Secularism and Liberal Democracy

Well a good article...

The issue I think will always be about secularism with a capital S or small one...

secularism with a small s is the secularism that is the inevitable result of liberal democracy and will ultimately emerge no matter what religious connotations or identity issues that might exist.

Secularism with a capital S is secularism as an ideology... it can work but then it can also clash with liberal democracy.

Nicely written Dasgupta!

I generally favor a secular disposition of people and countries but often I do wonder why secularism is so important in the state affairs. How much does it help to declare secularism as a creed in a constitution? How many countries really are secular constitutionally? The US constitution never talks about secularism. It spells out its version of separation of church from the state but it does take pride in god we trust theme.

Can a constitution alone make a country theocratic or secular?
I think the separation of church from the govt does not make a county secular. It just establishes the fact that the religious teaching will not dominate the govt. But there is nothing in the constitution that bars religious leaders to contest and win elections and there is nothing that even bars them to create legislations that favor religion in the interpretation of law.

Mr.Dasgupta has discussed the ten commandment issue as a major victory for the secularist but he forgot that it was the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who put the ten commandments up there and it shows the presence of a school of thought in the US judiciary itself that does not feel that the constitution is threatened by putting religious symbols in govt buildings. What if this issue comes up again and a majority of the jurist decides that the religious symbols can be placed in govt buildings?

India does claim to be secular but is that country really secular? Indian constitution actually defines who should be called a hindu. Does that not contradict the secular principles? In India, people are counted in censuses based on their religions and it is an important factor in the Indian politics. In fact the whole Indian politics revolves exclusively around religion. The religious symbols are prominently displayed in the Indian government buildings and one railway minister put religious symbols in his office to protect the railroad systems from accidents.

An 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 the only secular country in world that allowed partition of a province based on separate religions. That is after opposing creation of Pakistan on similar grounds.
So what kind of secular county Mr. Dasgupta would like to live in…

“All this to be taken with a grain of salt!”

I have taken the whole article with a boulder of salt…

I think one should consider whether a state has formulated any laws that favour or give
advantage_to one religion over the other. If a state has not done that, I think it is secular.
I think USA, UK, India to name few, all fit that criterion.

People, incorrectly, try to present secularism, liberalism and democracy as synonomous concepts. They tend to include humanism in there as well. Anyone who studies these concepts, philosophically, as opposed to ideologically, can easily ascertain that they are all mutually exclusive, i.e. a govt. can be secular, but illiberal, non-democratic and inhumane. At the same time, it can be secular, liberal, democratic and inhumane. Or secular, illiberal, non-democratic but humane. And any other permutation of the above four.......

Secularism is nothing more than separating the Church from the State. That is it. An evil killer can form a secular govt., which is completely inhumane. On the other hand, a secular govt. can be the most humane also. Unfortunately, when people start equating humanism, exclusively with secularism or with religion, they become ideological, and thus are unable to take into account the views of anyone, different from themeselves. The, otherwise, grey world, becomes black and white to them.

There is, infact, no purely secular govt. in the world. All govts. exists within the grey areas between religion and no religion, in the state. The same person who will argue for Ahmadi rights, under secularism, will become religious and oppose gay marriage. When, in fact, the number of gays in any society is far higher than the number of Ahmadis.

This is where societies, specifically Western societies, sit today, i.e. trying to figure out, if they are going to completely separate Church from State or not. Canada has allowed gay marraige - the deciding issue in Western secularism, today (much like the Ahmadi issue in Pakistan). Europe is allowing it, as well. However, the USA is vehemently agaisnt it. Any US candidate pushing it, cannot get elected as President.

Under secularism, the State should have absolutely no say in who can get married to whom. Yet marriage - the cornerstone of any society - is still heavily legislated on the basis of religion. Marraige - a completely religious concept - should, in fact, have nothing legislated around it, in any secular society.

