Secularism and Liberal Democracy

Provisions about Joint Hindu Family ... And succession laws continue to be part of our law books...

Dost Mittar,

It has been a long time...but I know two laws that were either amended or totally discarded.
Hindu punchait act and Hindu family act. I think they were both from the British era but were found inaplicabale in Pakistan.

I don`t think that Hindu in Sindh have a punchait system and I have never heard of the hindu family laws from hindus. So I am assuming that they were discarded in Pakistan.

HP#95:

If Pakistan repealed the religion-based British laws with a common civil code for all citizens, it is perhaps more ``secular`` than secular India in this respect.

jang:

Even the Ramayan hadith has Dashrath with four wives - very Islamic eh? :-)

The Sikhs, in particular, against the law because (1) it lumped them with the Hindus and (2) it went against the jat tradition of ``chadar pana`` to a brother`s widow.

#92 by dost-mittar

i agree that there was dissent during constitutional debates. what i mean is there was no ``hinduism khatarein mein hain`` outcry against the civil law. in hiduism (or sikh or jain), monogamy is considered a good thing, comes from the hadith of Ramayana, and therefore its easy to enact that law. giving inheritance to girls OTOH was a more difficult thing and it got enacted later. For muslims, multiple wives comes from hadith, and threfore a civil law for single wife, especially in the backdrop of jinnah successful demand of a homeland for muslim persecution by hindus would be ``islam khatrein mein hain``.

so, rajendra prasad and othodoxy notwithstandig, the hindu civil law had wide-spread MORAL acceptance; i.e. hindus (and sikhs and jains) did not consider the law against their mores. It was not as if the hindus were capitulating against the grain of their nature for the sake of a modern nation building (rolling eye icon).

powerful men according to hindu hadith offcourse are afforded many wives (e.g. arjun, krishna, good to spread good genes far and wide). so important men in the village had mistresses, and or multiple wives, and continue to have them now.

#91 by dost-mittar

I have some stale info on that…It may be irrelevant now but I will post it anyway.

Pakistani civil laws as for as I know them, have no limits on marriage and it is the same for any religion; Hindu or Muslims, Sikh or Christian. But Pakistan women won a great right in 1962-63 and a law was enacted by Ayub Khan. It is called Family Law or Aily Qanoon(not oily).

This law says that Muslims male can marry one time and basically makes it illegal to marry more than once. But like many other buts in laws like that…A man can marry again if he can show permission from his first wife. This causes enormous problems but there are lots of instances when women refused the permission and even more instances where the permission was coerced.

This law is not applicable to any other religion and they are basically governed by the civil laws. There is a strong tradition in Sindhi Hindus to not marry again. But I know some Hindus had more than one mistress so they flaunt whatever their tradition says in this regards.

It is common in Sindhi and Punjab for well to do landowners’ males to have more than one wife.

re:#80 by Pardesi
I was repudiating the sentiments expressed by HP when he brought the subject of sikhs.
However i agree with the spirit of your post.
sridhar

re:#75 by Mantolives
Why am i a hindu fanatic (the name is a misnomer really; there are hardliners but no fanatics;certainly not of the variety Islam produces) when all i have done is to post a brilliant article by a sensible writer.
May be you should take a leaf out of Ayaz Amir (my father loves to read his articles even if some of them do not make sense) and try to be more objective.
Anyway, Ayaz amir asks a pertinent question: what partition was all about if it has not changed the lives of majority of muslims in Paksitan and left the teeming millions in India more vulnerable post-partition than pre?
Sridhar

jang#87:

This was not the case. There was strong and vociferous opposition to the Hindu Code Bill. Even the President of India, Rajendra Prasad, was against it and refused to sign the bill at first. It would have most probably been defeated if a vote was taken on it in the general public. But the reformists were motivated and no one had the courage to oppose Nehru. This is one thing for which Hindus can thank Nehru.

The framers of the constitution were quite aware of the need to reform Muslim law, but they thought that a change so soon after independence might be traumatic for the community; however, in the directive principles, they did ask the state to move towards a uniform civil code. These directive principles are not binding.

HP#88:

Just curious! Is the civil law for Hindus in Pakistan the same as during the British - for example, can a hindu/sikh in Pakistan have as many wives as he wants? Is a hindu/sikh wife not allowed to divorce her husband?

The Indian state`s involvement of in the ``definition`` of a Hindu has a curious history. Most often it has been done to establish its `secular` credentials.

The records of the proceedings of India`s Constituent Assembly make for fascinating and comic reading. India`s secularist founding fathers were pictures of boldness and courage when confronting orthodox Hindu religious leaders, but found themselves too pusillanimous to look orthodox minority religious leaders in the eye. Consequently, they set about creating two constitutions, one for Hindus and others whom they could browbeat, the other for rest, who apparently in eyes of our founding fathers, had to be bought off in exchange for their patriotism and loyalty.

From there arose the constant need to keep defining a Hindu. In most cases, because given the beauties of India`s constitution, nobody engaged in a legal case in India, would like to be a Hindu.

I believe even the RamKrishna Mission folks once submitted to the courts that they were not ``Hindus`` and should not be treated as such. :)

someone can correct me, but if a hindu gets a court marriage, the hindu law is no more applicable for warisdari etc, irrespective of religion of the person (hindu or sikh or jain, who are termed as hindus for civil law purpose).

jang,
Dost mittar,

Yes! I agree with that.
In Pakistan often we had to study the Hindu joint family laws and it was defined in some details. So basically the definition of Hindu in the constitution is not religious but legal and that is secular.

#82 my impression is that the defining of hindu is for purpose of differing civil code. in civil law, (i am told) their is concept that it must be bought by the populance it supports. the hindu civil law was what was more or less practiced by those defined as hindus, and after some debates were ok with the civil code (e.g. one wife, undivided trust). muslims (various sects) had various needs and they were addressed. its different than the admedi thingy.

To address the one arguments the author makes -

``If I was truly religious, I would prefer to live within a secular state``

No state ought to shape its constitution based on what I would like for myself. If I am a thief, I would like the state constitution to include a ban on all locks and mandatory unemployment of all police officers.

