My first instinct on reading the note was to dismiss it like I dismiss a lot of such trash everyday. Then, after sincere afterthought, I decided to engage with it constructively, since this discussion is happening within my own community and it becomes a duty of sorts for me to do so. Now, I'm writing without any inhibitions - from the perspective of a mature adult human to a group that I'm presuming to be one of mature adult humans. A lot of what I write might come across as irreverent and maybe even disrespectful to some people, though I wish to clarify right now that no disrespect is meant to any individual. My scorn here is 100% dedicated to thought processes & specific thoughts. This note would be open for everyone to read and comment on. However, I shall moderate the comments fiercely and will not tolerate anything that contravenes these ground rules.
(a) No personal attacks. I don't know you & you don't know me. So, please don't make any assumptions or observations about what I (or anybody else) am (is) & what I (or anybody else) do(es).
(b) Keep the discussion to the point. The point being made here is on the secular nature of India with some arguments & counter-arguments. Getting individuals & specific political parties into it is illegit.
(c) If you're stating something as a fact (as opposed to an argument based on opinion), a source would be desirable. In the absence of a credible source, please be prepared to accept your argument as based on opinion.
I've numbered the points made in the original article, as a lot of my responses would be referencing other responses in the same post. Numbering makes it easier for the reader to follow. So, here goes...
1. There are about 52 Muslim countries worldwide. Point at just one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.
--> Totally agree. But let's talk about us & only us. We shouldn't bother ourselves with whether other countries do it or not. The question should be...whether India should provide Hajj subsidies or not. My take is...it shouldn't. Neither should it provide any for Amarnath, Kailash-Mansarovar, Kumbh etc. With the multitude of faiths followed in our country, its practically & economically impossible for the government to provide subsidies for pilgrimages of all faiths. So, they should be provided to none.
2. Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?
--> Why should Muslim countries be the benchmarks for what a secular country ought to do? Isn't that a twisted argument by itself? I was irritated the first time I encountered it, I'm peeved now. And this question is extremely vague otherwise. What special rights are we talking about? I'd rather engage with something specific than undergo the futility of assumption.
3. Show one country where the population with a whooping 85% majority panders to the indulgence of the 15% minority.
---> Again...very vague & incendiary. Specifics please...what pandering? What indulgence?
4. Show one Muslim country, where a non-Muslim has ever been its President or Prime Minister.
--> First instance - irritated. Second instance - peeved. Third instance - my patience is being tested.
5. Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has issued a 'fatwa' against terrorists.
--> Ask Google. They'll show you many.
6. Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry, etc. have in the past elected Muslims as its Chief Minister. But can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of the Muslim majority J&K?
--> Yes. I can imagine. Kashmiris are far more secular than we give them credit for. Its just fringe groups (on both sides, interestingly) that display religious intolerance. If you want, I can have both Hindu & Muslim Kashmiris to substantiate my claims. Now, ask yourself if you can imagine Hindu majority Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh to have a Muslim CM.
My rhetorical question was asked with a fairly different intention than the one it was in response to. While the original question was aimed at projecting Muslims as intolerant & Hindus as all-encompassing, my response was to prove the original question to be of a rhetorical nature.
7. In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%.Today it it barely accounts for even 1%.
--> And the point is?
8. In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30%. Today it is about 7%.
--> Again...the point is?
9. In contrast, in India, Muslim population has gone up from 10.4% in 1951 to about 16% today; whereas the Hindu population has come down from 87.2% in 1951 to 85% today.
--> Why in contrast? What's the relevance? Now, if I were to look at these figures as a standalone, there might be some inferences that can be drawn from it...but none that could relate to the secular nature of India. If there is any, please enlighten me. :)
10. In India today the Hindus account for 85% of the total population. If Hindus were intolerant, how come Masjids and Madrasas are thriving? How come Muslims are allowed to offer Namaz on the roads? How come Muslims are permitted to proclaim five times in a day on public address systems that there is no other God except Allah?
--> Nobody claims that Hindus are intolerant. Blanket generalisations are the product of an unscientific mindset, something which seems to be inherent in the person asking these questions. Yes...there is a fringe element amongst Hindus that is hugely intolerant. And if they were to have their way, Masjids & Madarsas wouldn't have thrived; Muslims wouldn't have been able to offer the namaz on the road and P.A. systems wouldn't have been blaring the azaan.
11. When Hindus gave away to the Muslims 30% of Bharat along with seed-money in 1947, why should Hindus now have to plead to that community for their sacred places at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi?