Marraige, and other similar issues, are now forcing the Western societies to decide on the real issue, which is at the core of the debate, at a philosophical level, i.e. is there a God or not. Should society function, assuming there is a God, or should it function as if there isn`t one. Secularism is really an in-between, ``convenient`` state, which tries to satisfy both groups. But in the long run, it can satisfy neither.

To say that there is a God, and He got His rules correct in the personal sphere, but screwed up in the public sphere, doesn`t make sense. What kind of God is He, if He could only get things right 50% of the time. This is what will drive the social outlook of people in Western societies. Either they will tilt more towards God or tilt completely away, towards athiesm, or towards a religionless concept of a Creator (or a creational force, like nature etc.).

We are already seeing the changes. Europe is becoming more and more athiest, and thus moving towards pure secularism. Church attendance and a general belief in religion is decreasing exponentially. There is a concept of a Creator, but nothing more. USA is going in the other direction. The only secular institution left in the USA is the judiciary. The legislative and the executive are no longer secular. In addition, nearly half the population, of the USA wants religion in politics, i.e. openly opposes secularism.

Overtime, it will become more and more difficult for the USA Supreme and State Courts to make decisions against Ten Commandments as well as in favor of benchmark secular issues like gay marraige. Specifically because the types of judges being promoted to the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, it will become quite commonplace and very easy for European courts to make the above decision, as the European society moves more and more, at a social level, towards a non-religious or athiest society.

The real debate, thus, is not Church being in or out of State. The real debate, philosophically speaking, is whether there should even be a Church or not. Is there a God or isn`t there One? As long as there is a Church in personal life, it will continue to show up in the State, through backdoors (like elections, pressure groups, personal beliefs of judges etc.)..............

Shishapa #4: `` think one should consider whether a state has formulated any laws that favour or give advantage_to one religion over the other. If a state has not done that, I think it is secular. I think USA, UK, India to name few, all fit that criterion.``

I don`t think this can be used as a criteria...........

The criteria for secularism, is actually, whether the State uses religion to formulate any laws. Secularism is based on the separation of Church and State. Secularism is not, as it is incorrectly interpreted, a mechanism of trying to create balance between citizens practicing different religions. Secularism is not designed to create equality amongst religions. It is supposed to take religion, of any kind, totally out of the State. Secularism, thus, does not purpose multi-religionism (like multi-culturism) at the State level. It, infact, demands athiesm at the State level.

If we use the criteria, you have provided, then where exactly do gays fit in. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism(?), Sikhism, etc. all ban gay marraige. A state could, that consisted of individuals who practiced these religions, conveniently pass a law that gay marriage is illegal. The law would not be giving one religion, ``favor`` over the other, since all the above religions recognize gay marriage as illegal.

However, such a ruling, against gay marriage, would not be secular. It would not be separating Church from State. It would be incorporating all religions, equally, into the State. It would be a religious ruling acceptable to all straight folks in a society. But unacceptable to all homosexuals.............The State would have, in a completely non-secular manner, used multiple religions, to violate the secular rights of gays.............

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.

Justifying the criminal invasion of Iraq and widespread human suffering as a result of that by stating that a ``constitution`` is being framed and then blaming religion for the mixup is not much different to the propaganda we often hear on FOX NEWS.

For further information about the supreme court, I recommend this article by Howard Zinn (attached under)

``It`s Not up to the Court
By Howard Zinn
November 2005 Issue

John Roberts sailed through his confirmation hearings as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with enthusiastic Republican support, and a few weak mutterings of opposition by the Democrats. Then, after the far right deemed Harriet Miers insufficiently doctrinaire, Bush nominated arch conservative Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O`Connor. This has caused a certain consternation among people we affectionately term ``the left.``

I can understand that sinking feeling. Even listening to pieces of Roberts`s confirmation hearings was enough to induce despair: the joking with the candidate, the obvious signs that, whether Democrats or Republicans, these are all members of the same exclusive club. Roberts`s proper ``credentials,`` his ``nice guy`` demeanor, his insistence to the Judiciary Committee that he is not an ``ideologue`` (can you imagine anyone, even Robert Bork or Dick Cheney, admitting that he is an ``ideologue``?) were clearly more important than his views on equality, justice, the rights of defendants, the war powers of the President.

