6 ms·

India is not secular, and whatever goes on in India in the name of secularism is the exact opposite of it. Rights are sanctioned and denied based on religious i

India is not secular, and whatever goes on in India in the name of secularism is the exact opposite of it. Rights are sanctioned and denied based on religious identity. In case you want to know how bad it is, the ones the most oppressed and poor are the lower caste hindus, and even now, it's illegal for a lower caste hindu to open and run school exclusively for lower caste hindus even with his own money. It's not just that state won't do it, but it has made it illegal for individual citizens to do it as well. Remember these are the folks with no money, no land and no connections. Their only means for social mobility is education. Meanwhile, a christian or muslim does it, he/she gets state funding, and the upper caste hindus are well off and connected. It's just caste system with extra steps. Of course this is well supported by upper caste hindus, muslims and christians - the old elite class. Aside from that, hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, while other religions gets absolute freedom to run their institutions however - taxfree. Again, this is relic of colonial briton who really wanted to control the hindus as the main opposition to the raj came in the form of hindu nationalism. It's a religious apartheid state against the poor hindus - a relic of colonialism happily continued by the Indian elites who wielded power once the british left most likely because they hated the poor hindus even more than the british themselves.

webmobdev 6y ago
"We poor majority Hindus are being marginalised by the minority in India in the name of secularism." (Note that in India around 80% of the population is Hindu, and the minorities are less than 20%). The sophistry of argument is interesting here when it is claimed that lower caste Hindus cannot setup their own exclusive schools, while the minorities can (the right-wing claims this as "discrimination" introduced in the name of secularism). Funnily, such demands for a caste-exclusive institutions have always come from certain upper-caste dominated religious right-wing in India, who actually look down on the lower caste in India and don't socially interact with them unless they absolutely have to. They yearn for the days were every caste was educated by their own community, thus "preserving the purity" of the caste system (which is part of the Hindu religious system). With such a mindset, it is quite understandable why they would like to set up "exclusive and pure" schools that is only for their caste community. Caste discrimination continues to be a huge problem in India, and it should be thus quite obvious why the government of India has no interest in allowing such exclusive caste-based schools - it can lead to caste ghettoization that would just prolong and make the evils of caste discrimination worse. Hindus can absolutely setup their own private schools and colleges in India, but it cannot be "exclusively Hindu" or some "caste exclusive" only institution. But this is true for minority run institutes too - they can only allocate 50% of the seats to students of their community, while the remaining 50% has to be filled with students from other community. Apart from this 50% seats for their own community, they are also given more autonomy to run their institutions. Why are they so allowed? The indian state believes that minorities rightly have a concern that they can be deprived of educational opportunities as the majority hugely outnumber them. Thus, to allay this fear the constitution grants them the protection and privilege of running their own institutions which can be exclusively for their community to a certain extent, with more autonomy (which implies less interference from a "majority" run government). Since any Hindu can start and run a school or a college, and thanks to the nature of India's population, it is guaranteed to be filled with more than 50% Hindus, we can rightly guess that the real issue that the Hindutva right-wing have is: - They can't run castiest schools. - They have issues with the "extra" autonomy granted to minority run institutes. I have already addressed why India doesn't allow castiest institutes. On autonomy in minority institutes, it should be clear that this constitutional guarantee of autonomy is what prevents those in power from interfering in the affairs of minority run institutions (and was added in the constitution for precisely such a purpose - to protect the minorities from abuse by an unsympathetic majority in power). This kind of fair balancing of the rights of the minorities, which the majorities are expected to defend and uphold, is what is attacked in the name of "flawed secularism".
- quetzthecoatl 6y ago
  >The sophistry of argument is interesting here when it is claimed that lower caste Hindus cannot setup their own exclusive schools, while the minorities can (the right-wing claims this as "discrimination" introduced in the name of secularism). Funnily, such demands for a caste-exclusive institutions have always come from certain upper-caste dominated religious right-wing in India, who actually look down on the lower caste in India and don't socially interact with them unless they absolutely have to. They yearn for the days were every caste was educated by their own community, thus "preserving the purity" of the caste system (which is part of the Hindu religious system). With such a mindset, it is quite understandable why they would like to set up "exclusive and pure" schools that is only for their caste community. Somehow I missed addressing this in my other comment. So.. Not at all what I said. Anyway, I will make another effort hoping that you misunderstood instead of willfully distorting what i said. The lower caste hindus are poor and marginalized. They have no land, no money and no connections. Their only way for social upliftment is through education. No education, no social mobility. Now this is the base for my argument. As a dalit who has escaped from the system due to a combination of sheer luck and having parents who sacrificed their life for me, I want to setup schools just for dalits - to give it back to my community (for sure others won't). Where I am from, it's all dalits, upper caste hindus and muslims - with upper caste hindus and muslims being well off by margins you can't think off. There is zero reason for me to even think of schools for them. It's amazing how you think you should have the right to run your own schools but the marginalized shouldn't. That is precisely bigotry from your fundamentalist believes. Especially against poor who were oppressed and are still oppressed and marginalized. I also want to address your concern trolling of lower castes. If the upper castes wants to setup schools just for them, let them! parsis, sikhs, jains, muslims, christians already do. Don't worry about us. I also want to point out your logic of using concerns about upper caste doing something to discriminate lower castes. I am yet to meet a single "secular" (for lack of better term) who advocates for adding the lower castes into minority list. Until then, I see through your concern trolling. Everyone of us do. Do better. As for purity, there is only one state called "the land of the pure" - which was created more or less based on your on reasoning that the mere existence of hindus on equal foot is threatening, and hence there should be a separate country altogether. Every single one of your argument is - "Hindus must be contained, and thus must be discriminated and oppressed to do that". It's textbook bigotry.
webmobdev 6y ago
> hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. The reasoning is simple: 1. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. 2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. 3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. 4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. 5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. However, their religious institutions are rightly allowed to be run by members of their own community. So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes.
- quetzthecoatl 6y ago
  I love how you glossed over like 95% of my comment and latched on to temples and institutions. Anyway, let's see. >Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. and there is real danger of religious fundamentalism among muslims, christians, sikhs, parsis.. you name it. In fact, if you look at instances of religious fundamentalism, both christian and muslim fundamentalism vastly outnumber anything from everyone else combined. It's nothing but bigotry that you justify discrimination based on religious identity. Especially when your argument is "fundamentalism" - given you want to discriminate all hindus based on the expectation that some would be fundamentalist? This is pure bigotry, and your own religious extremism that wants to discriminate every single hindu. Remember it's the lower caste hindus who are not only poor, but discriminated and oppressed for good thousand years, and you want to discriminate and oppress the more? because some hindus might be fundamentalist? what kind of bigoted thought is that? anyway, let's look at the rest of the arguments. >. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. You cannot administer temples without interfering in religious affairs - as they are for only religious purposes. But that's not it. It's fundamental right - every where in the world - to be able to run your own religious affairs. Secondly, government oversight and management leads to plunder of Hindu religious institutions and temples by those appointed by the government. Almost every single major temple has lost it's lands and wealth. Wealth that should have been used to start schools, hospitals and colleges - things that are useful for the devotee base. The political appointees are given exorbitant salaries while temple affairs are ignored (hell in 2018, tamilnadu priests had to approach the high court to increase their monthly salary from RS 20 - almost a third of a dollar - https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-priests-salary/article23443980.ece https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-pr...) >2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. I already covered this in my first para. Use this logic on your own religious affairs and see how you feel. It's nothing but bigoted excuse for religious discrimination. >3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. Nope.Patently false. The temples and institutions are managed by state governments. Almost every tamil nadu, kerala goverments have been openly inimical of hindu affairs. True for current Andhra government too. Sometimes the appointees are not even hindu. In fact the last government put a christian in charge of Tirumala affairs, and had to change it after public outrage. So, just not true. A hindu politician in power means nothing to me as a lower caste hindu. Again, it doesn't matter. It's a fundamental right - anywhere in the world - to be able to manage your own religious affairs. I also want to address the "hindu majority" part - organized minority always wins against unorganized divided majority. The upper caste were minority. The hordes of islamic invaders who committed unspeakable horrors on native Indias were minority. The british who colonized entire India were minority. The europeans who conquered and genocided the natives in the Americas and Australia were minority. Also, Hindu community isn't monolithic. It's thousands of languages, millions of gods, even more traditions that wary within a few kilo meters, even more sacred texts - all collectively given a name. Hindu, Sindhu, India all have the same linguistic root. Viewing all of that with a single collectively identity is the work of Christianity and Islam - non Indic thoughts. It's like calling everyone on earth "people". I also want to address your majority/minority thing. Why do you view everyone through the prism of religious believes/identity? Why not left handed person vs right handed ones? coffee lovers vs tea lovers? football vs cricket? Just because religious believes and identity is important to you and you view the world through the prism of religious believes doesn't mean the world should run based on it. It definitely shouldn't mean laws should be based on that. The only reason i speak on behalf of hindu rights is because the poor lower caste hindus who were oppressed for a millennia are discriminated even now based on their religious identity. Otherwise, who cares? Keep your religious believes to yourself and let others have theirs. >4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. Again, upto every single institution to prioritize things important to them. What is priority for your community maynot be what is priority for others. If you think government oversight is so good, do it for everyone. All I am asking is for equality. No discrimination. If I donate to a temple, I am donating to that temple/deity. This is not charity. Again, maybe different for you, but that is fine. Don't generalize and apply your worldview on others. That's the literal definition of religious fundamentalism - that even others live your religious code. >5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. No they don't. I know instances of Sunday masses and mosque committees openly campaigning for chosen political candidates. Article 29/30 gives you absolute freedom to run religious institutions and affairs however you want. Then you have article 25, NCMEI, and a slew of local bodies. Not saying it's good or bad, but this is what it is. >So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes. Ahh yes. Every hindu voicing about discrimination is because he is "right-wing". Never mind it's oppressing the ones who were already oppressed for good thousand years. Never mind overwhelming majority of the Hindus is impoverished. Never mind the only means for social mobility for vast majority of them is education, and these bigoted discriminatory laws prevent opening schools. I want you to look at your own sentence and replace "hindu" with your religious identity. I also want to address a few points mentioned in your other post. 1) secularism is a function of state. Individuals aren't secular. In India, it's just code for non hindu, or a hindu that isn't religious. 2) caste schools - if you are so concerned, why not minority status for the lower caste hindus? 3) 50% - patently false. There are islamic schools where i am from that is 100% muslims. Schools which start at early morning and ends at 6 PM evening. Schools that kids young as 6 year old go in purdah. I want to know where you got the 50% from? 4) Hindus are allowed to operate schools - yes, but making it practically impossible with article 25, 29, 30, RTE and 93rd amendment. Also, as a dalit who escaped the system, it's ILLEGAL for me to start a school for impoverished and ignored dalit kids, as RTE forbids me in screening kids. Now if you argue this is to prevent upper caste only schools, then the same must be applicable to Muslims only schools and Christians only schools. Also, read point 2. Do the same exceptions for lower caste hindus. I want to end this long post by saying that if you want to discriminate based on religious believes/identity, then you are a bigoted religious supremacist. No two ways about it.