To address the one arguments the author makes -

``If I was truly religious, I would prefer to live within a secular state``

No state ought to shape its constitution based on what I would like for myself. If I am a thief, I would like the state constitution to include a ban on all locks and mandatory unemployment of all police officers.

HP#82:

``My thinking is that defining Hindu in the constitution came by way of following the British colonial laws. (I can be wrong here. I will look this up or someone else can step in here.)``

You are close!
The constitution does not give an all-purpose definition of Hindu. What it does is define to whom the Hindu Law is applicable. That law is applicable to all religions that took birth in India. In other places in the constitution, sikhs and others are clearly defined as religous minorities, for example, for control of their religious and educational institutions. This is why Sikhs have complete control over their gurudwaras whereas major Hindu temples are managed by the government. This is also why some Hindu groups like Ramakrishna mission have gone to court to be classified as Non-Hindus.



Beaty#81:
``Yes, Nehru and Bhim could have been more ``secular`` but given the explosive environment around independence, I dont think being strongly secular would have helped.``

Emplosive environment had nothing to do with it. If it were so, the Hindus and Sikhs would have been the most difficult in making radical changes in their civil laws. Muslims at that time had zero political clout in India and were feeling very frightened in the new political set up. In fact, Muslim laws were untouched partly to give a sense of security to the frightened community.

HP`s # 82 and Pardesi`s # 80 together bring out an important and intelligent point that, unfortunately, is anathema to the politically correct Indians: In most cases, constitutional secularity is no big deal, and in some cases, it is extremely unwise.

It leaves one shaking one`s head to see well-intentioned Indians make a big deal of ``Sikh`` PM, Chief of Army etc. Why should it be a big deal? Some aberrations and stupidities aside, have Hindus ever been kept away from power in Punjab? Or Sikhs in the rest of India? Does anyone know of lots of others among both Hindus and Sikhs, except for extremist nuts originating-in-not-too-distant-a-past, who disparaged, or asked people to vote against candidates, based on their Hindu or Sikh religions? And would we jump up and down in pride if tomorrow a Buddhist, or a Jain becomes our Prime Minister?

One hopes not, because that would be very stupid, extremely condescending, and totally unfair to ourselves. Despite all our follies, one hopes that we have not thoroughly internalized that semitic mindset.

On the other hand, were a Muslim to become a Prime Minister or a Chief of Army etc...that would be an achievement of the people (not just of the constitution).

The key point, as made by HP, is the amount of deep-seated religious
conflict and incompatilibity (including power wielded by groups belonging to these incompatible and conflictual religious systems) that makes `secularism` really meaningful. IMO, also unwise, but that is a different subject.

#81 by beady

“Secularism as a goal is important for states, as I mentioned, if you have heterogeneous populations, that`s the only potential way to get rid of this ticking bomb of religion.”

“an imperfect secular country is far better than one which is not. Are you saying that you dont want to live in a secular country?”

You are basically debating it from an emotional point of view. As I posted in #3, I personally support secularism and would prefer to live in a secular country but the point that I made and you sidestepped it is why secularism is important in state affairs. When I bring in State affairs I am asking that why a state has to categorically declare that its goal is to establish a secular society? Then the question was the vehicle that a state would use to manifestly declare itself secular. And that would be a country’s constitution. I agree that constitutions change and imo, it is better to have a living and breathing constitution rather than a dead constitution that we have in Pakistan.

Your claiming the ticking bomb of religion is the reason for having secularism as a goal may be good for India but may not be convincing enough for other countries.

Every state has its own peculiar circumstances. In the US or France, it is not really important to explicitly declare themselves secular as the foremost reason for being secular did not exist in the US of 1776 or the France of the last century, there were no contending religions to explicitly address this issue.

For India, secularism has to be explicitly declared a goal for the state but that is because of existing situation in India. In Pakistan, there really is no point in declaring that country secular in the constitution as it would not serve any purpose. The right course in Pakistan would be to just remove the references to religion from the constitution and all of sudden Pakistan is a secular country… like the US or France, there are no conflicting religions in Pakistan. It is primarily a one religion country.

Precisely in this contest that I brought up the issue of Indian constitution defining who is a Hindu. It is similar to Pakistani constitution defining who is a Muslims and when any constitution explicitly defines a religious entity imo, it ceases to be a secular constitution. The Indian constitution went a step further and it went on to define that Sikh, Buddhist and Jains are not separate religions but are part of Hindu religion.

Qoute Article 25, explanation II : “In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

Now how is it different-conceptually- than Pakistani constitution calling Ahmadi non-muslim?

The contradiction in the Indian constitution begs the question whether India is truly a secular country. Now I want to remind you that the Indian constitution defined Hindu before it added the word secular to the constitution. The reason the word secularism was added was that secularism had to gain legitimacy from the constitution or any non secular political party or even the judiciary could have easily declared India a Hindu state.

Now the every day aspect of secularism that you referred to in your question “Are you saying that you don’t want to live in a secular country?”

Imo, in every country about ten percent of the urban population is extremist/fanatic or religious zealot. Pakistan has its ten percent and India too has its own ten percent.

There is no compulsion in Pakistan for anyone to go to a mosque five times a day, there is no religious police and there is no requirement to not to trim the beard. It is similar to India where there is no state enforcement of religion. Pakistani ten percent try and bring religion in to everyday life and Indian fanatics are not far behind in this regard. But generally both countries in their everyday life are secular. So my living in Pakistan does not reduce the quality of life for me despite the fact that Pakistan is an Islamic republic.

“As for defining a Hindu, given the litigious nature of Indians, and the sheer impossibility of defining what a Hindu is”

This, I am afraid, is really lame. If the issue was the litigious nature then the Indian Supreme Court was the place to define this issue not the constitution.

My thinking is that defining Hindu in the constitution came by way of following the British colonial laws. (I can be wrong here. I will look this up or someone else can step in here.)