At one point in the hearings, The New York Times reported, Roberts ``summed up his philosophy.`` He had been asked, ``Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?`` (Would any candidate admit that he was on the side of ``the big guy``? Presumably serious ``hearings`` bring out idiot questions.)

Roberts replied: ``If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy`s going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy`s going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.``

If the Constitution is the holy test, then a justice should abide by its provision in Article VI that not only the Constitution itself but ``all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.`` This includes the Geneva Convention of 1949, which the United States signed, and which insists that prisoners of war must be granted the rights of due process.

A district court judge in 2004 ruled that the detainees held in Guantanamo for years without trial were protected by the Geneva Convention and deserved due process. Roberts and two colleagues on the Court of Appeals overruled this.

There is enormous hypocrisy surrounding the pious veneration of the Constitution and ``the rule of law.`` The Constitution, like the Bible, is infinitely flexible and is used to serve the political needs of the moment. When the country was in economic crisis and turmoil in the Thirties and capitalism needed to be saved from the anger of the poor and hungry and unemployed, the Supreme Court was willing to stretch to infinity the constitutional right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It decided that the national government, desperate to regulate farm production, could tell a family farmer what to grow on his tiny piece of land.

When the Constitution gets in the way of a war, it is ignored. When the Supreme Court was faced, during Vietnam, with a suit by soldiers refusing to go, claiming that there had been no declaration of war by Congress, as the Constitution required, the soldiers could not get four Supreme Court justices to agree to even hear the case. When, during World War I, Congress ignored the First Amendment`s right to free speech by passing legislation to prohibit criticism of the war, the imprisonment of dissenters under this law was upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, which included two presumably liberal and learned justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis.

It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice.

The distinction between law and justice is ignored by all those Senators--Democrats and Republicans--who solemnly invoke as their highest concern ``the rule of law.`` The law can be just; it can be unjust. It does not deserve to inherit the ultimate authority of the divine right of the king.

The Constitution gave no rights to working people: no right to work less than twelve hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance.

The Brown decision on school desegregation did not come from a sudden realization of the Supreme Court that this is what the Fourteenth Amendment called for. After all, it was the same Fourteenth Amendment that had been cited in the Plessy case upholding racial segregation. It was the initiative of brave families in the South--along with the fear by the government, obsessed with the Cold War, that it was losing the hearts and minds of colored people all over the world--that brought a sudden enlightenment to the Court.

The Supreme Court in 1883 had interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment so that nongovernmental institutions hotels, restaurants, etc.-could bar black people. But after the sit-ins and arrests of thousands of black people in the South in the early Sixties, the right to public accommodations was quietly given constitutional sanction in 1964 by the Court. It now interpreted the interstate commerce clause, whose wording had not changed since 1787, to mean that places of public accommodation could be regulated by Congressional action and be prohibited from discriminating.

Soon this would include barbershops, and I suggest it takes an ingenious interpretation to include barbershops in interstate commerce.

The right of a woman to an abortion did not depend on the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. It was won before that decision, all over the country, by grassroots agitation that forced states to recognize the right. If the American people, who by a great majority favor that right, insist on it, act on it, no Supreme Court decision can take it away.

The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these rights for themselves.

This is not to say that we should ignore the courts or the electoral campaigns. It can be useful to get one person rather than another on the Supreme Court, or in the Presidency, or in Congress. The courts, win or lose, can be used to dramatize issues.

