Wow! And just think, this whole time I thought Rob, Yoga Fire, and Lupus Solitarius were grown men.

Wow, what's the need to have an India Day parade? Do they have a parade for every country each day?

Parades are fun though, usually. But I can see it taking up street space and affecting traffic if done too often.

The banner says "India's Secularism", there are many Indian-American Hindus who have a problem with the Indian brand of secularism that is invested in vote bank appeasement etc (which in the end also hurts the progressive elements of minority community). Most of that group would prefer a more American style of secularism but I don't doubt that there are "Hindu Unity.org" types that want India to be turned into a Hindu version of Pakistan. I am in the former category, Indian secularism needs to be perfected, not rejected.

I know you will disagree Abhi, but it is the reluctance of people from a Hindu background in the progressive segment of the desi community (i.e. most of the media, all of academia) to address legitimate grievances that helps fuel this extremism. Secular Hindus are taught it is rude to bring these issues up and Muslim progressives seem incurious. The only time it was even suggested that Hindu Bangladeshis may have suffered disproportionately in 1971 in this blog was when it was brought up in the context of a book review.

Anyway, I agree that it is disgusting to use kids this way and the organizers should not have allowed such a sign

Well, it's India Day Parade and some Indians ( likely Kashmiri Hindus ) are bringing attention to the plight of Kashmiris, who happen to be Hindus. I don't deny that some organizers subscribe to Hindutva and are against Islamism, but I see no problem with some marchers highlighting the human rights violations of a certain Indian demographic. The sentiment expressed in the foreground though exaggerated is a true reflection of the feelings of many unbiased Indians.

oh come on guys... not fair. give the kids some slurpees and carry your own banners.

i swear. the irish get drunk on saint paddy's day. the island peeps bring out the floats on caribana and shake the boody. desis bring out old religious guys with long beards and that's the fun part. Then they have grim looking engineers and architects walk by in a float. vaat yaar. MLID

I don't think its right to use kids this way (for one, I don't think the kids carrying the banners have actually thought about what it means; for the same reason I'm opposed to kids carrying banners in any political rally); especially since its supposed to be "India Day," and that includes all Indians, not just Hindu critics of Indian secularism.

Why does secularism imply Anti Hindu? I would say names like Hindustan implies anti secularism

Back in the day we only used to go to these to check out the eye candy and maybe meet some girls. That still happens. Went to Pakistan day concert last weekend. Girls were dressed up like the were going to a wedding..

Ok, the sufferings of MINORITY Hindus in Kashmir or Bangladesh are one thing, but the claim that secularism within India/Bharat is "anti-Hindu" relies on the notion that protecting Muslims and Christians will somehow hurt the Hindu MAJORITY! That's what's objectionable about these kinds of signs. Ever since the Hindu Right has invented this notion of "pseudo-secularism" they have used it to describe the plight of the majority (how silly that sounds!) in India, not the legitimate sufferings of Hindus in Bangladesh or Pakistan (which, by the way, are far less secular states than India nominally is).

The only time it was even suggested that Hindu Bangladeshis may have suffered disproportionately in 1971 in this blog was when it was brought up in the context of a book review.

i have mentioned this is in the comments several times, for the record. i came to the conclusion relatively late in life after noting the patterns of the sorts of people who my parents mentioned being killed in the war (my mother was shot by mistake, so she talks about the people who were killed every now and then, the ones she knew were invariably arts intellectuals, extremely political, or hindu).

I have always wondered about vote bank politics in india......muslims for e.g. make up ~ 13% of the entire population and other than JK (~65%) no other state has more than ~30% muslims. so why would politicians indulge in vote bank politics?
do I need to go more microscopic (to a district level for e.g.) to understand the vote bank phenomena?

In contrast to the majority opinion on this thread, I love this! We need MORE! BIGGER! displays! Self sabotage can be way more effective and rapid way to cast discredit to certain ideas, than any amount of editorializing by intellectuals or bloviation by those with a reputation for partisanship.

Ahh! Not Hannah Montana...

oh yes. You meant the sign... that is pretty scary too.

Wow! And just think, this whole time I thought Rob [et al.] were grown men.

Hehe!

All countries should be secular - neither promote nor discriminate against any religion, minority or majority. The banner did not say secularism is anti-Hindu, it said India's secularism is anti-Hindu, and if that is the case then what is in India is not secularism. Indians in India should have a discussion on what there goes beyond secularism into discrimination. More dialogue, not less is what is needed.

All countries should be secular - neither promote nor discriminate against any religion, minority or majority. The banner did not say secularism is anti-Hindu, it said India's secularism is anti-Hindu, and if that is the case then what is in India is not secularism. Indians in India should have a discussion on what there goes beyond secularism into discrimination. More dialogue, not less is what is needed.

Yeah I'm sure the kids in the picture had an in depth discussion and then decided, ok lets go with what mom and dad want.

To be fair, as a kid raised Catholic I went around toting a "Pro-Life" button when I was 10 or so. I really had no idea what the real debate was over, someone just taught me that we need to 'keep babies from being killed'.

Atleast my parents weren't so into it like those pro-lifers who make their little children carry around the giant grotesque signs of aborted babies. Shudder.

I'm sure these kids have no idea what that sign really means either.

Actually I WOULD like to know what exactly they (whoever made it and put it in those kids hands) mean by that sign. Unless they are among the crowd who thinks India should be a Hindu state, as someone mentioned above.

Personally I don't think there should be special status to either ethnicities or religions in the US or elsewhere. Temporarily there is affirmative action for African Americans and Latinos and Native Americans here in the US, but the goal is not for them to have special status forever. The goal is to get to a point where affirmative action is not needed like it was in the past. The goal is a secular society where no ethnicity or religion is supported or discriminated against, where people find jobs and build lives based on their individual choices and however they balance their individualism with their community.

