Secularism and Liberal Democracy

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%

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 ;)

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.

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.

#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..

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

#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.

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...

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...

#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?