On St. Patrick`s Day, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, four anti-war activists poured their own blood around the vestibule of a military recruiting center near Ithaca, New York, and were arrested. Charged in state court with criminal mischief and trespassing (charges well suited to the American invaders of a certain Mideastern country), the St. Patrick`s Four spoke their hearts to the jury. Peter DeMott, a Vietnam veteran, described the brutality of war. Danny Burns explained why invading Iraq would violate the U.N. Charter, a treaty signed by the United States. Clare Grady spoke of her moral obligations as a Christian. Teresa Grady spoke to the jury as a mother, telling them that women and children were the chief victims of war, and that she cared about the children of Iraq. Nine of the twelve jurors voted to acquit them, and the judge declared a hung jury. (When the federal government retried them on felony conspiracy charges, a jury in September acquitted them of those and convicted them on lesser charges.)

Still, knowing the nature of the political and judicial system of this country, its inherent bias against the poor, against people of color, against dissidents, we cannot become dependent on the courts, or on our political leadership. Our culture--the media, the educational system--tries to crowd out of our political consciousness everything except who will be elected President and who will be on the Supreme Court, as if these are the most important decisions we make. They are not. They deflect us from the most important job citizens have, which is to bring democracy alive by organizing, protesting, engaging in acts of civil disobedience that shake up the system. That is why Cindy Sheehan`s dramatic stand in Crawford, Texas, leading to 1,600 anti-war vigils around the country, involving 100,000 people, is more crucial to the future of American democracy than the mock hearings on Justice Roberts or the ones to come on Judge Alito.

That is why the St. Patrick`s Four need to be supported and emulated. That is why the GIs refusing to return to Iraq, the families of soldiers calling for withdrawal from the war, are so important.

That is why the huge peace march in Washington on September 24 bodes well.

Let us not be disconsolate over the increasing control of the court system by the right wing.

The courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people. Those words engraved in the marble of the Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Before the Law,`` have always been a sham.

No Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, will stop the war in Iraq, or redistribute the wealth of this country, or establish free medical care for every human being. Such fundamental change will depend, the experience of the past suggests, on the actions of an aroused citizenry, demanding that the promise of the Declaration of Independence--an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--be fulfilled.

Re: # 6

The keyword is secular democracy. A kingdom can be secular, a dictatorship can
be secular.

It is possible that a Gay union is not considered marriage. That is democracy at work.
Like it happened in Texas just a few weeks ago where a proposition to grant Gay union
status of marriage was defeated. Gays could not convince majority Texans to vote their
way. Does that make Texas a non-secular state? I do not think so.

If tomorrow Shankaracharya proclaims, only a Hindu will be Law Minister because India is
a majority Hindu state and it becomes a law, I think India will cease to be secular state
at that point.
Until such laws, favaouring one religion over the other do not exist in Indian constitution, India is a secular country/state IMHO.

Re #8,
``Gays could not convince majority Texans to vote their
way. Does that make Texas a non-secular state?``

Yes it does! In this one respect it does.

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?

Re: # 3

``India does claim to be secular but is that country really secular?``

i don`t think they even know how to defien secularism.

``In India, people are counted in censuses based on their religions and it is an important factor in the Indian politics. .``

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

``In fact the whole Indian politics revolves exclusively around religion``

more than religion, it is caste/community.


``The religious symbols are prominently displayed in the Indian government buildings ``

i do agree you will see mandirs in police station, what religious symbol did you observe in gov. buildings?

``India is the only secular country in world that allowed partition of a province based on separate religions.``

which one...

Re: # 9

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 and that will be defeated and Texas will
be declared non-secular. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
So one can bring up such thousands of scenarios and claim, Texas (or any state) is
non-secular because this and that is not possible.

Re: # 10

My guess is state of PunchAap.

Re #11,

So, how would you draw the line without any religious reference?

Doesn`t this support the argument that you can never truly separate religion from state?