Yeah I'm sure the kids in the picture had an in depth discussion and then decided, ok lets go with what mom and dad want.

I wasn't talking about the kids. I was talking about more discussion happening in India among Indians.

"The goal is a secular society where no ethnicity or religion is supported or discriminated against, where people find jobs and build lives based on their individual choices and however they balance their individualism with their community."

I always wonder why they didn't just base affirmative action on income rather than race then? Same goes for anywhere in the world. There was an interesting problem when Brazil decided to try American style affirmative action for "blacks" in Brazil... the only problem is that Brazil is so mixed people don't really define themselves in terms of black or white.. so they actually had to take pictures of people applying through affirmative action, and a committee would look at the picture and determine if they looked "black enough" to qualify for affirmative action. (In one case, two identical twin brothers applied, one was approved, and one was denied!)

Since, due to past discrimination, African-Americans, darker skin-toned people in Brazil, etc tend to be poorer, why didn't they just base it on income in the first place?

I am not sure focusing on the economic background alone when Affirmative Action started in the US would have been enough at that time. I think eventually it will go towards helping economically disenfranchised individuals in the US and elsewhere instead of ethnicity or religion. I think excellent public schools are key to a more egalitarian society, where students regardless of economic ability to pay are able to get a great education and develop their talents. I would also support free or low cost higher education. Then the rest is making sure one isn't discriminated against for their race, religion, sexual preference in the workplace and other areas.

Yeah I'm sure the kids in the picture had an in depth discussion and then decided, ok lets go with what mom and dad want.

Why not? If Jonathan Krohn could do it at the age of 13, surely "beta, you can do better than that other boy" and be more precocious?

LinZi,
Why on earth should there be affirmative action for poor people?? Blacks were mistreated in this country; the poor, not so much.

I have always wondered about vote bank politics in india......muslims for e.g. make up ~ 13% of the entire population and other than JK (~65%) no other state has more than ~30% muslims. so why would politicians indulge in vote bank politics?

I think that is the concept of a swing vote. You try to get a subpopulation to vote in your favor. It particular helps when no candidate enjoys a compelling advantage over the others.

Three cheers for that sign; stop the Haj subsidy.

rob: "LinZi,
Why on earth should there be affirmative action for poor people?? Blacks were mistreated in this country; the poor, not so much."

Umm, duh. What's the point of affirmative action?

Anyways, poor people are mistreated everywhere. They are generally the one's who do the crappiest jobs under the worst working conditions (in our country, that probably means no access to health care,and working multiple part time jobs with no security and horrible working hours, in India that might mean conditions that cause illness, etc).

You think all the non-Black people who ended up poor in this country are all just a lazy buncha good for nothings who wanna mooch off the government?

It's pretty easy to see how mass discrimination against one group of people can cause poverty (also non as inequality), so why is it so hard of a stretch to try and give opportunities to poor people who WANT to study, etc to have the chance?

non= known

Three cheers for that sign; stop the Haj subsidy.

agreed! also, the affirmative action for the large numbers of hindus! and that vande mataram song in ceremonies!

I have always wondered about vote bank politics in india......muslims for e.g. make up ~ 13% of the entire population and other than JK (~65%) no other state has more than ~30% muslims. so why would politicians indulge in vote bank politics?

India has a winner-takes-all electoral system, and many contests are multi-cornered fights. They can be won by securing votes from 30-40% of the people polled. Thus, elections can be won by building caste or religious coalitions that can get to the magic %age. For example, the way the most successful party (INC) has done this traditionally, is by using the KHAM votebank - Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi, Muslim. If some other party is able to get some fraction of these constituents to vote for them, INC starts losing elections. Hence the need to indulge in vote bank politics.

"My tusks were red at the Sack of the Fields of Bhurtpore, and I would not wake that smell again." - Hathi.

I don't know why so many posts are going on (and on) about the movie and tv series, they really have nothing to do with Kipling's Jungle Books (there were two).

The above quote from Hathi should make that clear. Not "Colonel" Hathi. Please.

Read the books, folks.

I call Photoshop!

If the first banner reads "India's Secularism Implies Anti-Hindu", then any true Indian (i.e., one who is familiar with elementary logic that one studies in any half-decent computer science undergrad course, which of course all true Indians have attended at some point in their lives, unlike those fake wannabe-Indian Bohemian poseurs who attend liberal art-fart courses) would have ensured that the second banner would read "Not India's Secularism Or Anti-Hindu". Which it doesn't. Therefore it's fake.

It's the little touches like these that contribute to the realism of a good Photoshop image.

Wow! And just think, this whole time I thought Rob, Yoga Fire, and Lupus Solitarius were grown men.

secularism imply Anti Hindu?

As per Article 30(1) of Constitution, “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” Article 30 (1A) restricts the State’s right to acquire property of a minority educational institution whereas Article 30(2) prevents State discrimination against a minority educational institution.

This means that Hinduism alone*1 has had no protection from a usually corrupt, power hungry govt, with no checks and balances.
for nearly 60 years. As a result of this the grassroots the of Hindu institutions have withered. e.g. In Christianity, the money collected in a large institution, such as the St Patricks, goes back into supporting the local parishes, the money raised in a local parish is used to support Sunday school and also K-12 institutions. Which in turn nurtures another generation of catholics who are, by and large, highly inclined to support their institutions. On the other hand, the govt ensures that Tirupati's money is spent on govt shortcomings, while thousand year old institutions are starved of funds.