webmobdev 6y ago

"We poor majority Hindus are being marginalised by the minority in India in the name of secularism." (Note that in India around 80% of the population is Hindu, and the minorities are less than 20%). The sophistry of argument is interesting here when it is claimed that lower caste Hindus cannot setup their own exclusive schools, while the minorities can (the right-wing claims this as "discrimination" introduced in the name of secularism). Funnily, such demands for a caste-exclusive institutions have always come from certain upper-caste dominated religious right-wing in India, who actually look down on the lower caste in India and don't socially interact with them unless they absolutely have to. They yearn for the days were every caste was educated by their own community, thus "preserving the purity" of the caste system (which is part of the Hindu religious system). With such a mindset, it is quite understandable why they would like to set up "exclusive and pure" schools that is only for their caste community. Caste discrimination continues to be a huge problem in India, and it should be thus quite obvious why the government of India has no interest in allowing such exclusive caste-based schools - it can lead to caste ghettoization that would just prolong and make the evils of caste discrimination worse. Hindus can absolutely setup their own private schools and colleges in India, but it cannot be "exclusively Hindu" or some "caste exclusive" only institution. But this is true for minority run institutes too - they can only allocate 50% of the seats to students of their community, while the remaining 50% has to be filled with students from other community. Apart from this 50% seats for their own community, they are also given more autonomy to run their institutions. Why are they so allowed? The indian state believes that minorities rightly have a concern that they can be deprived of educational opportunities as the majority hugely outnumber them. Thus, to allay this fear the constitution grants them the protection and privilege of running their own institutions which can be exclusively for their community to a certain extent, with more autonomy (which implies less interference from a "majority" run government). Since any Hindu can start and run a school or a college, and thanks to the nature of India's population, it is guaranteed to be filled with more than 50% Hindus, we can rightly guess that the real issue that the Hindutva right-wing have is: - They can't run castiest schools. - They have issues with the "extra" autonomy granted to minority run institutes. I have already addressed why India doesn't allow castiest institutes. On autonomy in minority institutes, it should be clear that this constitutional guarantee of autonomy is what prevents those in power from interfering in the affairs of minority run institutions (and was added in the constitution for precisely such a purpose - to protect the minorities from abuse by an unsympathetic majority in power). This kind of fair balancing of the rights of the minorities, which the majorities are expected to defend and uphold, is what is attacked in the name of "flawed secularism".

