Wrt the following text "True, even though our constitution guarantees secularism, the practise of secularism is often flawed. The Hindu-Muslim rights, for instance: the Hindu right wing groups attacks on Muslims and Christians are some of the example of the shortcomings of secularism. Yet, there are millions who still want India to be a secular society, and I believe they are in a majority."
Why does'nt he mention that there is a separate civil code, law and court for the Muslims in India. What kind of secularism is that. What about statements like "Minorities have first right over the nation's resources". What about reservations in every field? What about the Gujarat riot avenging squad trained in Pakistan? What about government funds for Haj pilgrimage? What about mullahs prescribing an entire community about whom to vote before the election and using a community as a vote bank? What about the mass conversions going on in many states with the promise of money? These things are no secrets and these are the things which come in the way of true secularism. All the (right wing) riots are reactions to these and they find sympathizers because of the above mentioned facts. Talk about these. Dont' be a pseudo sec. We've enough of them. When you tackle these, then you'll find that there'll be no takers for somebody proposing to construct a mandir somewhere. Jai Hind
RE:Well, gimme a break
by observer on Aug 27, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
if you do so you are branded as as an RSS sympathiser no matter how right you are. left dominated thinkers and historians are a bane India
