Omar Khalidi's article on Outlook presents a lop-sided view of secularism in India. He singles out items that can be perceived as being anti-Muslim and carefully ignores the anti-Hindu attitudes within the Indian establishment.
Here's a point-by-point rebuttal. Italics represent Omar's views. I have prefixed my comments with [DP]
Why India Is Not A Secular State
India is seen as a shining example of a secular state but in reality the Indian state actually privileges Hinduism over other religions and religious communities. The Indian state is in fact the defender of the dharma for at least five reasons.
[DP] Agree on the fact that India is not truly secular. However, that is because India tries to please all communities. And ends up displeasing all. And then those like Omar, who like to complain, do.
OMAR KHALIDI
The world community has rightly regarded Pakistan and Bangladesh as examples of theocratic states practicing policies of harsh discrimination against Hindus and other minorities. Sri Lanka’s Singhala-centric policies have generated gross discrimination against its Tamil citizens. Beyond India’s South Asian neighbourhood, numerous Islamic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia follow unjust policies toward minorities of all kinds that are an affront to civilized values everywhere and at all times. India in contrast is seen as a shining example of a secular state.
[DP] Omar, despite your rhetoric, if India is indeed seen as an example of a secular state, there might be something right going on there.
With the Republic Day just gone by, it is time to ask: But is India really a secular state?
I do not think so.
[DP] On this, I would agree. Because India has consistently favored minorities, despite the partition and the discrimination against Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Political secularism may be defined as the separation of religious activities from those of the state, customarily referred to as "the separation of church and state" in the west. Secularism in theory then would mean that religion and state cannot occupy the same space. The state in its governmental capacity does not promote any religion or religious group, nor does it intervene in religious affairs. It cannot even be involved in interpretation or "reform" of any religion much less favour one over any other. This model of secularism may be characterized as maximum separation between state and religion except on manifest grounds of morality, health, and public order. Theoretical formulation, interpretation, and implementation of secularism have varied in several countries. In Indian context, the votaries of Hindutva equate it with appeasement of minorities, thus "pseudo-secularism." Apologists of Indian secularism call it "religious equi-distance, not non-involvement," meaning that Indian state is neutral between religions and religious communities.
I demonstrate that in practice, Indian state actually privileges Hinduism over other religions and religious communities. The Indian state is in fact the defender of the dharma for the following five reasons.
1: Constitutional Discrimination
Article 25 (2) of the constitution calls for providing "social welfare and reform and throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus." India’s constitution does not define who or what is a Hindu, but it defines followers of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as Hindus for purposes of Hindu temple entry. Article 25 (2) (b) (Explanation II) states: "the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion…"
Isn’t this the concern of Brahmin establishment to allow or disallow whoever they deem fit to enter a temple? Why should a secular state be concerned with the social welfare of only one religion? The motive of the constitution writers was obvious: to prevent the conversion of Dalits to Christianity or Islam, to "reform" Hinduism to make it palatable to the former untouchables.
[DP] This law actually tries to correct and old discriminatory practice in Hindus that prohibited specific sects from entering temples. It states that everyone has a right to enter Hindu temples. Why should you have a problem with a progressive law? Consider a hypothetical case, what if the law tried to reform age-old Muslim practices this way? It doesn't. The Indian law tries to meddle with all things Hindu, but leaves alone discriminatory practices in Islam thinking the community needs self-introspection. Yet, Omar Khalid is not happy. Imagine how Omar Khalidi will react if the Indian constitution banned child marriage and the talaaq rules which are discriminatory towards women.
The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to
(a) any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any person domiciled in the territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.
In other words, legally there is no such thing as a Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh marriage, which is another attempt to deny other religions a distinctive identity and absorb them in the Hindu fold.The Office of the Registrar General that conducts the decennial census enumerates anyone who is not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi as Hindu, most particularly in tribal areas, in pursuance of a policy of Hindu by default to inflate the religious majority.
[DP] All this just states that the Indian constitution has a special clause under which marriages performed by Hindu rituals can be recognized. Because Jain, Buddhist, and Sikh marriages are very similar to Hindu marriages, they can be covered in this clause. It does not prove any discrimination. Get your blinkers off, Omar Khalidi. You are not making sense here (and elsewhere in your article).
Article 290A of the Constitution, which was added in 1956, provides for Kerala state funds to be paid for the upkeep of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories of former princely state of Tranvancore. What state but a denominational one would spend government funds to promote a particular religion?
[DP] The constitution also provides several benefits only to minorities, including the freedom run religious institutions. These are not available to the majority religion. But of course, you won't notice this if you were a mischief monger out to make trouble.
