“Secularism” is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as - “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.
This definition perfectly signifies what ‘secularism’ is, especially in a country as culturally and religiously diverse as India. Religion is purely a personal choice, and cannot and should not play a role in public life. Nobody would disagree with that, especially the so called “secular” parties of India. Right?
WRONG.
Over the last few months, it has become increasingly clear that the self proclaimed ‘secular’ parties of India are the ones who have been hell bent on dividing India on the basis of religion.
Take for example, the atrocious human rights violation that took place when a nun in Bengal was raped two weeks ago. Can a crime as heinous as a rape be looked at from a religious angle? Did it matter if the woman who was raped was a Christian? Did the religious identity of the rapist matter? Of course not! And yet! What did we see? The media - and the (pseudo)-secular parties of India began to theorize of how this rape was a “Hindutva agenda to harm the minorities”.
Firstly, it assumed that the rapist was a man sent by far right Hindu groups to “purposely” harm a woman BECAUSE she was Christian. This “theory” was so obnoxiously putrid. Instead of talking about ways in which justice can be served to the nun, or methods by which women could be made to feel safer in India, hours of news coverage revolved around “Minority Attacks”, or the “Hindutva vs. Minorities” angle. Who had brought religion into what was plain and simple heinous criminal act? Is this what is expected from the self proclaimed secular parties?
Of course not.
In the end, the alleged rapist was caught. What his religion was clearly is immaterial - but just to make the point clear, he wasn’t some part of this “conspiracy” against the minorities. He was a plain and simple criminal. But who would highlight this? What happened to the media who days ago were talking about the “conspiracy” against minorities? Why had they fallen silent when they realized that their ‘theory’ was wrong? What happened to the Mani Shankar Aiyars and the Sanjay Jhas?
By then though, the media - egged on by the “seculars” - had moved on to a “Church Attack” in Mumbai. Once, again, headlines began to blare “How safe are the minorities in India?”, “Why doesn’t Modi control the extremist elements in parties he is associated with?” Again, the ‘secular’ parties brought out the “Hindutva vs. the rest” agenda into the picture. Again it was assumed that all this was a plan orchestrated by Modi to hurt the minorities. In the end, it turned out that the stone throwing incident was an attack by a local gambling mob who were retaliating because they thought that the Church had complained to the police about them. (Interestingly, this clarification report was carried in the inner pages of national newspapers (While the coverage of the attack in itself was blaring across front pages).
What is really amusing is that it is the ‘secular’ parties of India who have consistently brought the “Hindu vs. Muslim or Hindu vs. Christian or Majority vs. Minority” angles into each of these crimes. But is this really a secular thing to do? If one were to go by the aforementioned definition, clearly not. But then again, parties across political lines in India are notorious to change definitions of words to their liking.
I am not for a moment saying that a crime committed against a Christian is okay, or that no Hindus are criminals, or that attacks on Churches shouldn’t be talked about by the media. All I am saying is that a crime is a crime - and it should NEVER be looked at from a religious point of view, especially before any investigation is even carried out! It is deeply disturbing how the media has begun to become a source of “conspiracy theories”. A strong media should never resort to such unfounded theories and claims.
The definition of ‘secularism’ is being violated in so many other ways too. Take for example the idea of a “Muslim Quota”. This idea was floated by the Congress - the king of all ‘secular’ parties in India- in Maharashtra, weeks before elections were due. Clearly it was a last minute bait to lure Muslims into voting for them. It was a classic case of “Vote Bank Politics” under the garb of “uplifting the minorities”. In a secular country - where religion can have no place in public life - how is it “secular” to have a quota based on religion? I am not for a moment denying the horrible state in which many Muslims live in our country. Also, I am not denying that the economic condition of Muslims is perhaps one of the worst amongst other communities in India. What I am saying though, is that there are many better ways of uplifting them. If tomorrow a quota is given to Muslims, automatically cases for Quotas for Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc will arise! What will happen to India’s ‘secularism’ then? The promise for a Muslim Quota was clearly a sign of political desperation from the Congress, but if carried out it can have far reaching effects on the fabric of secularism that the Congress is so passionately protective about.
It is thus, we see that the ‘secular parties’ are the ones who are indeed dividing the nation based on religion. And now, they are all the more desperate to do so. The Congress has only 44 seats in the Lok Sabha. Their leader is in a state of permanent absence, and they have been decimated in election after election. The Left parties have become completely irrelevant now and the SP, BSP, JD(U) have all been reduced to mere non-entities in the sphere of national politics. Clearly, the only way of redemption is for them to try and destabilize the center in whatever way they can. Accusing them to have an indirect hand to further a “Hindutva Agenda” is one of their favorite ways of doing so.
Truly, it is disturbing that the “Grand Old Party of India” has been reduced to playing this petty level of politics. What’s further distressing is that the media is unwittingly playing a part in this divisive agenda. The ‘secularism’ of this country is truly at stake right now. And so, the question arises “When will the real seculars stand up?”