Furthermore, the dictates of first across the post politics, have ensure that minority religious institutions (which remained strong) wield enormous power relative to their size -- power that is in turn used to further strengthen their institutions (such as govt subsides of private minority institutions instead of investment in secular public schools)

The point above has been made along with several others -- Govt backed assault of priests in TN, the sale of temple lands in AP, The control of temples in Kerala, govt funding the establishment of Madrassas, instead to building secular schools, in several states (including J&K ), Haj Subsidy, Article 370 and the resulting state sanctioned treatment of Hindus in J&K.

I picked this particular one because it is one of the examples of bias written into the damned constitution itself, and I feel that the fundamentally unfair field it has created, combined with time, has led to the vastly diminished power of traditional Hindu institutions.

To argue that Indian govt is secular, in spite of hard facts, goes way beyond willful ignorance. But I bet that tons of people are going to still argue that India is secular. Heck, Abhi, himself has probably read these before. And he still posted this post with a prejudiced note.

(*1 to be more technically correct Jainism and Sikhism are clubbed with Hinduism for the purposes of this article. Sikhism has reacted rather harshly though, so the govt has acted in deeply undemocratic ways assuage the Sikh religious institutions -- the sacha dera sauda arrest comes to mind. )

To argue that Indian govt is secular, in spite of hard facts, goes way beyond willful ignorance.

100% correct. My dads, to his credit, has arranged a (soon) meeting with the President of an Ivy-League University to press this very point home, in terms of the BS that is going on under the rubric of "South Asian studies."

minority religious institutions (which remained strong) wield enormous power relative to their size

ah, this is the root of your complaint. why can't minorities know their place, and allow reinterpretation of a democracy as a tyranny of the majority?

I personally think it's weak for Indians to ever, ever hold a parade in the US, on the basis that the Jews are impressive and basically run the economy, and don't hold parades, while, say, the Puerto Ricans and Irish do hold parades. Parade = loser.

why can't minorities know their place, and allow reinterpretation of a democracy as a tyranny of the majority?

Your out of context quote is B.S. and you know it. And using the words of John Stuart Mill mindlessly does not change the fact your statement is B.S.

This was the rest of the sentence .." -- power that is in turn used to further strengthen their institutions (such as govt subsides of private minority institutions instead of investment in secular public schools)". Support for a secular public schooling system is a liberal pillar in the US is'nt it? Why the the mindset change when it comes to India?

One typical counter folks supporting pseudo-secularism*1 make in such discussions is that Hindus form a huge majority, so it must be ludicrous that the Indian govt works against Hinduism.

*1 I have shown clearly that what goes under the name of secularism in India is not the actual meaning of secularism in my previous comment. So the use of this word is accurate and is not name -calling.

100% correct. My dads, to his credit, has arranged a (soon) meeting with the President of an Ivy-League University to press this very point home, in terms of the BS that is going on under the rubric of "South Asian studies."

Please post on how it went later on, when you get the chance.

-- power that is in turn used to further strengthen their institutions (such as govt subsides of private minority institutions instead of investment in secular public schools)".

government subsidises schools of many many hindu castes and subcastes. i wonder why these are counted as subsidies of hindus? because it is inconvenient.

* i wonder why these are not counted - of course.

The banner behind it says "Kashmiri Hindus want a secular homeland". I'm guessing it is part of the same group. Their concern is very much valid and their banner on Indian secularism makes sense. The current model can rightly be called pseudo secular.

Over the years of blogging on SM I have found that I can immediately guess the ideology of someone based on whether or not they use the word "pseudo-secular" in their comment. I don't even need to read the rest of the comment to know what it is probably about.

government subsidises schools of many many hindu castes and subcastes. i wonder why these are counted as subsidies of hindus? because it is inconvenient.

Red Herring after Red Herring.

Do castes promote their community interests or their Hindu interests? Besides do you really think that caste is unique to Hinduism?*1 The situation has been so bad, that educational institutions run by Hindu reform movements have even style themselves as non-hindu in order to escape govt control. (did not work)

*1 For example Nadars run a lot of educational institutions. The Nadar Caste / Community contains both Christians and Hindus.

on the basis that the Jews are impressive and basically run the economy

This gross and inaccurate generalisation taps into hundreds of years of anti-semitic discourse, whether or not it was intended to be anti-semitic, which I have no way of knowing. If you wouldn't mind apologising or elaborating, I would be grateful. Thanks!

The only time it was even suggested that Hindu Bangladeshis may have suffered disproportionately in 1971 in this blog was when it was brought up in the context of a book review.

i have mentioned this is in the comments several times, for the record. i came to the conclusion relatively late in life after noting the patterns of the sorts of people who my parents mentioned being killed in the war (my mother was shot by mistake, so she talks about the people who were killed every now and then, the ones she knew were invariably arts intellectuals, extremely political, or hindu).

I have also mentioned this numerous times as well as a human rights and social justice issue, alongside other human rights and social justice issues and posted links to web posts by groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights watch that have raised this issue. I've also elaborated on the reasons why the way in which it is brought up have a lot of bearing on the situation. If it is brought up in a Hindu rights/victimisation framework to bolster Hindutva work, that is very different from if it is brought up by radicals, human rights liberals like Amnesty International. I've also argued that the reason it is ignored is the reason that many human rights situations are ignored in Bangladesh (E.g. the ahmadis or climate change or general poverty) - because it is in Bangladesh.

What I haven't brought up is how obvious it is why this continues to be brought up in ways that show the context - what connection do attacks on disempowered minorities in Bangladesh have to an anti-secularism rally in New Jersey? There is one, and I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but the connection is that they both come from the same political standpoint - broadly speaking, Hindutva.

100% correct. My dads, to his credit, has arranged a (soon) meeting with the President of an Ivy-League University to press this very point home, in terms of the BS that is going on under the rubric of "South Asian studies."