Sorry came in late, was travelling the depths of continental Europe. Thanks to all for the compliments, I hope you understand if I cannot thank each individually. Some immediate thoughts

#3 HP
Secularism as a goal is important for states, as I mentioned, if you have heterogeneous populations, that`s the only potential way to get rid of this ticking bomb of religion. A constitution by itself doesnt make a country secular or good, the country has to buy into it, as have India, USA and many other liberal democracies. Russia (and its predecessors) regularly turned over their constitution, and if I may put it, Pakistan as well. If you dont believe in a man-made framework, then only divine frameworks will do, and then the quarrel begins. We dont want that. Is India really secular? Secularity isnt an absolute amount, but I believe its further along the secular end than on the other end. As for defining a Hindu, given the litigious nature of Indians, and the sheer impossibility of defining what a Hindu is, I am not surprised that its there. Let me ask you, HP, I know where I would like to live in, an imperfect secular country is far better than one which is not. Are you saying that you dont want to live in a secular country?

#16 afsand
We dont just wake up one day and think killing is bad, this is part of human evolution and civilisation, and for good/bad, religions have been our biggest moral compass. But nowadays, morality has transcended religion, see the UNHRC as a major example. Those moral precepts are now universal. There is only one God, but I prefer to see many. Fortunately, my lovely little religion allows me to define what my religion and gods are without blind reference and following scripture :), strangely liberating, mate. :)

#28 pmishra2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg
that will give you the relevant ten commandments, Mishraji. For example, ``just one God, and no other god``, a ton of legal cases have been lodged on this issue. Graven Images, etc. etc. I have a paper somewhere knocking around which traced these 10 commandments to the US legal system, will try to dig it out.

#38 dost-mittar
Well, I can see why you say that having a religiously oriented personal civil code is a weakness, but I would like to see that as a pragmatic decision. Yes, Nehru and Bhim could have been more ``secular`` but given the explosive environment around independence, I dont think being strongly secular would have helped. All that pseudo - secular palaver is now raising its head, and 60 years on, I think its time for a re-check, but softly softly catchee monkey.

#69 by rsridhar
Jinnah`s quote is relevant, the words make sense. That`s the reason why I put it in there. Its an ideal. The fact that the progeny of British India are at different levels to achieve that ideal just shows how far we have to go yet.

#72 rsridhar on November 30, 2005 8:24pm PT

{Who could have imagined India would have a sikh PM and a sikh Chief of Army!}

That’s a silly statement. I can counter and say, who could have imagined that a madrasi will become president of India or a guy from Karnataka will become a PM.

India is not owned by any community, at least not yet.

What India is striving for is that ANYONE can become ANYBODY, given right combination of some right political moves and his/her capabilities. No one is doing anyone any favors.

{In India, constitution is supreme. Period. Akali Dal`s leaders can scratch their heads or pull their turbans off for all i care but the reality is that they too are bound by the same constitution. That constitution guarantees them religious freedom which they apply within the bounds of laws}

Now, using your language, I can also say that Brahmins can scratch inside their dhotis as much as they want, Sikhs will continue to be proud citizens of India, as long as mutual respect as well as protection under law and order is practiced, and not just enshrined in the constitution.

#59 by harimau
“In fact, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka should be stripped of their sovereign status and brought under the boot heel of Bharat Mata.”

Gooooood idea…
One caveat…you may end up being butt-fakhed by some robust pathans… That would be some sight… ugly black butt of yours having a good time….

#70 by rsridhar
“I think u need to learn to argue more logically”

Here is an argument you can follow logically…
Sindhi mann bhensaan tuon jerahy manho khay chootu chewantha!

Re: # 76

Shish man - do you really have to go back to the square one? I mean - come on, we have been thru this a million times already over past 60 years..... In light of what has happened over recent few years..... pakistan is the best thing that ever happened to rest of the people in subcontinent ......

I understand what you are saying - but your sentiment is kind of archaic..... you need to think over this.....

yawn...

sugarcane hurting much?

Re: # 75

Pakistan is a ghastly concept, shaped over the lost and ruined lives of
millions of innocent people just like the concept of caste system.
Both are abhorable.
If it goes away, nobody would regret but few.
Now that it has happened, it is for India to make sure no insane person
or a group of people again vivisects it for some flimsy, idiotic, selfish,
and impractical reasons.

``Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics``

Hear hear... Ayaz Amir is brilliant.

Rsridhar,

Having read the whole thing, I see his article a brilliant critique of how Pakistanis have let down Pakistan and its founder...

I am not sure why it has gladdened a hindu fanatic like yourself.

re:#59 by harimau
I say: amen to that!
Look at these natins bordering India. They do not just seem to govern themselves. Pakistan is knee deep in debt but that does not deter it from buying F16s and other military gizmos. Nepal has trouble brewing and Bangladesh is fast becoming a mirror image of Pakistan, another jehadi factory. Only, Srilanka has retained some sanity.
Sridhar

re:Pak, a failed state?
My mohajir friend often used to say (about Pak): (Yeh sudharney walee kaum nahin hai).
Ayaz Amir seems to see the light when rest of the pakees live in darkness:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20040813.htm

(What, then, was partition all about?

By Ayaz Amir


As another independence day is about to be commemorated with fake sentiment and false speeches — we having fine-honed the talent of turning national holidays into the most boring events imaginable — the toughest question our history throws up can no longer be shirked: if Pakistan was to be a country dedicated to permanent dictatorship, what was the point of it all?

Did we go through the blood-drenching and mass migration accompanying partition — more than a million people killed and about 8-10 million people uprooted from their homes — so that Pakistan should be a country dedicated to the permanent usurpation of power?

Was Pakistani independence meant to be a synonym for authoritarianism?

Harsh questions? Not if you consider the mess our history has been or, more to the point, if you consider our apparently unshakeable determination to keep making a mess of it.

Pakistan was created for the people of Pakistan. This at least is the orthodox line turned into cruel myth by the steady march of authority figures on the Pakistani stage, our consistent specialty, the extra-constitutional takeover. It bears branding into our collective consciousness that not a single peaceful transition of power marks the 57 tempestuous years of our history.

Yet, and savour the paradox, the bonds of nationhood (the sense of belonging to a nation) remain strong. Not because of Pakistan’s rulers who constitute a dismal club but because of the Pakistani people, most of whom, although not all, have nowhere else to go, no place else to call home. If the flame of patriotism still burns in Pakistani breasts, and it does, it is a tribute not to blinkered and often downright stupid leadership but to the resilience and fortitude of the Pakistani people.