quetzthecoatl 6y ago
>The sophistry of argument is interesting here when it is claimed that lower caste Hindus cannot setup their own exclusive schools, while the minorities can (the right-wing claims this as "discrimination" introduced in the name of secularism). Funnily, such demands for a caste-exclusive institutions have always come from certain upper-caste dominated religious right-wing in India, who actually look down on the lower caste in India and don't socially interact with them unless they absolutely have to. They yearn for the days were every caste was educated by their own community, thus "preserving the purity" of the caste system (which is part of the Hindu religious system). With such a mindset, it is quite understandable why they would like to set up "exclusive and pure" schools that is only for their caste community. Somehow I missed addressing this in my other comment. So.. Not at all what I said. Anyway, I will make another effort hoping that you misunderstood instead of willfully distorting what i said. The lower caste hindus are poor and marginalized. They have no land, no money and no connections. Their only way for social upliftment is through education. No education, no social mobility. Now this is the base for my argument. As a dalit who has escaped from the system due to a combination of sheer luck and having parents who sacrificed their life for me, I want to setup schools just for dalits - to give it back to my community (for sure others won't). Where I am from, it's all dalits, upper caste hindus and muslims - with upper caste hindus and muslims being well off by margins you can't think off. There is zero reason for me to even think of schools for them. It's amazing how you think you should have the right to run your own schools but the marginalized shouldn't. That is precisely bigotry from your fundamentalist believes. Especially against poor who were oppressed and are still oppressed and marginalized. I also want to address your concern trolling of lower castes. If the upper castes wants to setup schools just for them, let them! parsis, sikhs, jains, muslims, christians already do. Don't worry about us. I also want to point out your logic of using concerns about upper caste doing something to discriminate lower castes. I am yet to meet a single "secular" (for lack of better term) who advocates for adding the lower castes into minority list. Until then, I see through your concern trolling. Everyone of us do. Do better. As for purity, there is only one state called "the land of the pure" - which was created more or less based on your on reasoning that the mere existence of hindus on equal foot is threatening, and hence there should be a separate country altogether. Every single one of your argument is - "Hindus must be contained, and thus must be discriminated and oppressed to do that". It's textbook bigotry.

webmobdev 6y ago

> hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. The reasoning is simple: 1. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. 2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. 3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. 4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. 5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. However, their religious institutions are rightly allowed to be run by members of their own community. So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes.