- Tejas Mehta
WRONG.
Over the last few months, it has become increasingly clear that the self proclaimed ‘secular’ parties of India are the ones who have been hell bent on dividing India on the basis of religion.
Take for example, the atrocious human rights violation that took place when a nun in Bengal was raped two weeks ago. Can a crime as heinous as a rape be looked at from a religious angle? Did it matter if the woman who was raped was a Christian? Did the religious identity of the rapist matter? Of course not! And yet! What did we see? The media - and the (pseudo)-secular parties of India began to theorize of how this rape was a “Hindutva agenda to harm the minorities”.
Firstly, it assumed that the rapist was a man sent by far right Hindu groups to “purposely” harm a woman BECAUSE she was Christian. This “theory” was so obnoxiously putrid. Instead of talking about ways in which justice can be served to the nun, or methods by which women could be made to feel safer in India, hours of news coverage revolved around “Minority Attacks”, or the “Hindutva vs. Minorities” angle. Who had brought religion into what was plain and simple heinous criminal act? Is this what is expected from the self proclaimed secular parties?
Of course not.
In the end, the alleged rapist was caught. What his religion was clearly is immaterial - but just to make the point clear, he wasn’t some part of this “conspiracy” against the minorities. He was a plain and simple criminal. But who would highlight this? What happened to the media who days ago were talking about the “conspiracy” against minorities? Why had they fallen silent when they realized that their ‘theory’ was wrong? What happened to the Mani Shankar Aiyars and the Sanjay Jhas?
By then though, the media - egged on by the “seculars” - had moved on to a “Church Attack” in Mumbai. Once, again, headlines began to blare “How safe are the minorities in India?”, “Why doesn’t Modi control the extremist elements in parties he is associated with?” Again, the ‘secular’ parties brought out the “Hindutva vs. the rest” agenda into the picture. Again it was assumed that all this was a plan orchestrated by Modi to hurt the minorities. In the end, it turned out that the stone throwing incident was an attack by a local gambling mob who were retaliating because they thought that the Church had complained to the police about them. (Interestingly, this clarification report was carried in the inner pages of national newspapers (While the coverage of the attack in itself was blaring across front pages).
What is really amusing is that it is the ‘secular’ parties of India who have consistently brought the “Hindu vs. Muslim or Hindu vs. Christian or Majority vs. Minority” angles into each of these crimes. But is this really a secular thing to do? If one were to go by the aforementioned definition, clearly not. But then again, parties across political lines in India are notorious to change definitions of words to their liking.
I am not for a moment saying that a crime committed against a Christian is okay, or that no Hindus are criminals, or that attacks on Churches shouldn’t be talked about by the media. All I am saying is that a crime is a crime - and it should NEVER be looked at from a religious point of view, especially before any investigation is even carried out! It is deeply disturbing how the media has begun to become a source of “conspiracy theories”. A strong media should never resort to such unfounded theories and claims.
The definition of ‘secularism’ is being violated in so many other ways too. Take for example the idea of a “Muslim Quota”. This idea was floated by the Congress - the king of all ‘secular’ parties in India- in Maharashtra, weeks before elections were due. Clearly it was a last minute bait to lure Muslims into voting for them. It was a classic case of “Vote Bank Politics” under the garb of “uplifting the minorities”. In a secular country - where religion can have no place in public life - how is it “secular” to have a quota based on religion? I am not for a moment denying the horrible state in which many Muslims live in our country. Also, I am not denying that the economic condition of Muslims is perhaps one of the worst amongst other communities in India. What I am saying though, is that there are many better ways of uplifting them. If tomorrow a quota is given to Muslims, automatically cases for Quotas for Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc will arise! What will happen to India’s ‘secularism’ then? The promise for a Muslim Quota was clearly a sign of political desperation from the Congress, but if carried out it can have far reaching effects on the fabric of secularism that the Congress is so passionately protective about.
It is thus, we see that the ‘secular parties’ are the ones who are indeed dividing the nation based on religion. And now, they are all the more desperate to do so. The Congress has only 44 seats in the Lok Sabha. Their leader is in a state of permanent absence, and they have been decimated in election after election. The Left parties have become completely irrelevant now and the SP, BSP, JD(U) have all been reduced to mere non-entities in the sphere of national politics. Clearly, the only way of redemption is for them to try and destabilize the center in whatever way they can. Accusing them to have an indirect hand to further a “Hindutva Agenda” is one of their favorite ways of doing so.
Truly, it is disturbing that the “Grand Old Party of India” has been reduced to playing this petty level of politics. What’s further distressing is that the media is unwittingly playing a part in this divisive agenda. The ‘secularism’ of this country is truly at stake right now. And so, the question arises “When will the real seculars stand up?”
- Tejas Mehta