So, is there still something that we can call the Pakistani dream? There is but in the minds of the poor and the defenceless, not in the passions or pocketbooks of the rich and well-placed who long ago made a virtue of swimming with the tide and, in the process, exchanging the power of hope and striving for the armour of an all-weather cynicism.

But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that.

So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India?

The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory.

For eight centuries Muslim warriors — lured by tales of India’s wealth and, I daresay, the beauty of its women, and crossing the same Hindukush passes through which, centuries before, Aryan hordes had marched — invaded, conquered and ruled India, putting the impress of their culture and thought upon the land they colonized and receiving something from that land in return.

In the process, both invader and invaded were transformed. After eight centuries of intermingling and assimilation the Muslim in India, however hard he clung to his historical memories, was no longer a Turk, a Persian or an Arab but something else: an Indian Muslim. The land was transformed too, post-Muslim India not being the same as pre-Muslim India.

With the coming of the British, however, another transformation was also underway. Muslims lost their pre-eminent status, a process beginning with the disintegration of the Mughal Empire but carried much further as the British consolidated their hold on India. Knocked off their pedestal, Muslims were now amongst the subjugated. But another discovery awaited them too. Outnumbered by the Hindu population, even amongst the subjugated they were not of the first rank. Their overall position in India was thus relegated to number three, after the British and the Hindus, this being a measure of the shift in the historical calculus.

From mid-19th Century onwards, beginning with the first stirrings of a modern Muslim consciousness as expressed by the Aligarh school, Muslims may have agitated for jobs and special safeguards, such as separate electorates, but informing and indeed fuelling their quest was a vision of the past when they were great and the whole of India, not just a part, was their happy hunting ground.

At odds with the reality of Muslim impotence, this vision, this harking back to the past, reduced the Indian Muslim leadership to fighting a rearguard action: seeking to play the new game, of which the British were now the umpires, not across the entire field, because they felt it not in their power to do so, but asking that a patch be reserved for them so that in that reserved patch they should be able to ride unchallenged.

In a crucial sense, then, the Pakistan movement signalled a retreat from the heartland of empire to its outer edges, the final evacuation from Delhi and Agra to new centres of power in Punjab and Bengal. But even then it was for the new state, Pakistan, to create a historical justification for itself by emulating and rivalling, in achievement and glory, even if on a reduced scale, the success of its historical model, the Mughal Empire (in a 20th Century setting, it goes without saying).

In other words, breaking away from India, for that’s what partition did, the justification for Pakistan lay not in merely existing but in showing the spark, vitality and vigour of a new organism, like America to the old world, Israel to its decadent surroundings, the breakaway part, in short, proving better in all that qualifies for civilized achievement than the erstwhile whole.

Against this scale of measurement how on earth do you place the kind of farce regularly staged in Pakistan: mediocre figures (no successors to Babar or Akbar, excuse me), meddling in politics when it is not their business to do so, adept neither at peace nor war, not understanding their own business or that of others, a succession of hopeless figures conspiring to make a mockery of a not-so-bad country? Mughal Empire indeed. Islamabad seems more like a replay of the last days of the Oudh dynasty.

The principal strengths of Muslim rule in the subcontinent were war, the consolidation of conquest, politics and administration. In all these fields Pakistan has not distinguished itself. Wars that should never have been fought started and then lost. About politics the less said the better.

It’s not as if Pakistan lacked promise or potential. It did not. But it has been betrayed by its stars and a succession of cardboard figures who would have received short shrift at Akbar’s court.

Is it all hopeless? Of course not. It’s not too late to turn the ship around. But we’ll have to go back to the drawing boards and, instead of taking Pakistan for granted which we often do, try to understand why this country was created. For rule by a few? To be lorded over by an oligarchy at once inept and corrupt, heedless of history and out of sync with the times? Come off it. Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics.)
This man Ayaz Amir must have a better I.Q than the founder of that benighted nation who died thinking he has done something great.
Sridhar

re:#31 by HP
Looks like u are a khalistani sympathiser, a really endagered species today!
Even Dan Burton, after his recent visit to India, would be loath to take that issue publicly.
You are quoting what some idiot ranted 50 years ago!
In India, constitution is supreme. Period. Akali Dal`s leaders can scratch their heads or pull their turbans off for all i care but the reality is that they too are bound by the same constitution. That constitution guarantees them religious freedom which they apply within the bounds of laws.
Indian state, in its formative years (and even today) has gone through many turbulent times. The seperatist agitation by Dravidian party, the khalistan issue, the bodoland issue so on and so forth. Most were amicably resolved. That is the strength of democracy in my view. Who could have imagined India would have a sikh PM and a sikh Chief of Army!
Sridhar

re: HPs post
(Haryana is Hindu and Punjab is Sikh....)
I would argue that Punjab (Indian) is both hindu and sikh. States were divided to fulfil aspiratons of people who wanted to preserve their unique language, culture. Madras state was divided into present day TN, Andhra pradesh. Both are hindu states.
Come out of your hatred and u will see the light.
Sridhar

re: HP`s post
(entry in the Indian constitution does not make India a secular state. It appears to be just political gamesmanship to pull a fast one. Looking at the last 58 years of history, no Indian government has taken a single step in changing anything that would make the country a secular country. Even the education system is not geared towards establishing secularism as the creed of the State of India. How Indian constitution would be different if it did not have the word secularism in it?)
India is pretty secular. Your or anybody`s denying it wont change the reality. Your above para is total gibberish. You are just saying some things just because u are either jealous or have nothing better to say. I think u need to learn to argue more logically.
Sridhar

re: the article
Interesting article.
I wish the language was not so pedantic.
Secularism is no doubt a good concept but then secularism as a concept is embraced from personal or collective experience. The early settlers in American Colonies were fleeing oppression and religious persecution and wanted to build a society where they could live freely. Great men like Jefferson put their aspirations into proper constitutional framework.
India too embraced secularism out of sheer necessity. There was no other way to have a consitution that would govern a land with diverse religions, castes etc. The bloodshed that followed partition must have also convinced the makers of constitution that secularism was the only way. It also helped to have a secular minded democrat (and an atheist to boot!) leading the nation in its formative years.
Does secularism work for muslim nations? I wish i could emphatically say yes, it does but i do not know of a single secular muslim nation except Turkey where the Army tilts the fine balance when needed towards preserving the secular credentials.
You quoted M.A. JInnah: (``You will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.``).
Fine words but spoken invain. That nation is wavering between religious extremism and military dictatorship, not knowing which way to go. Bangladesh seems to have decided of late that religious fundamentalism is the way to go.
Truly, India is a beacon in that part of the world.
Sridhar

For the want of space I am cataloguing Ambedkar`s exposition of the Muslim case, the Hindu Case and his view of partition in my ilogs.