Yes, please do elaborate. I'm interested as someone who attended an Ivy League school that did not have a South Asian studies program so had to make my own informal one and then went on to do a Masters in it ;) Also, if you or he can arrange a similar meeting for me or my family members on the BS that is going on under the rubric of "Economics", I'd be grateful. Thanks very much!

What I haven't brought up is how obvious it is why this continues to be brought up in ways that show the context - what connection do attacks on disempowered minorities in Bangladesh have to an anti-secularism rally in New Jersey? There is one, and I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but the connection is that they both come from the same political standpoint - broadly speaking, Hindutva.

Right on. Its a plague frankly that needs to be spoken against at every opportunity.

There is a growing number of Hindu "madrasahs" in the US. This banner was probably prepared by the "uncle next door" who so gladly volunteers his time teaching our little children, holding Hindu summer camps, organizing Ramayan plays and shakhas. (I don't mean to generalize. Most of them are right minded people - oops, I meant left.)

They will probably never teach our kids to kill, but distorting a child's perception of the world is dangerous enough. If you are a desi parent trying to give your children a little Hindu schooling in America, you have to be very careful who the teachers are. Attending some of their classes with your kids is the best way to filter the undesirables out. Been there, done that. Could write an essay on all the peculiar stuff we have observed in our very own desi community.

Somebody upthread equated parades with losers. Gays have done well for themselves with the parade approach. There is no harm in Hindus trying it as long as there is no jingoism involved. In fact, parades are a natural part of a lot of Hindu festivals in India, though they are usually called processions.

Forget the kids with the banners, did anyone else notice the pear shaped sikh? priest. It was disconcerting to say the least to see a middle aged man with the body of a frumpy middle aged woman. A lot of the other Indian-Americans seem to be quite out of shape too, not quite land whales as they live in affluent New Jersey, but definetly packing on the tires. Oh and why did Falun Gong show up at an India independence day parade? Where did they even get the marching band? I'm also surprised no one picked up on the other political hot potato banners, such as this one raging against the conversions of Hindus to Christianity. http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=CN&Date=20090809&Category=NEWS0101&ArtNo=908090803&Ref=PH&Profile=1003&Params=Itemnr=50

Over the years of blogging on SM I have found that I can immediately guess the ideology of someone based on whether or not they use the word "pseudo-secular" in their comment. I don't even need to read the rest of the comment to know what it is probably about.

Over the years of commenting on SM I have found that I can immediately guess the ideology of someone based on whether or not they use the word "Hindutva" in their blogs/comments. I do read the rest of the blogs/comments for fun.

I'm also surprised no one picked up on the other political hot potato banners, such as this one raging against the conversions of Hindus to Christianity.>>

Why so surprised? Conversions by missionaries have been the "hot potato political issue" since the 1857 Indian Mutiny and not only in India but in most of the colonized areas. But only in India are they still offering up any resistance to the Missionaries.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=CN&Date=20090809&Category=NEWS0101&ArtNo=908090803&Ref=PH&Profile=1003&Params=Itemnr=50

Hmm..looks like Gandhi is now a Hindutvadi.

:-)

Right on. Its a plague frankly that needs to be spoken against at every opportunity.

make in such discussions is that Hindus form a huge majority, so it must be ludicrous that the Indian govt works against Hinduism.

Hmm..looks like Gandhi is now a Hindutvadi. >>

Do you know how Gandhi characterized Missionaries? He called them "the vilest thing to ever sap the foundations of truth" (paraphrasing here). As a child he had seen missionaries standing on the street corner peddling the usual abuses (cow dung, etc) against the Gods. That pretty much turned him against the world saving missionaries. Missionaries have, btw, quite an impressive record in the post-Columbian Americas.

But only in India are they still offering up any resistance to the Missionaries.

Right on. Its a plague frankly that needs to be spoken against at every opportunity.

I'm assuming you're being snarky; if not, apologies in advance. I've been told I overdo it here, and am trying to adjust and understand the nuances of it all a bit more. However, on a post like this which is directly related to the topic, it seems relevant to bring up when people are already speaking from that perspective. Otherwise, why would we have ended up with words like 'pseudosecular' and talking points like the implication that inattention to Bangladeshi Hindus' grievances is from an anti-Hindu standpoint. I'm sure I'll get flamed just for saying this.

What I haven't brought up is how obvious it is why this continues to be brought up in ways that show the context - what connection do attacks on disempowered minorities in Bangladesh have to an anti-secularism rally in New Jersey?

What does the status of Palestinians have to do with the South Asian Ummah? Yet most of you will argue that it is in irritant that helps excite the passions of Muslims as far away as Jakarta. You are being intentionally obtuse. Or maybe this is your "steady state".

I bring up Bangladesh because this is supposedly a South Asian blog. While the bloggers here follow their interests, what they ignore is as telling as what engages them and compels them to put finger to qwerty. But feel free to use your "soft Hindutva" wild card to dismiss my insider perspective on what makes real secular Hindus go bad, we know radicals are not about finding solutions/building bridges but rather feeling smug

This gross and inaccurate generalisation taps into hundreds of years of anti-semitic discourse, whether or not it was intended to be anti-semitic,

LOL--does it also offend you if I say that the ethnic Chinese basically run the economies of Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines?

I'm not sure what Abhi is so worked up about. This appears to be a rally for Kashmiri Hindus who have every right to feel the "secularism" in India is anti-Hindu. After all, they were displaced from their homes and have no recourse, and the GOI doesn't appear to be particularly concerned about their plight. I'm sure people like Abhi will be whining and appear all sanctimonius when Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes (which is also wrong btw), but don't really care when similar crimes happen against Hindus. Abhi is a poster child for why the sign is actually true.

