The Absurdity of “Indian Secularism”

Narendra Modi brought real secularism in India. He exposed Congress’s Muslim Appeasement secularism.

In Indian politics, the English word ‘Secularism’ doesn’t mean separation of State policies from religion. It has a new twisted meaning, it implies anti-Hindu politics — particularly to appease Muslims and get their votes. Indian Constitution makers debated the Western form of ‘secularism’ but felt it would not suit Indian society. So, they did not use the words “secularism” or “secular” anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, they looked inward, at the highly liberal and accommodative Hindu way of life, and adopted its core value, “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” — respect for all faiths and beliefs. Such an idea would be unacceptable in a Christian or Muslim dominated societies because they consider other ideologies inferior. In contrast, in the entire humanity the Hindu community stands out unique — for its inherent acceptance of diverse philosophies. The see the world as one big family, transcending all narrow boundaries of race, color and beliefs.

But three decades later in the mid 1970s, during the dark-period of emergency rule, Indira Gandhi deliberately inserted the word ‘secular‘ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was a pure nasty political gimmick — meant only to push Congress Party’s Muslim appeasement politics. It began a weird type of anti-Hindu politics and it became a fashion to be a ‘secular’ politician! But ‘secularism’ became uglier after Congress fell in the hands of an Italian fascist lady in the 1990s. This ultra corrupt European crook, who dons a fake Gandhi surname to fool people, turned ‘secularism’ into a highly objectionable anti-Hindu tool — and ‘secularism‘ became ‘sharia secularism‘.

Indian Politicians’ Perverted “Secularism” 

It’s funny! How dividing Hindus on caste lines is called ‘social justice’, uniting Muslims is called ‘secularism’, uniting Christians is ‘assertion of minority rights’ but uniting Hindus is called ‘communalism’ in India. – Shefali Vaidya

In the amphitheater of India’s “secular” absurdity Muslims and Christians must dictate; Hindus must submit. It would embrace shari’ah, but not Gita or Vedas; it would glamorize Mecca and Vatican, but can’t even recognize Ayodhya or Kashi. It makes skull cap and  namaj ‘secular’, but shuns yoga and meditation as ‘communal’!

Foreigners are amazed by Indian politicians and their unique ‘freestyle’ use of word ‘secularism’ to malign Hindus. They just can’t understand why India’s ‘secular politicians’ donning Tilak on the forehead attack their own community and go into ‘secular silence’ when Hindus and their culture mocked. They are almost filled with disbelief when they discover that glorifying mass murderer Muslim kings of the Islamic dark-age is ‘secularism’, but even mention of Rajput, Sikh or Maratha heroes becomes politically unacceptable!

Right from the beginning, the Nehruvian secularism was plainly an absurd pro-Muslim ideology. It was particularly objectionable giving the fact that Muslims were given a separate country in 1947. Therefore, if at all preference was to be given, it was to be given to Hindus  who just came out of 1000 years of slavery. In fact, no one understood why all Muslims were not sent to Pakistan, as demanded by visionary Dr Ambedkar, or why India was not declared a Hindu nation. But Nehru was Nehru, an apologetic Hindu blinded for political power.

Until 70s, Indian politics was largely “Muslim-focused” and Hindu interests were best treated through neglect. It was largely the “ignore-Hindu” brand secularism. Then in the dark period of Emergency, Indira Gandhi “deliberately” inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Constitution in 1976 — that the Constitution makers had purposefully avoided after intense discussions. It was quite unusual because absolutely nothing had changed in the country in the Hindu-Muslim equation. But her crooked intentions became clear very soon when the Congress leaders began to polarize the political discourse into secular-communal debate. You are secular if you take pro-Muslim stance or anti-Hindu or both, else you are doomed ‘communal’! It was similar to how Muslim clergy declares adversaries Kafir who are worth nothing.

The ‘secular politics’ of Muslim “appeasement” was on open display in the mid 1980s during the Shah Bano case when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM — the highly modern prime minister chose to appease radical mullahs rather than empower the victim of whimsical Islamic divorce. Two years later, he banned Salman Rushdie’s book Satanic Verses (which neither he, nor his colleagues nor protesting mullahs had read) – much before the Islamic world could act! What appeared to be “Muslim appeasement” was in reality “maulvi appeasement” because they controlled Muslims votes. When Jihadi Muslims drove away around 4 lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the Kashmir valley in late 1980s, a Kashmiri Muslim was India’s home minister and the ‘secular’ politicians remained in ‘secular silence’!