Look.. don`t confuse issues...

You asked who else ascribes to Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai view... I produced 11 different authors. There are atleast 10 more.. which are so hackneyed that I haven`t mentioned them... You could let this be the end of it but no... so let us now delve into this debate.


You ask..

What of his ``record theon`` (I produced 11 authors who would tell you that his record thereon 1939-1947, was still much more accomodating than the Congress leadership...

To quote A G Noorani writes:

``If Jinnah, the partitionist, had a latent sense of an India above the two states, Jawaharlal Nehru, the ardent Unionist, not only contributed to the collapse of the 1946 plan but adopted a policy that would congeal the partition: Congress leaders demonised him systematically. So did Indian academics and the press. Jinnah yet awaits a fair assessment, warts and all. That must include his own mistakes and grave lapses as well. The Congress spurned him in 1937-39. But he went overboard and did much harm by his miscalculations. Indians and Pakistanis must reflect on all aspects of his life, not selectively as they do.

By any test Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a truly great man. In personal integrity this tragic figure had no peers. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate. Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``

Then you ask...

``Again, if the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate, does that mean you tear the country apart? What kind of a man other than someone who is insane or possessed by a murderous rage does that?``

So ... a single individual can tear apart a country? The Congress leaders did not reciprocate ... means that they did not see that Jinnah was not the be all end all but the spokesperson/lawyer/representative of a significant chunk of the people. Isn`t modern democratic government based on compromise? Congress leaders refused to compromise... Jinnah tried till the last year ... even in May of 1947... to talk sense to them. No doubt this simplistic logic arises from an unwillingness to see the facts as they are...

As for Ambedkar.. please feel free to reproduce the ``uncharitable`` remarks he has ``reserved`` for Jinnah... We are talking about Pakistan or Partitiion of India mind you... Clearly you haven`t read the book... had you read it, you would know that he presents the case from both sides... and then leaves the conclusion...


``In the same vein that he praises Jinnah, he castigates him for doing injustice to himself and the state he founded. This paragraph alone is worth a million words and should tell you something about the man. Thanks for reproducing it here.``


So your point is? Did you not ask for examples of people who agreed with the Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai`s view of history... namely that Jinnah tried to compromise and Congress leadership`s unaccomodated pigheadedness (with the exception of Azad, who literally authored the Cabinet Mission Plan)... led to partition?

H M Seervai references Azad`s ``India wins freedom`` a lot ... now we know Azad is extremely critical of Jinnah, being his opponent... but in a very revealing paragraph towards the end of his book... he also says that Patel and Nehru had become ardently pro-partition than Jinnah.


-YLH

#65 by Mantolives

[Please read the preface of Ambedkar`s book and read the book in its entirety. He said that he would argue the Muslim case and the Hindu case and then leave the conclusions to the reader... Why don`t you read the whole thing? Are you afraid? Did you know that Ambedkar`s book ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` was widely used by the Muslim League leadership in references?]

Hold your horses there! I have read the book (in its entirety as you say) which is why I could so confidently challenge you to quote Ambedkar on Jinnah`s ridiculous demands. Why don`t you cut and paste the uncharitable remarks Ambedkar reserves for Jinnah?

His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate.

The fact that Noorani says his political record was stellar ``from 1906-39`` is telling. What about his record from thereon? Wasn`t it the exact opposite of the ``spirit of conciliation and statesmanship``?

Again, if the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate, does that mean you tear the country apart? What kind of a man other than someone who is insane or possessed by a murderous rage does that? To cause death and misery to millions of people just because the Congress leaders didn`t reciprocate? Doesn`t get more ridiculous than that.

It is time you started understanding the real meaning behind the words than merely swallowing them without questioning them and then quoting them verbatim.

``Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``

What about this statement? In the same vein that he praises Jinnah, he castigates him for doing injustice to himself and the state he founded. This paragraph alone is worth a million words and should tell you something about the man. Thanks for reproducing it here.

Harish-hyd,

How long are you going to keep jumping in without reading the context. According to Harimau, it was a Pakistani claim... I merely telling him that no it was an Indian who wrote this.

However thank you for according me this opportunity to drive the dagger home once more.

Please read the preface of Ambedkar`s book and read the book in its entirety. He said that he would argue the Muslim case and the Hindu case and then leave the conclusions to the reader... Why don`t you read the whole thing? Are you afraid? Did you know that Ambedkar`s book ``Pakistan or Partition of India`` was widely used by the Muslim League leadership in references?


As for hundreds of books...

Here are some other authors who take more or less the same view as H M Seervai:

1- Patrick French (Liberty or Death)

2- Asiananda (Jinnah: a corrective reading of Indian history)

3- Ajeet Javed ( Secular and Nationalist Jinnah)

4- Anil Seal

5- Irfan Habib

6- Mukul Kesavan

7- Rajmohan Gandhi (8 Muslim lives)

8- Stephen Cohen (Idea of Pakistan)

9- Beverly Nichols (Verdict on India)

10- M J Akbar

11- A G Noorani (Read his recent two part article on Jinnah) ...
0
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2213/stories/20050701004602300.htm

I quote his conclusion: ``By any test Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a truly great man. In personal integrity this tragic figure had no peers. His political record from 1906 to 1939 reveals a spirit of conciliation and statesmanship, which Congress leaders did not reciprocate. Indians must begin to acknowledge his greatness and the grave injustice the Congress leaders did to him. Pakistanis must begin to acknowledge the ones he did not only to himself but to the infant state he founded.``


None of the ladies and gentlemen mentioned above are Pakistanis... neither is H M Seervai.