Temporarily there is affirmative action for African Americans and Latinos and Native Americans here in the US, but the goal is not for them to have special status forever.

Since, due to past discrimination, African-Americans, darker skin-toned people in Brazil, etc tend to be poorer, why didn't they just base it on income in the first place?

The banner did not say secularism is anti-Hindu, it said India's secularism is anti-Hindu, and if that is the case then what is in India is not secularism. Indians in India should have a discussion on what there goes beyond secularism into discrimination. More dialogue, not less is what is needed.

Rob, I know you are not an anti-semite, but the comment was off because they do not in fact run the Western economy as the Chinese do SE Asia's. Furthermore their numbers have always been decreasing and they don't behave in a tribal fashion (e.g. out marriage into secular "Euro-American" mainstream, they are highly critical of Israel).

ok; sorry for the distraction

My comment #62 came out kind of icky. Did not mean to imply that intra-Jewish marriage is tribal. I mean to say the fact that Jewish-Americans are at the forefront of critiquing Israel when it does wrong shows that they do not behave in a tribal manner

I mean to say the fact that Jewish-Americans are at the forefront of critiquing Israel when it does wrong shows that they do not behave in a tribal manner

JAI - "pseudo-secularism"
Pictures are great. Manju is right - Robu, Yogu, and Lupu are too cute.

One thing - why everyone looks so sullen, only phoren people are smiling.

This is true. What I mean to call non-tribal is the ability to understand that your suffering is not unique. I saw alot of outrage, participation in protests over Lebanon by friends who are most definitely believers in the necessity of Israel (i.e. they are not anti-zionist Jews)

participation in protests over Lebanon

I hate Lebanon too.
;-)

Please explain these poor kids What does "India's Secularism and Kashmiri Hindu" means lol...

Dr. Anonymous, I was being serious not snarky.

Dr. Anonymous, I was being serious not snarky.

Dr.Amnonsense, you know it's time to up the dosage when your allies start to look like enemies

I'm not sure what Abhi is so worked up about. This appears to be a rally for Kashmiri Hindus who have every right to feel the "secularism" in India is anti-Hindu. After all, they were displaced from their homes and have no recourse, and the GOI doesn't appear to be particularly concerned about their plight. I'm sure people like Abhi will be whining and appear all sanctimonius when Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes (which is also wrong btw), but don't really care when similar crimes happen against Hindus. Abhi is a poster child for why the sign is actually true.

Christianity has two methods of expansion: conversion and secularization. Dr. Jakob de Roover explains it pretty well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaOLOVHyVkM So Hindus definitely should look at the "secular state" with suspicion considering how Christianity has systematically eliminated heathens pretty much everywhere except India, Southeast Asia, and a few other pockets. Clive and Xavier are a tag team.

Dr. Jakob de Roover explains it pretty well -

The idea De Roover is driving at is that norms of how the state interacts with society, particularly religion's role in shaping society, is rooted in the conflicts within and among Christian denominations in Europe. They then took mental frameworks designed to understand sectoral disputes within Christianity and based on Christian assumptions regarding human nature and generalized them, inappropriately, to all religions. By doing so they end up not only structuring the natives' thinking to be more amenable to Christian ideas, but reforming the native traditions to more closely resemble Christianity.

Thus, you find Hindu movements that are more Abrahamic in their outlook, such as the Arya Samaj, ISKON, or the Hindutva movement more broadly, as a response to the Christian outlook of "secular" elites who are all educated in a Western tradition.

Hey guys -

As someone who was supposed to be in the rally, in this very group that is being chided here, thought will bring a perspective here. First of all, these kids were part of the larger (~5-10 banner procession of) Kashmiri Overseas Association. Secondly, instead of the dismissive and judgmental tone of OP and many commenters, a viable alternative might be to ask the motivation behind such a poster.

As a Kashmiri Pandit, I am proud to have roots in a place that has for hundreds of years believed in a secular way of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiriyat). This attitude of Kashmiri Pandits pisses off RSS etc to no end, because this could have been a great cause for them.

However, over the last 20 years, the GoI has largely ignored the plight of Kashmiri Hindus, nearly all of whom have been pushed out of their homeland. The GoI has imposed laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370) which have made it virtually impossible for even the Indian part of Kashmir to integrate with rest of India. Please note that I am not talking about the miliary presence along LoC, which is a totally different issue.

Where the despicable murder of two Shopian muslim women has caused an uproar and a political storm - the 80,000 KP deaths have not really caused many ripples.

In a strong secular set up the government elected by the majority protects the rights of minority. Kashmiri hindus have strongly condemned the acts in Orissa, the Gujarat massacres, but wish to just humbly point out that their plight is a very similar one. Just because they are Hindus does not mean that their voice can be ignored. Until we see outrage and actions done to address our issues, why should we take down these banners?

Also - I understand many of you object to kids carrying these banners, because they have not thought through the issues and not made their choices. Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

Btw - when you are a community of a total 400,000 in the world, you have to try hard to ensure that your issue stays in the consciousness of people. You sometimes have no option but to be provocative. We have also had banners with the pictures of our dead, which some others might object to as well. Some of you might similarly object to GoDaddy's commercials, but hey that did the job right?

Thanks for that Android. Certain posters here have a tendency to see all Indian political issues as an epic struggle against Hindutva boogeymen to the extent that they are blinded to legitimate issues from Hindu groups that need addressing. Hence why I quoted Nietzsche above when advising Abhi that fighting with "monsters" by jumping on an anti-Hindutva soapbox is only going to have him jumping at shadows and stifling any opportunity for debate or understanding.