10 Dark Facades of Pseudo-Secularism

Indira Gandhi Added the Word ‘Secular’ in the Constitution in 1976

After independence, India began to be ruled by the ‘selected’ prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, a self declared ‘accidental Hindu’. Why call him ‘selected’? Because he was handpicked (selected) by Gandhi ignoring the almost unanimous choice of Congress men, Sardar Patel. Nehru was almost like a “Brown British” mandated to carry on the ‘British like rule’ even after independence. So, just as the British used Muslims for their divisive communal agenda in the colonial period, now Nehru and Congress leaders started appeasing Muslims for their votes. The majority Hindu community and its sentiments never interested Nehru or his power hungry party-men. They saw Hindus as mere numbers to be managed, keeping Muslim interests at the forefront.

Yet, despite special political attention to Muslims or Christians (in the name of ‘minority’ protection) the national politics by and large remained focused on larger issues – removing poverty and promoting economic development – until early 1970s.  In the 1971 Lok Sabha election, people even voted believing in Indira Gandhi’s famous slogan ‘garibi hatao’. But soon they  felt betrayed by Indira Gandhi as their economic conditions worsened.  Their frustration manifested in the JP movement that engulfed the entire country. It was a period when, after winning the Bangladesh war in 1971, Indira Gandhi, had grown bigger than the State. Sycophant Congressis gave the slogan: India is Indira and Indira is India!  And, today her half lunatic grandson, Raul Vinci, claims: I am Congress!!

Realizing her all round failures, Indira became paranoid and started behaving like a self-serving dictator. In order to maintain her grip on power, she started to weaken all pillars of democratic governance including the judiciary, by planting pliable individuals everywhere. Even the President was a puppet Muslim, product of appeasement politics. When her own election was nullified by the Allahabad high court due to corruption, she imposed a ‘National Emergency’ in 1975 as if her political career is equivalent to national interest — and suddenly people lost all their democratic rights and freedoms.

On June 26, 1975, Indira Gandhi declared emergency and put all political opponents in jail. She initiated a series of Constitutional amendments to prolong her rule. The 38th amendment ensured that no judicial review of the Emergency could take place and the 39th amendment stated that the office of the prime minister could not be challenged by the Supreme Court, but only by a body constituted by the Parliament. Then came the 42^nd amendment in 1976 which changed the description of India in the preamble from “sovereign, democratic republic’ to ‘sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.”

It was in this dark period of emergency that Indira Gandhi inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution through the controversial 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, which came into effect from January 3, 1977.

Did anything happen in the country from 1950 when the Constitution was enforced till the 42^nd Amendment in 1976 that would necessitate bringing about a Constitution Amendment to incorporate the word “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution? Absolutely NO. Justification for the 42^nd Amendment was given in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons”. It reads:

“The question of amending the Constitution for removing the difficulties which had arisen in achieving the objective of socio-economic revolution, which would end poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity, had been engaging the active attention of government and the public for some years…It was, therefore, considered necessary to amend the Constitution to spell out expressly the high ideals of socialism, and integrity of the nation”.

It tells that the word ‘secular’ was inserted to ‘remove the difficulties’. It’s absolutely weird and senseless. “Emergency” was not imposed due to any Hindu-Muslim tension. People clearly understand that it was just another of her cheap gimmick to divert people’s attention from the pressing issues of poverty, inequality and utter lack of economic development — while furthering her divisive Muslim appeasement agenda.

Amartya Sen and the Ayatollahs of Secularism

Why Impose ‘Secularism’ on Hindus; They are Already Secular!