Re: # 13

Why do we need religious reference for everything? Can`t there be reasons
based on collective human intelligence and wisdom accumulated so far?
It has been learned over the ages that it is harmful for an adult to marry a minor, so
it has been disapproved. One does not have to have a religious reference to assert that.
IMHO, religious edicts are nothing but nuggets of human intelligence and wisdom
learned over the ages backed by divinity to make them authoritative.

Re: # 3
HP, Most of your points are answered by #10 Netizen but you are totally right about Indian Constitution defining who is hindu and who is not. This does not make sense if the consititution is supposed to be secular. It should not be allowed to judge about peoples religion. Indian Constitution will be truly secular if law treates every Indian citizen equally. This will not happen until there is a Uniform Civil Code.
Because the Indian Constitution defines who is hindu it should not be considered truly secular.

Dear Bhasker

You are still not trying to answer the basic question: Where does morality comes from when a constitution is framed?

You tried to answer in your article by saying that “When individuals are like this, societies build up a collective sense of right and wrong. Over time, these right-wrong calculations change because of changing environments, technology, etc.”

Where is this “collective sense” coming from? Do people just wake up one morning and decides that thou shalt not kill? And over time “right-wrong calculations change”, so something that is right today might be wrong tomorrow and vice versa perhaps? So in India if it is illegal to marry your own daughter today, could become legal tomorrow because according to you “right-wrong calculations change” over time? Give me a break.

Your comment “If a constitution is explicitly based on religion, then it no longer remains a constitution, but becomes a holy book.”

Constitutions are based on religion. Without religion you have no basis to start a constitution. Even Indian constitution. There is no such thing as purely secular constitution period because MORALITY COMES FROM RELIGION ONLY.

Your comment “I am a Hindu, I have 86 million gods (give or take a few million here or there) to worry about, So I go about asking the statement to change to “In Gods we trust” or to define which one. See the problem? I will be lynched at the worst and publicly tarred and feathered at the best.”

I seriously refer back you to sacred Hindu scriptures. Contrary to general Hindu beliefs that there are more then one gods, there is ONE GOD ONLY.

According to Bhagvad Gita:
``Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.``
[Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God.

Similarly in Upanishads

``Ekam evadvitiyam``
``He is One only without a second.``
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]

``Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah.``
``Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.``
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]

``Na tasya pratima asti``
``There is no likeness of Him.``
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]

Asfand Siddiqui
Sacramento CA

#16 siddiqui sirjee,
its impossible to pin down hindus using that method..they just dont care enough about their own scriptures. they will do the shrug and say (1) so what (2) that was then (3) some mumbo jumbo about smriti-shruti etc.

bottomline, scriptures as an argument wont get you anywhere.

#16 by asfand on November 28, 2005 2:59pm PT


Where is this “collective sense” coming from? Do people just wake up one morning and decides that thou shalt not kill?


It comes from evolution...People realize that it`s in their interest to live a civilized society where killing is a no-no..This helps them and their loved ones survive and thus propagating their line..

When this order break down, people resort to looting and killing..like gujrat and NOLA..

Religion is another darwinian construct..don`t kill because big man in sky says it`s a no-no is an easier sell than explaining the need for an ordered society..

#18 Biological evolution cannot be translated this easily into society and its setup. The way the world system is set up today with its rampant militarism and environmental depletion is not ensuring survival but mutual destruction. The father of social darwinism, Herbert Spencer envisioned that militarism would give way to industrial societies as capitalism progressed. This has proved to be quite incorrect looking at the post world war 2 era. 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- throughout the early history of the US and even today made popular by the ``Bell Curve`` book by Murray and Herrnstein. 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.

#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 …

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.

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

Re: # 20

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

#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..

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.

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...........

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``.

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??

Re: # 27
Ditto!

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.

#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…

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.

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.

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)

#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 :?

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.

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?

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.

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….

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............

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.

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.

HP:

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

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

#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... :)

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.

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.

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:)

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?

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

#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.

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 sho