Pseudosecular is a factual term. To call the Indian constitution Secular is blatant doublespeak. If there is a better, more accurate term, suggest it.

If you're interested in the background, the framers of the constitution never considered it to be secular - after all, it treats different religions differently.

Indira Gandhi, at the height of emergency added the words "secular" to the preamble of the constitution. The amendment was controversial and was rammed through in the face of an opposition boycott, with many opposition leaders under arrest at the time.

The funny thing though was that that the parts of the constitution that were not secular were not changed, in fact to some extent, they were strenghtened.

Indira Gandhi had an amazing grasp for rhetoric, even when it was double speak, and it did work for her.

And since the constitution, after the 42nd amendment now calls itself secular, even though it is blatantly nonsecular, the "secularism" it uses is false.

The weird thing is if the people who wrote the damned constitution felt it was not secular, why would any intelligent honest person, defend it as secular?

P.S. If one is truly interested in Subcontinental Studies, I would suggest Subverting the Constitution By G. G. Mirchandani written in 1977

Thank you Paranoid Android for your comment.

dear p android. point noted. i did note the banner in the background and acknowledge that kashmiri hindus, and the kids, are very correct to publicize the facts in a public forum. the challenge i have is with the conclusion being drawn in the banner at front. i am far removed from the issues in india but even i can gauge this is a controversial statement on a complex issue and too much baggage for kids to hold.

the other issue i have is that it all seems boring man. a little more song and dance would have been good. maybe martial arts. possibly a camel ride. defeinitely samosas for all. and a little more zest. will keep the younger gens more engaged longer.

The poster has it right. Secularism in India is basically anti-Hindu and we can all see the results of that secularism in the plight of the modern Hindu in India after 60 years of this crap. I think the plight of Hindus in India is analogous to the plight of the Malays in Malaysia in the pre-Mahathir era or the plight of the Shias in the Saddam era in Iraq. Even though the Hindus in India are in a numerical majority like the Malays and the Shias, the minority community cabal of Muslims and Christians aided by their allies in the Congress Party has created a diaspora of oppressed Hindus in the West. I support AA action for Hindus in all spheres of Indian life. We especially need to have more Hindus in the Civil Service and police so that the Hindu's life is made safe in the 27 states.

P.S. Happy Independence day Pakistan and India, tomorrow and day after tomorrow respectively.

Khoofi - Point noted as well. We can all agree to samosas. With regards to martial arts - Kashmir was never really the most martial of all kingdoms, but I will pass the message :)

Kashmiri Hindus are not being heard by GoI because they are not a significant voting block. Infact they are a tiny community and on top of that in the last election many internally displaced Kashmiri Hindus were discriminated against in voting and they tried agitation and rallys against this in Delhi but pretty much nobody cared.
This situation will not change until other communities who are a large enough voting block makes this their issue.

Its amazing and interesting to see that Paranoid Android had to be so defensive to make his/her legitimate point.

RC - Thanks for bringing up the voting issue as well. The question still remains (and KP's struggle with this issue every day) - which "votebank" will be the best carrier for their issues? The only legit carrier could be RSS/BJP, since Congress would hardly try to isolate its huge Muslim vote by showing even a fleeting concern for an Hindu issue. Which raises the question again - if Congress openly fights for muslim issues and not for hindu/assamese issues, how secular is the party really?

On another point - would be helpful for me to understand which part of my posting in particular you found defensive.

Well apart from the fact that despite being a grown man, I am still considered cute by many (as I am sure Rob and Yoga Fire are too), I remember that when I was 10 years old, I was made to chant hymns in praise of Chacha Nehru (on stage), and fed a lot of propaganda in the name of history and civics by the Indian education system. Years later, I found out that one of my relatives, a card carrying ex-JNU communist was in the panel for writing and updating NCERT history textbooks.
If the Kids' parents have made an effort to educate them about what the protest was all about, I can't see why it is any more objectionable than the biased education they might have received in schools.
There are plenty of reasons that people might feel that the Indian version of secularism is flawed.The 13.5% (actually closer to 16%) Muslims are considered a single block by most political parties and manipulated cynically to vote en-block. To do this they project themselves as pro Muslim (for eg this, this , this and this), often at complete odds with the spirit of secularism and national security.
This rally, as the banner behind demonstrates, and as paranoid android has pointed out, was specifically raising the question of the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. It is nobody's case that the Indian state has failed them.
And pseudo secularism is probably less offensive than the oft bandied 'fascist'.

Do castes promote their community interests or their Hindu interests?

What is hindu interest? Isn't the claim that there are a gazillion different manifestations of hinduism made all the time? I thought all these practices that had evolved over time were part of the Dharma of the land? The fact is that all the complaints- reservations, subsidies - that people like to raise about minorities, are doled out in spades to hindus of a variety of stripes. and much more is doled out to all these hindus than to the minorities, because hindus are naturally in the majority. If you were against rents for interest groups, this is what you would rail against. Instead your complaint is that Hindus don't tell everybody else the way it is in India. This is grievance mongering.

But, as I said before, what we do need is more kids carrying vehement posters and potentially being brought up with vengefulness and one-sided doctrines. I am not opposed to the children carrying the secularism banner in the least.

Sorry, I meant to comment on remarks by "equality". Comment 84 was by me.

Years later, I found out that one of my relatives, a card carrying ex-JNU communist was in the panel for writing ...

I have got a few of them too. They are part of our phamily pantheon of socialist krantikaris or rebels. When I think about them today i feel first (and probably only thing) thing they rebelled against was vegetarianism and teetotalism. I use to get sick of stories about secret meetings and all that crap. Fast forward to today - most of them have 10+ year tourist visa to visit their sons and daughters who are living in US. :). From a very young age I have developed a pretty healthy disregard for the so called intellectual-jholawaala types, most of them are not intellectuals and almost all of them are not intellectually honest.