So Ayesha Jalal is a Pakistani- but what about all the above?

-YLH

#63 by Mantolives

Yaar Yasser,

How long will you go on bandying about Seervai and Ayesha Jalal? Are these the only authors who have written on partition? It is obvious that being a Paki, Ayesha Jalal`s sympathy would lie with Jinnah. Is Seervai the non-Paki to have written on partition? There have been hundreds of books written on the subject? Can you point out any other author to have had a favorable opinion of Jinnah`s demands?

You love to quote Ambedkar when you want to validate your hatred for Gandhi (casteist and all), but why don`t you quote him on what his views were about Jinnah`s ridiculous demands?

Harimau also writes about Pakistanis...

``You are the guys who go around claiming that Jinnah didn`t want Partition but it was forced on him.``

Last I checked H M Seervai was Indian and his book (Partition of India: Legend and Reality) was written in India. The official Pakistani view as well as the majority one is that Jinnah wanted Pakistan .. Jinnah got Pakistan...

Yet another paki is b!tching and moaning how India is NOT secular... and the entire hinud brigrade here are falling over each other to convince him that it is..... come on fellas - get a life....

I mean - as if it really matters what a paki believes anything on india or secularism or whatever..... Or as if you can really convince a paki about secualrism anyway .... decades of k for kafir education - you can`t beat that...

#24, According to the Nov 2005 Gallup poll on religiosity, 66% of the inhabitants of the world describe themselves as religious- the breakdown has Asians as less religious than Europeans and Americans, which doesn`t fit too will with you reborn ``Social Darwinism``- neither does the increased militarism associated with the developed world. You describe religion as a ``useless`` appendage using an idiotic analogy of the tail, yet religion is the oldest institution of humankind and has been around for more than the ``few hundred years`` that you mention, also you forget that the institutional setup you consider ``evolved`` at one time or another differentiated from religion, i.e. it was born within religion and then became a secular system- Islam laid the roots of your European rennaissance, and protestantism, according to Max Weber led through various institutional mechanisms to the development of modern capitalism.

Social Darwinists present bigotry disguised as weak claims backed by superficial biological analogies and little else. Good day to you all.

Re: # 53
You are posting just for argument sake and you do not have any valid point as you dont know what would be different if the data is collected via organization or people.
Though including religion in census does not make a government secular or otherwise.
Sticking to this article and in particular this discussion thread, Indian consititution is not purely secular as it defines Hindus and there are separate laws for separate religion. Indian constitution will be truly secular in words and spirit if and only if its has same law for everyone irrespective of their religion.

Regarding Gay Marriage, I think marriage is a religious concept but after getting married one needs to register the ``contract`` with the government. Thus gay union can be legalized i.e. they can register the ``contract`` and its upon the couple to call it a union or a marriage or anything else they want to call it.

Ref HP #39

[If they can prove that it is a majority demand…they should be given not only self-governance but sovereignty… Imo, Kashmiris would just love it…. ]

Look up the sky and see if pigs are flying, because that is when Kashmiris would get sovereignty.

In fact, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka should be stripped of their sovereign status and brought under the boot heel of Bharat Mata.

IMO, the only thing Muslims love is something up their butts. No wonder Butt-Fakhr is a common name among them!

Khurram #9, {``Gays have been denied the right to practice their beliefs (i.e. enter into marriage) based on the religious beliefs of the majority. How is this secular?``}

Khurram,
Eating beef does not make you a cannibal, unless of course, you are a cow.

Romair #26, {``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.``}

Mista Capitan,
At one time I accused you of not being able to discern between a swordfish and a lawnmower. You have just reaffirmed my belief. Imagine, equating the plight of Ahmedis to the issue of gay marriage.

pmishra #28, {``You are quite wrong. Here are the first four commandments (hebrew bible) ``}

Mishra Ji,
When will you get to the ``covet`` ones? :)

Re: # 53

hp:

``It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it? ``

the question should be why is u.s. govt. even including it in the census then?

Re: # 53

hp:

``It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it? ``

the question should be why is u.s. govt. even including it in the census then?

#51 by samosa
“Re: # 48
Please enlighten what difference would it make if a government collects data from religious organization or through people.”

It means that data was collected outside of census…and not directly from the people…Tough concept isn’t it?

Look I did not create two provinces so I would not know what Indian govt achieved...Ask Indian government, Indian PM in 1966....anybody..

HP#44:

There is no need to lose your composure. Please read my post again. It does not say anything about SGPC verdict or Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. To repeat, this is what I said:

- There was no Maha Panjab movement. It was either keeping Panjab as it was, make it a Punjabi Suba or split it into two.

- The Arya Samajis rejected the whole concept of Punjabi as their language, not just the gurmukhi script. They regarded it as merely a dialect, a boli.

- The campaign was largely fought in Urdu medium.

If you want to contradict what I said in my post, say so, otherwise you can go through your routine of name-calling and assuming that there is nothing worth replying.

Now, let me come to your specific points:

[The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections in December 1954 returned a verdict totally in favour of Punjabi Suba.]

All I can say is that this is someone`s interpretation of the results of the SGPC elections. The SGPC elections are fought for management of gurudwaras, not on a political platform. It is true however that Gurcharan Singh Tohra, who was the SGPC boss for ever and ever as well as many SGPC members were Akali leaders. However, in the general elections in 1957, Akalis were roundly defeated.

[Punjabi Suba demand started in 1954…. When did arya Samaji Started?]

Arya Samaj started long before that. In fact, if my memory serves me right, the Punjabi Suba movement may also have started before 1954. To start with, it was not a communal demand. I personally attended a meeting in support of Punjabi Suba presided by Master Tara Singh in which the chief speaker was the famous actor, Prithvi Raj Kapur. At that time, the majority of people in Panjab were Hindus and, if they had accepted Punjabi as their language, they would have remained a majority in that state.

Just so as you do not read more into this statement than it says, let me add that the movement quickly assumed communal dimension after the Arya Samaj leadership jumped into the fray. Before that, even most sikhs did not care too much about the Punjabi Suba, though they were attached to the Punjabi language.