[As an aside, a forest has been destroyed in arguing for a uniform civil code as opposed to Muslim Personal Law and the issue of Haj subsidy. But perhaps I can save those issues for a full discussion at a different time]
[DP] Yes you should talk about why India does not have a uniform civil code. And how Muslims, through sheer blackmail, have gotten the right to practice their personal law. Which effectively means that the Koran rules over the Indian Supreme Court. Hindus and other communities however do not have this privilege and are governed by the constitution. So yes, the Indian state is not secular, but it is so because it grants special privileges to Muslims that it denies other communities.
[DP] And the government does provide subsidies to Haj pilgrims. But not to Hindu pilgrims. In fact, Hindu pilgrims to several holy sites are taxed. So there is discrimination against Hindus for you.
2: Legislative Discrimination
Although freedom of religion is granted under the constitution’s Article 25 (1), a Congress government of Madhya Pradesh pioneered anti-conversion legislation during the heyday of Nehru in 1954. Since then as many as 7 state legislatures (Arunachal, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tripura) have passed laws severely restricting conversion from Hinduism to other religions while facilitating conversion to Hinduism.
In 1982, when a few hundred Dalits embraced Islam in Meenakshipuram, the central government took measures to curb conversions. No less than Indira Gandhi characterized conversions as a threat to national security.
[DP] Every country has a right to protect its demographics from changing significantly. The law is clear - it does not bar voluntary conversion. It bars forced and corrupt conversion to "any" religion. You won't understand - you are too blinded by your religious prejudices and are spoilt by the amount of freedom you have received living in democracies. Had you been living in another country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia your eyes might get gouged even for practicing other religions. Fact is, minority population has increased from 12% to 25% in India in the last sixty years. So all your claims about minority persecution are humbug nonsense. The reverse is true - the government consistently favors minorities over the majority because of its vote bank politics.
Christian missions and churches have been under attack since decades, often with state complicity as demonstrated in August-September 2008 in Orissa and Karnataka.
[DP] Again, picking threads from where it is convenient. What about the inflamatory anti_hindu literature that the missions were distributing? The government did not take any action against the missions for disrupting communal harmony and peace. The people that protested against this communal disrruption have all been arrested and are being prosecuted. So you are just spreading lies to spread your hatred against India. Fact is, Hindus and Hindu temples have been under attack by other religions over the last few centuries. The religious hatred spread by these communities caused a partition of the country. And these bigots have killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Kashmir and and forcibly evicted practically all Hindus from Kashmir. So Mr. Khalidi, again, your statements are just lies and nothing more. The bigger problem for India is to recogize and combat hardcore Islamists like you who will spare no means to attack India.
Hundreds of mosques are in illegal possession nationwide including in New Delhi, where scores are occupied by the central government.
[DP] Quite the contrary. Hundreds of temples have been demolished by India's Islamic rulers who have built mosques atop these temples. All this is recorded in Islamic history. The government has done nothing to restore the temples just to keep Muslims happpy. How ungrateful can you get, Omar Khalidi? You are just pissed at the fact that India is not under Islamic rule now and are spreading canards in the hope that Islamists can again conquer India.
[DP] As a matter of fact, all mosques are owned by the WAQF board, an Islamic organization that the government does not meddle with. The government however does meddle with the boards that run Hindu temples. So there goes your claim about the discrimination against Muslims.
It was a Congress government that first locked up the Babari Mosque in 1949 by court order effectively converting it into a Hindu temple. What began under Nehru was successfully completed by Narasimha Rao in 1992 through the Mosque’s destruction under the very nose of army, paramilitary and police. It is ironic that the Indian state is ready to deploy army to flush out Sikh insurgents from Golden Temple and Muslim rebels from Charar-i Sharif, but not protect Babari Mosque from the Hindu mobs’ jack hammers.
[DP] Again, a one-sided view. The same government sent Biryani to the Islamic terrorists holed up in the mosque and tried its best to prevent the mosque from being destructed by the Jihadis.
[DP] And why don't you mention that the Babri mosque was built on top of a temple. Why don't you criticize the Islamic Jihadis who broke the temple and built the mosque on top of it and on other temples in India?
[DP] The Indian machinery has killed more Hindus than Muslims. But ungrateful souls like you will always find reason to complain. Try applying your rhetoric to other governments, including the country that you now live in, and see how things go for you there on. You know that the Indian state is soft towards Muslims and hence you can get away with these fabricated stories.
The states of Gujarat and UP spent government funds to rebuild the Somanatha Temple around the same time when Babari Mosque was locked up. It was President Rajendra Prasad who inaugurated the rebuilt temple in 1951 amidst official fanfare.