Instead your complaint is that Hindus don't tell everybody else the way it is in India.

Where would we be without your ability to read between the lines and assume points that nobody made?

Where would we be without your ability to read between the lines and assume points that nobody made?

Exactly where we are now, since I always had this ability.

Really? Is that what his complaint was?

minority religious institutions (which remained strong) wield enormous power relative to their size -- power that is in turn used to further strengthen their institutions (such as govt subsides of private minority institutions instead of investment in secular public schools)

This is a reading of this statement which focuses on subsidies to minority institutions, as opposed to subsidies to oodles of institutions belonging to the majority group.

subsidies to minority institutions, as opposed to subsidies to oodles of institutions belonging to the majority group.

And pseudo secularism is probably less offensive than the oft bandied 'fascist'.

But, as I said before, what we do need is more kids carrying vehement posters and potentially being brought up with vengefulness and one-sided doctrines.

That picture disgusts me.
It is exactly sentiments like that "secularism = anti hindu" is why India can never truly mix with the West, which is a freedom loving society. It is that same fundamentalism that drives the nutty Sri Ram Sena to attack women in bars.
It is this notion that India is "moral" because of fundamental religious bs and that strick morality is the only acceptable notion.
I am APPALLED that this controversial truly effed up notion was allowed to be displayed in an India Day Parade. It is pure evil and promotes no peace. Those people shouldn't even live in America which is a place that allows individuals who want to not be effed up, to exist. Go back to the fundamentalist India.

Va - Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful response. This forum is a much better place because of rational, calm individuals like you. And I, for one, welcome our new thoughtful overlords.

Also - I understand many of you object to kids carrying these banners, because they have not thought through the issues and not made their choices. Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

Good question.

No. What's more offensive is your oft bandied insistence on how cute you are - but have given us no proof of it. stop already.

It is nobody's case that the Indian state has failed them.

The Indian state has failed both Kashmiri Hindus and Kashmiri Muslims in different ways.

Good question.

Not really. There is a difference between pride (for lack of a better word) for one's culture, and grievance mongering.

Not really. There is a difference between pride (for lack of a better word) for one's culture, and grievance mongering.

This is a reading of this statement which focuses on subsidies to minority institutions, as opposed to subsidies to oodles of institutions belonging to the majority group.

I assume that you make this statement despite being familiar with the religious endowment act.

And that difference, in this case, seems to be the minute a group you have no sympathy for complains about something.

Sure. Pride is clearly the same as grievance mongering. What is the group I have no sympathy for, by the way?

Even after Art.30 having been posted on this very thread, some posters insist on keeping their eyes shut.

If you complain about subsidies to minority educational institutions, you should be far more upset about the tons of subsidies to educational institutions belonging to every imaginable faction of the majority community. In fact, that should be something you are far more irate about than the religious communities, where Hindus outnumber Muslims and Christians and Buddhists and Jains and Scientologists and what not. The fact that you are not is a glaring hole in your argument.

and simply ignores the plight of Hindus abroad,

MF Hussain had to flee his homeland and is living his last years in exile in Dubai. Any complaints about that? What about the principal in Gujarat who was beaten within an inch of his life and whose attackers were acquitted? Any complaints about that? The problem is with your lens.

What is the group I have no sympathy for, by the way?

Seemingly anyone who considering Hinduism a salient identity. Not going any further than that since these conversational tangents tend to drag the thread off-topic.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who considers Hinduism a salient personal identity. You were willing to throw out an accusation, and are now unable to back it up.

If you complain about subsidies to minority educational institutions, you should be far more upset about the tons of subsidies to educational institutions belonging to every imaginable faction of the majority community.

You're conflating organizations that happen to be run by Hindus (and frequently deracinated Hindus who don't particularly care about their religion much) with organizations that promote Hindu religious principles.

What are "Hindu" religious principles?

and frequently deracinated Hindus who don't particularly care about their religion much

What gave you that idea? Is anybody who doesn't shout that they are Hindu from their rooftops deracinated?

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who considers Hinduism a salient personal identity.

I ask all the keyboard activists here, what would you do if your Family was living in a tent outside Delhi for 20 years and no-one cared. Write a letter?

Why is it inappropriate to have your children carry your banner? If you don't indoctrinate your kids, who will?

Not really. There is a difference between pride (for lack of a better word) for one's culture, and grievance mongering.

Well, this is what PA said

Also - I understand many of you object to kids carrying these banners, because they have not thought through the issues and not made their choices. Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

Why is it ok to indoctrinate kids with religious BS and not with nationalist BS ?. At least in this case, the kids (or their parents/grandparents) have been driven out of their homeland and it is perfectly valid for them to carry the banner.

@58

What I said:

What I haven't brought up is how obvious it is why this continues to be brought up in ways that show the context - what connection do attacks on disempowered minorities in Bangladesh have to an anti-secularism rally in New Jersey? There is one, and I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but the connection is that they both come from the same political standpoint - broadly speaking, Hindutva.

What you quoted:

What I haven't brought up is how obvious it is why this continues to be brought up in ways that show the context - what connection do attacks on disempowered minorities in Bangladesh have to an anti-secularism rally in New Jersey?

If you were a journalist, you'd be hauled before your editor for something that grotesque :)

What does the status of Palestinians have to do with the South Asian Ummah? Yet most of you will argue that it is in irritant that helps excite the passions of Muslims as far away as Jakarta. You are being intentionally obtuse.