[Are you going to say that the following never happened…

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

I never denied these slogans, so why are you bringing them in? By the way, Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan was used before the Partition and not during the Pujabi Suba movement, the dhoti-topi slogan was only mentioned by Tara Singh in anger (he was used to such outpourings), which the Arya Samajis used to malign the movement; it was not a serious demand.

Re: # 48
Please enlighten what difference would it make if a government collects data from religious organization or through people.

The information you get from khalsa leader is wrong. Can you tell what did government achieve by creating haryana. India is divided into different states mostly on linguist lines. Just like Maharasthra, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana. This is to make life easy for people who has to interact with government authorities. Akali Dal loses and wins election.

Re: # 45

``Are you saying that India is not a secular state? I may agree with that…. ``

how would you define a secularaction ?

like france, which would ban religious symbols from every religion.

or subsidize/treat everyone equally.

in mumbai, i have seen portraits of hindu gods in gov. offices, but these are not gov. policies. these are individuals who do that. tomorrow if a muslim occupies the office and puts a photo of mecca no one would stop him.

i have seen muslims wearing skull caps at work.
state muslim employee offering namaz in the gov. state bus building complex.

last year maharashtra gov. gifted land to a dargah of afzal khan, this guy was the same person who came to kill shivaji when his empire was in a nascent stage.

indian gov. has been subsidizing hajj pil. now have started with amarnath too.

but does these make the country less secular?

i think when we talk about secularism it is about equal oppurtunity to all, irrespective of which religion a person belongs to.

BTW, according to your definition even turkey, malaysia would be classified as non-secular , and singapore too (?)

also, i do think we are a ``secular`` country because of commies and ``secular`` parties keep fighting the ``communal`` forces to fulfill the dreams of the founding fathers ;)

Neti,
Check the census numbers...I think currently Sikhs are 60% in Punjab but only about 5% in Haryana. So it may be 50% 50% in one province but I am sure demographics are different after almost 40 years.
Okie dokey… Here it is…

http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Summary%20Sikhs.pdf

03 Punjab 24,358,999 Sikh 14,592,387 59.9%
06 Haryana 2 1,144,564 Sikh 1,170,662 5.5%
02 Himachal Pradesh 6 ,077,900 Sikh 72,355 1.2%

Samosa,
Aap kiyon Naraz hota hain…

How did you know I don`t have guts? my Xray is attached below.

There is no need to provide the web site…You tell me if there is something wrong with the statements that I quoted… As I told Jang I am getting this info from Khalsa leaders and I have no interest in publishing their email addresses. But if you search hard you may stumble upon their web site too. Until then bear with my post w/o web sites… I am not obligated to post that info but I did glean some info from different web sites.

Abb meri chai thandi ho goi! No more help for Khalsa….

The first line of your celebrated link said” The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations.”
Collecting info from the people and from the religious organizations is different…the US does collect religion information but not on census forms…


Neti dada,

``then how would that help sikhs? ``

Look at the census numbers...I was not advising sikhs then:)

Re: # 39

``The language bogey was raised to counter the Sikh demand. ``

Assuming sikh demand was a punjabi state. if present punjab consisted of haryana and h.p. don`t you think that sikhs would been in minority?

then how would that help sikhs?

they would been in minority in greater-punjab itself.

Re: # 45
the parsi gannawala would be sad if you consider him parsi and not iranian zorosthrian.
dont you have guts to produce the website address for your post #31.
You like to quote usa for not including religion in their census then take some time in clicking the following link. US Census Religion.
Its very simplistic to think that there would be no need to common civil code by simply eliminating religion census.
I though do agree that indian consititution is not truly secular as long it determines or defines Hindu.
Punjab and Harayana were split on linguist lines just like gujarat and maharashtra.

#41 by dost-mittar

Are you going to stick with it or you want me to post some more stories?

“The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections in December 1954 returned a verdict totally in favour of Punjabi Suba.”

Punjabi Suba demand started in 1954…. When did arya Samaji Started?

Are you going to say that the following never happened…

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


#42 by Netizen
“I am talking about those who reside in Haryana: devi lal, bhajan lal, chautala. the language they speak is no punjabi.”

Before Haryana the language was called Punjabi… Afaik, There is no Language in India that is called Haryanvi. There is a definite Hindi influence on Punjabi so probably they speak a mixture of Punjabi/hindi/urdu like Punjabi in Delhi do…

“Indian national flag itself has a religious symbol: the buddhist dharma-chakra, kaalchakra”

Are you saying that India is not a secular state? I may agree with that….

Jang,
``a stick to beat ``hindus`` with ;-)``

Khalsa power is with me so watch out....I will also send a request for Parsi Ganna to beat hindus up... :)

#41 the misunderstanding is for those who attempt understanding. for some its just a stick to beat ``hindus`` with ;-)

HP:

Indian national flag itself has a religious symbol: the buddhist dharma-chakra, kaalchakra

Re: # 39


``Punjabi Hindu too spoke Punjabi, no Haryanvi… ``

I am talking about those who reside in Haryana: devi lal, bhajan lal, chautala. the language they speak is no punjabi.

Punjab:

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what happened in Punjab. There was never any movement called, Maha Punjab [there was a marginal Vishal Delhi movement, which would have combined today`s Haryana with Delhi]. And the Arya Samajis did not ask for Punjabi to be in Devnagri script; if they had, there may have been less bitterness. There stance was totally absurd, which was that their mothertongue was Hindi and not Punjabi, which they called merely a ``boli`` and not a language.

It all started when Chief Minister, Partap Singh Kairon, implemented the two-language formula in Punjab. Punjab was to be a bilingual state with a Punjabi and Hindi region. In the Punjabi region, roughly corresponding to today`s Punjab, all kids were to learn Punjabi first and Hindi starting in the third or fifth (I am not sure!) class. In the Hindi region, roughly corresponding to Haryana and Himachal, kids were to learn Hindi first and Punjabi, starting at a later stage. The Arya Samajis launched an agitation against this formula. They wanted completed freedom for the parents to choose any language regardless of the region in which they lived; in other words they wanted Hindus the freedom to not learn Punjabi. It was this refusal by Arya Samajis, which consolidated the Sikh support behind the Akali demand for a Punjabi Suba, basically constituting Sikh majority districts. Before this, Akalis were always in a minority and the Congress Party, which supported the two-language formula, won most of the Assembly and Parliamentary seats in Punjab, including predominantly Sikh seats.

