions of various religions, and the prediction of the evolutionists that as rational societies grew religion would wither away has also not borne out.


The world is less religious today than it was a few hundred years ago.....

Evolution takes a long time to work..Useless appendages like the tail or idiotic constructs like religion didn`t just go away in a few hundred years...give it time..

Re: # 20

I think Indian Punjab was divided into three states, Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh

#21 now you opened the pandoras box. now akbar, ottoman, moorish rules and 7-th century covenants will soon show-up ;-)

masadi #7

`` The U.S. constitution when it was drafted was anything but humanistic- it represented the world according to wealthy white men (to the exclusion of women and African Americans)- these wealthy white men, slave owners and oppressors, as often as not used religion to further their political gains and abandoned it at will when it was not feasible, to the exclusion of women. The constitution of the U.S. is full of religious terminology and the effects of that de-facto was to religiously institutionalize racism, bigotry and sexism. Taking one recent case of the supreme court and ignoring its entire history of bending and flexing the constitution at will does not do justice to your article. Further, there is no such thing as a ``liberal democracy`` in the U.S., what exists is a two party- rich white man- oligarchy- the elites that rule over the U.S. , its economic, state and military institutions- the BIG THREE- are a particular social type (http://elite.asadi.org), they are predominantly white males, and they are predominantly wealthy. ``

Giving all property owning white males equal rights in theory and practice was still revolutionary for the times.

#10 by Netizen
Neti dada,

“age, sex too are other criteria. so indian gov. is sexiest too???”

The issue is secularism and religion is related to that…If you ask about people’s religion you are nowhere near secularism… Have you seen the census form in the US?
Asking about sex and age is important. Asking about religion is not kosher.

“what religious symbol did you observe in gov. buildings?”

Don’t even start me on this… You know what I am talking about and whose pictures are in Railway minister’s office and he is not the only person.

Punjab was divided on religious bases; Haryana is Hindu and Punjab is Sikh. You seem to be missing lots of pages from the Indian History…It was a fascinating tale before Punjab became Sikh and Haryana became Hindu…But that is not the issue here.

#15 by samosa

What would you say if India stop counting heads based on religion, it would be whole lot easier to have uniform laws/code?

#16 by asfand

The issue is secularism, not religion …