--> The question exhibits a complete lack of knowledge regarding the events sorrounding the independence & partition (I use that word for the lack of a better one). First of all, Hindus didn't give away anything. Second, the division was one of land and not faith. Any further response would be giving undue importance to an insulting question.
12. Gandhiji objected to the decision of the then Cabinet of Ministers and insisted that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds and not government funds. Why then in January 1948 did Gandhiji pressurize Nehru and Patel to carry out renovation of the Mosques of Delhi at government expenses?
--> That question could have been better answered by Gandhi. Unfortunately, he's no longer amongst us.
13. Why did Gandhi support the Khilafat Movement which had nothing to do with our freedom movement and what did he get in exchange?
--> Quoting the Wikipedia entry for the Khilafat Movement...
In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement — a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle.
14. If Muslims and Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar some other States, are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, etc? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states?
--> So you agree that certain rights should be accorded to minorities. Or don't you? Your first few points say they shouldn't. Make up your mind as to where you stand. Decrying something when it doesn't suit you & celebrating the same when it does - last I knew, its called opportunism.
15. When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why is a similar facility not extended to Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai and Kailash Mansarovar?
--> Refer to my response to point # 1.
16. When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, why Hindus cannot teach the Gita or the Ramayan in Hindu managed schools?
--> Why are you so enamoured with two wrongs making one right? IMO, philosophy & comparitive religion should be taught in schools & colleges as an elective subject and all these texts, along with those for Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. should be made part of it.
17. Do you recognise that Hindus do have problems that need to be addressed? Or do you think that some of those who call themselves Hindus are themselves the problem?
--> I'll answer the second part of the question first. Some people who call themselves Hindus, and often the saviours of Hindus too, are the problem. Now, the first part. That's a really devious question. Generally speaking, Hindus do not have problems on account of being a Hindu. If someone who's a Hindu has a certain problem, the same problem would be faced by people following other faiths too. Does that put it in perspective?
18. Why incidents in Godhra are blown out of proportion repeatedly, when no-one talks of the ethnic cleansing of four lakh Hindu Pandits from Kashmir?
--> Again...an ill-informed question. "Blown out of proportion" is a subjective term. As for the "ethnic cleansing", here's something that'll puncture that argument.
19. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT:
* Sanskrit is communal and Urdu is secular
* Mandir is communal and Masjid is secular
* Sadhu is communal and Imam is secular
* BJP is communal and Muslim League is secular
* Praveen Togadia is anti-national and Bhukari is secular and a patriot
* Vande Matharam is communal and Allah-O-Akbar is secular
* Shriman is communal and Mian is secular
* Hinduism is communal and Islam is secular
* Hindutva is communal and Jihadism is secular
--> I was waiting to see something like this. A classic propaganda tool, False Choice has been employed in these points. They don't deserve a response.
20. Why Temple funds are spent for the welfare of Muslims and Christians, when those communities are free to spend their money in any way they like?
--> Now that's a joke. First of all, I wonder about the veracity of the claim that temple funds have been used for the welfare of Muslims & Christians. Now, even if I assume that, purely for the sake of argument, it still remains the private business & prerogative of the temple trust that has used the funds in that manner. Why should it bother me or you? Moreover, it just proves the secular nature of India and the anti-secular nature of the person asking this question.
21. Why is there no Uniform Civil Code for all citizens?
--> The first sensible question in this long list. Its a no-brainer that we need a Uniform Civil Code.
22. In what way, J&K is different from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh, to enjoy the benefits of Article 370?
--> Grant that too. Article 370 is a blot on our democracy.
23. Abdul Rehman Antulay was in the past made a trustee of the renowned Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Prabhadevi, Mumbai. Will a Hindu, say Mulayam or Laloo, ever be ever made a trustee of a Masjid or Madrasa?
--> Refer to my response for point # 6.
24. Praveen Togadia and other Hindu leaders has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. Has the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi or Ahmed Bhukari have ever been arrested for claiming to be an ISI agent and advocating partition of our nation?
--> On Togadia, yes...he has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. I just hope he's arrested once for what he really is (a communal jerk) and locked up for life.
The last that I knew, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid & Bukhari were the same person. And I never knew he'd claimed to be an ISI agent or had advocated partition. Can I be pointed to some credible source for that? Anyways, he's a communal jerk just like Togadia & should be locked up for life.
25. We have had a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Christian Defence Minister so why do still need to prove our secularism every now and then?
--> Who's asking us to prove our secularism? Except for articles like these?
26. Can this happen anywhere, except in a HINDU NATION - BHARATH?
--> We're not a "Hindu Nation". If that's what you desire to live in, Nepal's just next door. Please leave. We can do better without your likes.