An amusing aspect of this battle between the supporters of Punjabi and Hindi was that the battle was fought primarily in Urdu, which was the language most understood by Punjabis who went to school in Pre-Partition Punjab. The Punjabi fight was led by Master Tara Singh`s Urdu newspaper, Parbhat, while the Arya Samaji Mahasha`s newspapers were Partap, Milap and Veer Bharat. The walls of the cities were also littered with mostly Urdu posters of the two sides.

Mantolives #27: ``To preserve secularism in multicultural societies in the east where religious emotions run high,.....Ultimately it is about getting justice, equality, impartiality and fairplay... for all without distinction. This is what is called ``Rule of Law``.

If you are saying, what I think you are saying, the I would have to say you are on the right track.........

Anytime people get addicted to any ism - secular, religion, caplital etc. - they go off-track. For the simply reason that all ism have so many built-in contradictions that one has to literally have an ideological belief in them, to support them. In addition, there is no system to keep them in place, without taking into account the social direction of the populace.....

I don`t think, secularism, as a philosophy will last too long, in some parts of the world. The way it is set up is too contradictory. It is impossible to have the Church in private life but not in public life. Or vice-versa. It is an unnatural balance, i.e. God got it correct in personal issues, but not in public issues. What kind of God is correct only 50% of the time?

Depending on the country, one will take over the other. Either the country will move towards athiesm, socially (like Europe) or towards religion (like USA). And eventually this is bound to show up in politics.........

The aim of any society, in my opinion, thus, should not be an ideological desire to take religion out of politics. That is as ridiculous as trying to force religion into politics. The aim of a society should be to ensure that all citizens get an equal right to justice, economic growth etc. regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, political leaning. This is an impossible task, but as long as it is, ``relatively`` achieved, it is good enough. Even in such situations, some groups like gays etc. will end up getting shafted (no pun intended).

Simply taking religion out of, or putting it into. politics, is neither here nor there. Secular govts. can be as evil, or as benign, as religious ones. The aim should, thus, be to take inhumanity out of politcs. The motivation for which can be drawn from anywhere - secularism, hinduism, islam, athiesm, etc..........

It is a huge grey area, and people who provide sure black and white solutions, based on secularism or religion or anything else usually do not understand the complexities of this grey area, nor the complexities of the societies in which the grey areas exist............

Neti dada,

Nobody speaks Haryanvi…I have so much information on this subject that I can drown people in the documents. The language bogey was raised to counter the Sikh demand. Punjabi Hindu too spoke Punjabi, no Haryanvi…

“one state that truly was going to be divided along religious lines is J&K. the ladhaki buddhists are demanding self-governance for a long time.”

If they can prove that it is a majority demand…they should be given not only self-governance but sovereignty… Imo, Kashmiris would just love it….

Dr. Dasgupta:

A constitution, if framed by representatives of the people, is bound to reflect the ethos of the population. The framers of the US constitution, were themselves Christians who represented a Christian population. They wanted to separate church and state because of the intra-christian rivalries of Europe, but they had no problems with religious Ten Commandments common to all sects and jews. They also had no problem with ``In God we Trust``. These are now causing some problems because of the presence of other religons, but mostly because of the increase in the number of atheists and agnostics in the US who seem to be left out in the acceptance of God in the constitution.

``The framer of the Indian constitution, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a mental giant at par if not bigger than Jefferson, drew up a huge but very appropriate constitution for India. That hasn’t stopped interfaith violence, but the general framework is agreed upon and acceptable to most. Several people think that it goes too far in secularism by not only having no link between the state and religion (whichever one you may think
off) but also allows its citizens to have a personal civil legal code which is separate according to religious lines (something which is very rare in the world).``

I am not sure if Dr. Ambedkar would agree with this assessment. What you point out to is ``not going too far in secularism`` but not going far enough. It was not Dr. Ambedkar`s idea but Nehru`s reward to the Muslim ulema for the Congress-Ulema alliance in the pre-partition India. By allowing religion to have a say in the state laws and education, the constitution set the stage for the future growth of Hindu nationalism on the slogan of pseudo-secularism. It also set the stage for Madrassa education, especially those supported by Saudi Arabia, which lay more emphasis on religious teachings, than they do on academic excellence. I am surprised that you are presenting a weakness of the constitution as its strength.

To be successful, a constitution must reflect the ethos of the population. The US constitution reflects its judeo-christian ethos as does the Canadian constitution. The consitutions of Pakistan reflects its Islamic ethos as will the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The constitution of Turkey does not, but it was imposed by a popular dictator and did not represent the will of the people. One could say the same thing even about the Indian constitution, as it was framed by the western educated elite. It still works because the constitution does not go against the Hindu ethos of religous pluralism.

Jang,
I am working with some nice folks of Khalistan:)

Actually they will do all my posts on this subject so that we can have some fun with Harimau…

Next item on agenda Mahant of the 1920s... remember them, Jang?

Re: # 20

HP:


``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. ``

every country has its own parameters to define. in u.s. how many significant religious minorities are there? maybe as the diferent religious groups become more significant things may change. anyway, i don`t think gathering information about religion of a person cons can make a nation non-secular. india right now doesn`t even know whether the gov. should keep off with all religious groups or equally subsidize all of them.

``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. ``

thats true. you will see pictures/murtis in offices. as well as in police patrol vehicles. i was just curious whether you saw anything on a gov. building.

``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 like bilingual Bombay was divided on linguistic basis. punjab is sikh majority but the ratio is 60:40 its not overwhelmingly sikh. the other parts were haryanvi speaking haryana and pahari/himachali speaking himachal pradesh. in fact since then many more states have been carved out of bigger states like uttaranchal, jharkhand, chhatisgarh. telangana, vidarbha are on the waiting list.
nevertheless regarding punjab, there was a grouse that certain punjabi-speaking areas have been left in H.P., dr.lokraj will be able to throw more light on it.

one state that truly was going to be divided along religious lines is J&K. the ladhaki buddhists are demanding self-governance for a long time.

#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 Commandmen