''There is no secular definition of the Indian nation nor are the nation's institutions and Constitution genuinely secular, since they discriminate among the followers of different religions.'' writes Michael Danino.
To read the full article about the points raised follow the external link.
________________________
below are extracts from the article above-mentioned:
< << Abul Kalam Azad [In his presidential address to the 53rd session of the Indian National Congress at Ramgarh -1940]:
"Can anyone who has any conception of the actual working of a democratic constitution, allow himself to be led astray by this false issue of majority and minority?"
Tajamul Hussain, a Muslim member from Bihar [1948 Constitutional debate]:
"I want to tell the House, Sir, that there is no minority in this country. I do not consider myself a minority. In a secular state, there is no such thing as minority. I have got the same rights, status and obligations as anybody else. I wish those who consider themselves as the majority community would forget that there is any minority today in this country."
H C Mookherjee [member, W.Bengal- ibid.]
"Are we really honest when we say that we are seeking to establish a secular state? ... If your idea is to have a secular state it follows inevitably that we cannot afford to recognise minorities based upon religion."
on 25 May 1949, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, to the applause of the Assembly, concluded,
"In the long run, it would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and [to accept] that in India there is only one community."
''Perhaps the tragedy of post- Independence India is that such sane voices—both Muslim and Hindu—were ignored, although they spoke for true secularism, and have since been sidelined by our self-styled "secular", "liberal" statesmen and intellectuals.'' [Michael Danino, Pragyata article] >>>
_______________________________
Religions that have powerful overseas institutions that support their proselytising and conversion activities, or others that get funding from theocratic states - are they really minorities in need of governmental support? Why should 'hands-off apply only to some religious establishments while temples have to be taxed and interfered by the government?
Secularism has to be genuine in order for people to believe in it.