quetzthecoatl 6y ago
I love how you glossed over like 95% of my comment and latched on to temples and institutions. Anyway, let's see. >Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. and there is real danger of religious fundamentalism among muslims, christians, sikhs, parsis.. you name it. In fact, if you look at instances of religious fundamentalism, both christian and muslim fundamentalism vastly outnumber anything from everyone else combined. It's nothing but bigotry that you justify discrimination based on religious identity. Especially when your argument is "fundamentalism" - given you want to discriminate all hindus based on the expectation that some would be fundamentalist? This is pure bigotry, and your own religious extremism that wants to discriminate every single hindu. Remember it's the lower caste hindus who are not only poor, but discriminated and oppressed for good thousand years, and you want to discriminate and oppress the more? because some hindus might be fundamentalist? what kind of bigoted thought is that? anyway, let's look at the rest of the arguments. >. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. You cannot administer temples without interfering in religious affairs - as they are for only religious purposes. But that's not it. It's fundamental right - every where in the world - to be able to run your own religious affairs. Secondly, government oversight and management leads to plunder of Hindu religious institutions and temples by those appointed by the government. Almost every single major temple has lost it's lands and wealth. Wealth that should have been used to start schools, hospitals and colleges - things that are useful for the devotee base. The political appointees are given exorbitant salaries while temple affairs are ignored (hell in 2018, tamilnadu priests had to approach the high court to increase their monthly salary from RS 20 - almost a third of a dollar - https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-priests-salary/article23443980.ece https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-pr...) >2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. I already covered this in my first para. Use this logic on your own religious affairs and see how you feel. It's nothing but bigoted excuse for religious discrimination. >3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. Nope.Patently false. The temples and institutions are managed by state governments. Almost every tamil nadu, kerala goverments have been openly inimical of hindu affairs. True for current Andhra government too. Sometimes the appointees are not even hindu. In fact the last government put a christian in charge of Tirumala affairs, and had to change it after public outrage. So, just not true. A hindu politician in power means nothing to me as a lower caste hindu. Again, it doesn't matter. It's a fundamental right - anywhere in the world - to be able to manage your own religious affairs. I also want to address the "hindu majority" part - organized minority always wins against unorganized divided majority. The upper caste were minority. The hordes of islamic invaders who committed unspeakable horrors on native Indias were minority. The british who colonized entire India were minority. The europeans who conquered and genocided the natives in the Americas and Australia were minority. Also, Hindu community isn't monolithic. It's thousands of languages, millions of gods, even more traditions that wary within a few kilo meters, even more sacred texts - all collectively given a name. Hindu, Sindhu, India all have the same linguistic root. Viewing all of that with a single collectively identity is the work of Christianity and Islam - non Indic thoughts. It's like calling everyone on earth "people". I also want to address your majority/minority thing. Why do you view everyone through the prism of religious believes/identity? Why not left handed person vs right handed ones? coffee lovers vs tea lovers? football vs cricket? Just because religious believes and identity is important to you and you view the world through the prism of religious believes doesn't mean the world should run based on it. It definitely shouldn't mean laws should be based on that. The only reason i speak on behalf of hindu rights is because the poor lower caste hindus who were oppressed for a millennia are discriminated even now based on their religious identity. Otherwise, who cares? Keep your religious believes to yourself and let others have theirs. >4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. Again, upto every single institution to prioritize things important to them. What is priority for your community maynot be what is priority for others. If you think government oversight is so good, do it for everyone. All I am asking is for equality. No discrimination. If I donate to a temple, I am donating to that temple/deity. This is not charity. Again, maybe different for you, but that is fine. Don't generalize and apply your worldview on others. That's the literal definition of religious fundamentalism - that even others live your religious code. >5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. No they don't. I know instances of Sunday masses and mosque committees openly campaigning for chosen political candidates. Article 29/30 gives you absolute freedom to run religious institutions and affairs however you want. Then you have article 25, NCMEI, and a slew of local bodies. Not saying it's good or bad, but this is what it is. >So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes. Ahh yes. Every hindu voicing about discrimination is because he is "right-wing". Never mind it's oppressing the ones who were already oppressed for good thousand years. Never mind overwhelming majority of the Hindus is impoverished. Never mind the only means for social mobility for vast majority of them is education, and these bigoted discriminatory laws prevent opening schools. I want you to look at your own sentence and replace "hindu" with your religious identity. I also want to address a few points mentioned in your other post. 1) secularism is a function of state. Individuals aren't secular. In India, it's just code for non hindu, or a hindu that isn't religious. 2) caste schools - if you are so concerned, why not minority status for the lower caste hindus? 3) 50% - patently false. There are islamic schools where i am from that is 100% muslims. Schools which start at early morning and ends at 6 PM evening. Schools that kids young as 6 year old go in purdah. I want to know where you got the 50% from? 4) Hindus are allowed to operate schools - yes, but making it practically impossible with article 25, 29, 30, RTE and 93rd amendment. Also, as a dalit who escaped the system, it's ILLEGAL for me to start a school for impoverished and ignored dalit kids, as RTE forbids me in screening kids. Now if you argue this is to prevent upper caste only schools, then the same must be applicable to Muslims only schools and Christians only schools. Also, read point 2. Do the same exceptions for lower caste hindus. I want to end this long post by saying that if you want to discriminate based on religious believes/identity, then you are a bigoted religious supremacist. No two ways about it.