[DP] Again, let's not lose sight of the context. Let us not forget that the temple was destroyed by Muslim invaders who tried to crush Hinduism. And please check your facts - no government funds were used for the temple. It was built on voluntary donations. The government facilitated the process to restore a national monument. The government also spends funds to maintain and repair the Taj Mahal, the Lal Qila, and thousands of other historic monuments that were built by Mughals. You are selectively picking stories to make your nonsensical case.
[DP] Likewise, the Indian governments have spent millions building and protecting mosques and churches. Mosques are owned and controlled by private Muslim bodies. Donations at mosques get used only for religious purposes. Yet, the government collects donations from most big Hindu temples.
[DP] Re. Rajendra Prasad inaugurating the temple, Hindu Indian ministers routinely host Iftaar parties for Muslims. Hindu Indian ministers offer namaaz with Muslims. So the government machinery participates in Hindu and Muslim traditions, which is how Indian secularism works. Of course it is another matter that Muslim ministers will never show up in a Hindu temple. But hey, we are not talking about that right now.
3: Employment Discrimination
Article 16 (2) of the constitution prohibits discrimination in public employment on religious grounds. Yet there are numerous examples of outright discrimination. Per Presidential orders of 1950 and 1956 the beneficiaries of Scheduled Castes’ reservation can only be Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists but not Christians and Muslims. If an SC changes religion after obtaining employment or admission to school, he or she must forfeit job and withdraw from school as has happened in numerous instances. But if the SC reverts to Hinduism, he or she can resume his/her status as an SC as courts have ruled.
[DP] You moron, this is about affirmative action. Certain classes of Hindus were discriminated against. The government is trying to help them. Now, if they change their faith, they should not deny other folks who have been discriminated against from getting jobs through affirmative action. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This law is to provide fairness and to make sure the benefits affirmative action reach to more people. It is not discriminatory at all. But Omar-bhai, what do you know about how secularism works when you try see it through your venom-spewing soul.
Discrimination in Army
Right after 1947, Kashmir’s predominantly Hindu army was absorbed in the national army; whereas Hyderabad’s largely Muslim army was disbanded, rendering nearly 20,000 jobless. The Indian army’s infantry regiments are still based on religion (Sikh regiments), or ethnicity (Gorkha) or caste (Rajput) or region (Garhwal) in which members of other faiths, ethnicities, and regions are barred.
[DP] It is important to note that Hyderabad's army (the Razakars) was almost 100% Muslim, in a state where Hindus formed more than 60% of the population. The king obviously discriminated against his Hindu subjects. And used his army to unleashed Jihadi terror against Hindus around Hyderabad. Through brute force, they were trying to kill and convert Hindus to Islam. When Hyderabad became part of India, these Jihadi razakars were fighting the Indian army. And you complain about the government not including them in the army? This is like saying the US did not recruit Saddam's forces in the US army. Baah!
While a bearded Sikh may become chief of the army staff as did Gen. J.J. Singh, a Muslim may not sport beard in any of the armed forces. Only Jhatka is served in army messes and langers forcing Muslims to become vegetarian. A Hanuman temple greets visitors upon entering virtually every cantonment in the nation, hinting non-Hindus that they don’t belong there. In their public addresses to the soldiers and officers, at least two army chiefs—Generals B.C. Joshi and Shankar Roy Chowdhury—have used references to Hindu scriptures to the exclusion of the Quran and the Bible.
[DP] You live in the US right? And enjoy the freedom in the US? What do you think of Obama saying "so help me God" at the end of his swearing in? It's an individual's right. Why the heck should that bother you? As long as a Hindu army general does not force Muslims to chant Hindu scriptures, it's OK - the general is practicing his right to religious freedom, which is also available to Muslims. We do not mind Azharuddin (the cricketer) saying InshaAllah in his public statements. Neither do we mind Hindus refering to their Gods. That's secularism you idiot. But you won't understand. They probably forgot to teach secularism in the Madrasa that you attended.
4: Cultural Discrimination
There are numerous examples where Hindu culture is conflated with Indian culture. The ban on cow slaughter deprived thousands of butchers their livelihood even as it stole millions of poor their only source of inexpensive protein. Cow may be sacred to the upper castes, but not so to the Christians, Dalits, and Muslims. Food taboos of some higher castes do not end at beef. Beyond beef, eggs may not be sold publicly by court order as it offends some caste sensibilities. Nor can school children bring food of their choice if it offends Hindus.
Official functions of the government whether at the central or state levels often commence with Hindu ceremonies of lighting lamps, breaking coconuts, and recitation of slokas. There is no disapproval to the fact that functions of central and state ministries of education begin with Sarasvati vandana .