“Hinduism teaches us the tolerance and gentleness of mature mind, understanding spirit and a unifying, pacifying love for all human beings.” —  Will Durant (1885 – 1981)

One thing that astonished Western thinkers is the lopsided importance given to the issue of minority protection in the post-independent India. They argue that the Hindu mindset and culture is inherently multi-theist, multi-cultural and naturally accepts diversity among people, so where is the need of asking them to be secular? They further argue: 

If at all secularism has any relevance, it is only for Indian Muslims and Christians whose religions train them to discriminate against people who are not among them. Christians and Muslims are drilled to have bias against the people of other faith. Therefore, secularism should be only directed towards Indian Christians and Muslims.  Asking Hindus to be secular is like asking the sun to give light!

Foreigners who know how Muslims forced partition of India in 1947 to get a separate “Islamic State”, Pakistan, find Hindus irrationally tolerant and forgiving. Many of them strongly feel that Hindus should have demanded massive compensations from both the Muslim and Christian communities for centuries of occupation, plunder and injustices done to them during the dark-ages of the Islamic rule and the rogue British period.

They ask: “Can you imagine the Jews giving special privileges to the Germans or Arabs in Israel?”

Secularism turned Totally “Anti-Hindu” Since 1990s

When fascist Antania Maino (who fools people by posing as Sonia Gandhi) became Congress President in the 1990s, Indian secularism turned squarely anti-Hindu. The Italian lady started the cult of demonizing Hindus. [eg, remember how she tried creating the false “Hindu Terror” narrative.]

The biggest victim of Congress Party’s “Appeasement Politics” are the Muslims.

Thus, the majority Hindus continued living as unimportant ‘ignored community.’  But then in the 1990s, the secular politicians became aggressive and Hindus became ‘undesired community.’ Indian secularism turned “anti-Hindu.” It became particularly evident after installation of Italy born Antania Maino (aka Sonia Gandhi) as “Royal Empress” of the Congress Party, who was alien to both Indians and Hindi language and avoided taking Indian citizenship until it appeared politically profitable. Her secular buddies taught her Hindi through phrases like “Maut Ka Saudagar” and her half mature son (Raul Vinci) picked up street slang like “Khoon Ki Dalali.”  The mother-son duo has taken the political discourse to the filthiest levels, so much so that their anti-Hindu tirade often goes too far when it begins to sound anti-India. [‘Secular’ Riots of India]

The self-declared “secular” politicians are today the biggest threat to India’s integrity. Their appeasement gimmicks have highly emboldened the isolationist and separatist tendencies in the Muslim community. Already there are regions in West Bengal, UP and Bihar where Muslims have local majority, in many such areas they try imposing sharia and attempt to drive out Hindus.

And then, … they come out to claim that the “secular fabric” of the country is weakening because Hindus are “intolerant”!

Ugliest Face of “Sharia secularism” and Appeasement Politics

Do you think killing Hindus makes Muslims happy? Why?

Ram devotees struggling to construct the Ram Temple faced the ugliest form of Muslim appeasement politics in 1990.  Two self-styled hardcore appeasement politicians — Laloo Yadav and Mulayam Yadav — did everything to weaken Ram Temple Movement after Advani undertook a Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya. In Oct-Nov 1990, then CM Mulayam Singh Yadav deliberately ordered firing on peaceful Ram devotees, killing several dozens of them. Although official count put the number of dead to less than 20, locals revealed that the police anonymously disposed off many bodies and the actual tally could be more than 50. This “Heroic Act” earned Mulayam Singh Yadav the title “Mulla Yam Singh“. This filled him with further pride — how smartly he killed Hindus and won Muslim Votes! He proudly revealed his thinking: “I wonder how many more Hindus must I kill to fully satisfy Muslims!“

Mulayam’s politics relied heavily on Yadav-Muslim vote banks. Yadav votes were ensured with caste politics and Muslim votes by “killing Ram devotees”. In Bihar, the exact same electoral math served the political career of ultra corrupt Laloo Yadav. Today, they are relatives. But facing their karmic punishments, the ultra corrupt Laloo is rotting in jail and Mulayam is bed-ridden counting his days helplessly, while his cocky son presides over the decaying party.

Appeasement at its Worst in India

Explore Further

The Ayatollahs of Secularism, Part-2

The Ayatollahs of Secularism, Part-1

Pseudo-Seculars are More Dangerous Than Terrorists

World Needs More Dharma, less Religion