[DP] Your communal spirit is showing, Omar. Like it or not, India is a predominantly Hindu country. And Indian culture has a lot Hindu overtones. But hey, India culture also has a lot of Islamic overtones. You do get Halaal meet in most grocery stores. When Godrej started selling chicken, the only chicken they sold was Halaal. Eggs are available at every nook and corner store. And I am not sure where you are getting these stories about school children. Have you ever visitied India? If you did, you probably never got out of your Madrasa and had no idea about what's happening in the country.
In September 1993, Air India took delivery of a Boeing 747 in Seattle, Washington where the Ramakrishna Mission performed a puja invoking Lord Ganesha. Ministers lay foundation stones of government buildings preceded by bhoomi puja ceremony as if the state belongs only to Hindus. In Vishakhapatnam, I witnessed a ship launch amid saffron-robed, ashen faced sadhus singing bhajans, a function nearly mistaken as a Hindu festival.
In a trip to the United States in 1984, AP Chief Minister N.T. Ramarao found nothing objectionable in spending government funds for distributing medallions with Sri Venkateshwara’s image among potential investors in his state.
A large stone image of a reclining Vishnu located at the entrance to the IGP’s headquarters in Bangalore is more fitting for a temple than a secular state’s police building. Almost every police thana in West Bengal has a Kali temple, none has a mosque in a state with nearly 30 percent Muslim population. Muslim police trainees in Andhra Pradesh,
School children in Gujarat, Maharashtra and numerous other states have been forced to perform Surya namaskar against their will. Government school texts in Hindi and regional languages assume all pupils to be Hindu as the contents are soaked with idioms, phrases, signs, symbols, and icons of Hinduism to the exclusion of material from other religions and cultures. Textbooks of history and social studies are replete with gross distortions of Indian history of all eras, ancient, medieval and modern, in which Muslims and Christians are invariably the villains, traitors and foreigners.
[DP] As a matter of fact, the Indian school board bars textbooks from painting Muslim kings as villains despite the religious discrimination practices by India's erstwhile Islamic kings. Aurangzeb is praised for being a religious man, though he killed millions of Hindus and imposed a tax (jaziya) on all non-Muslims. Akbar is called Akbar the Great despite his imposing the Jaziya. Nowhere do textbooks call Christians names. Your statements are not factual, Mr. Omar Khalidi.
Until the advent of television in the 1980s, All India Radio was the main source of information and entertainment to middle classes. The government-controlled AIR began its programs with Vande Mataram, Mangala dhwani, Vandana, and Hindu lyrics. Rarely did AIR broadcast anything pertaining to Christian or Muslim cultures. Like the AIR, during its heyday, seldom does Door Darshan show any serials of Muslim or Christian character.When it broadcasted serials of historical or literary figures—Tipu Sultan, Ghalib—they were caricatured into modern stock characters stripped of their distinctive cultural identity.
[DP] This is getting hilarious. Indian TV is replete (and has been replete) with serials based on Islamic culture. The ones that you mentioned were produced by Muslims and were aired on government-owned media. Even today, you have several such shows that focus on Muslim rulers and themes.
5: Religious Pogroms
Finally no modern, secular democracy other than India experienced multiple, state-sponsored pogroms—that of Sikhs in 1984 and of Muslims in 2002. In both instances, the highest in the Executive branch of the government justified the pogroms: Rajiv Gandhi when his mother was murdered; and Narendra Modi when the train burned in Godhra.
[DP] It is interesting that you say "when the train burned in Godhra." You do not speak the truth, which is, when a "gang of Muslims burned innocent Hindus in a train in Godhra." The Hindus retaliated and there was mayhem in Gujarat, in which hundreds of Hindus and Muslims were killed.
[DP] Truth is, the Indian machinery is very brutal and spares no one. More Hindus have been killed by the government than have any other communities. So to call the excesses of the Indian machinery anything else is a lie and at best bending truth to make your case.
[DP] Mr. Khalidi, your bluff has been called off. You are no worse than a hate-mongering terrorist who should be tried for treason and for inciting communal discord.
[DP] And Outlook of course should have done their due diligence before letting this liar publish this hateful article
[DP] If you look at Mr. Khalidi's profile, it says he was born and raised in "Hyderabad, Deccan" and not "Hyderabad, India." Clearly Khalidi is not comfortable with the idea of India and refuses to acknowledge his Indian roots in his profile. He is still sore over Hyderabad not remaining a nizaamiyat, but being part of India. I think such a prejudiced and communal person should not be allowed to write for Indian publications.
The original article appeared here. All rights acknowledged.