It was a rhetorical question, but you help me make the point in my response. Calling attention to international situations can be used to build identities sometimes. Just like Christian fundamentalists will use attacks on Christians in India to foster their version of Christian identity, and Muslim fundamentalists will use the situation in Palestine to foster their version of Muslim identity, Hindutva people will use attacks on Hindus or Hinduism in other places in order to foster their version of Hindu identity. What is relevant is the impact of building that identity in different places.

In India or in Indian contexts, including in the diaspora, it is a grotesque mockery of any notion of social justice to argue that Hindutva attempts to build Hindu identity are more than an effort by an already powerful group to claim more power. Using the international solidarity argument to bolster Hindu movement building in India is not a social justice argument and in fact is subversive of ideas of social justice. Moreover, it is a disservice to the people that you are alleging you care about - whether the Hindu right is preying on American-born or emigre Hindus who may actually have been subject to some discrimination or pressure for being Hindu or Indian or otherwise or by pointing to violence and discrimination against Hindus in Bangladesh. It is the same way that the rhetoric of the Hindu right uses Muslim women - who ARE discriminated against - to attack Muslims and Islam in South Asia.

Or more provocatively, but imo just as accurately, You are making the same kind of argument as a White person in the United States who decided that attacks on White people in Zimbabwe justified the White power movement in the United states. It is gross.

Why is it ok to indoctrinate kids with religious BS and not with nationalist BS ?

Ponniyin, let me repeat: religious BS is different from religious supremacy BS. Not to mention that these posters are hardly what I would call nationalist, but that is not central to my point, and I don't think nationalism is a laudable sentiment in the abstract, either.

Why is it inappropriate to have your children carry your banner? If you don't indoctrinate your kids, who will?

Jyotsana, here is an interview with Bitta Karatey, a member of the "secular" JKLF.

India can never truly mix with the West, which is a freedom loving society.

Ponniyin, let me repeat: religious BS is different from religious supremacy BS. Not to mention that these posters are hardly what I would call nationalist, but that is not central to my point, and I don't think nationalism is a laudable sentiment in the abstract, either.

Well in that case, you are probably not aware of what is praised during namaaz (I have no idea about aarti other than the girl I had crush on when I was at high school, it could potentially contain similar stuff).

If you do not consider that as religious supremacy BS (there is no God but one and only true god and some dude is the last and final prophet) then you are probably well indoctrinated with the "secular progressive" religion. :-)..

Again I emphasise that this is a very good question.

Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

If you do not consider that as religious supremacy BS (there is no God but one and only true god and some dude is the last and final prophet) then you are probably well indoctrinated with the "secular progressive" religion

So, every Muslim and every Christian is, by definition, a raging bigot?

I am an atheist who would love to see the back of religion in our lives, and even I don't believe that.

While the New Englander or Midwestern desi professional is still scared with the majority around them, even the common Jersey desi has found the confidence to be assertive. I have seen it time and time again how assertive Indians are in NJ when compared to rest of America.

Could write an essay on all the peculiar stuff we have observed in our very own desi community

Floridian Uncle, I would love to read that essay if you have the time to write it.

If you complain about subsidies to minority educational institutions, you should be far more upset about the tons of subsidies to educational institutions belonging to every imaginable faction of the majority community.

Rahul you should read Art.30 before you turn blue in the face from all the shouting.

Take this college, my own, Loyola College, Chennai, whose stated mission is as follows,

The primary aim of the College is to provide University education in a Christian atmosphere to deserving students, especially those belonging to the Catholic Christian Community. Though this college is meant primarily for Catholics, it does admit other students irrespective of their caste and creed.

Now in India you cannot by law set up an educational institution that proclaims its mission as follows,

The primary aim of the College is to provide University education in a Hindu atmosphere to deserving students. Though this college is meant primarily for Hindus, it does admit other students irrespective of their caste and creed.

All post-secondary educational institutions are subsidised in India by the UGC that pays a substantial part of the teachers' salaries. There are also some egregious moves on the part of some minority squakuses to convert government founded institutions into wholly sectarian/minority institutions starting with the Aligarh Muslim University.

There has been a lot of argument over it and at one time it seemed almost inevitable. There are several other twists to this minority business. In India (either by law or precedent) a minority can be either a religious or a linguistic minority in a given state. So for a long time linguistic minorities have been setting up self-financed colleges in a few states. So you have a Gujarati (Hindu) run primary school in Chennai and a Tamil (Hindu) run engineerig college in Karnataka. But after the recent quota fight was concluded the central government also decided to exempt minority institutions from the obligation to reserve quotas for scheduled castes/tribes and backward classes. But in a move that raised alarm bells some provocateur decided that this exemption would not apply to linguistic minority run institutioin, only to religious minority run institutions. Further another twist in the law that the government is trying to squeak out of is that in Punjab, some NE States, and J&K Hindus are a minority. And in Kerala the Hindus are not an absolute majority simply being the largest single group, with the Christian run and Muslim run institutions running literal education empires in the many parts of the state.

As for the smart-aleck calling these kids and their parents KKK sympathisers, it is refreshing for a Hinduphile not to be called a Nazi. And anyway for the likes of Doc Anon given that the word Hindu itself is something cheaper than trash, let's say Hindus and their friends (many of whom aren't Hindu or of even any faith at all) bear the smear with pride.

Congressman Ackerman in the US House some years ago, when the world and India didn't care about a few 1000 Hindus trapped in the clutches of the Taliban in Afghanistan

On that day that the order was given, the entire government of Denmark resigned rather than participate in filling out the orders. That morning, as the sun rose over Copenhagen, it is reported that King Christian X, the King of Denmark, appeared in the street wearing this yellow arm band on his sleeve, and that when the news went around throughout the country, that the Danes came out of their houses all wearing pieces of yellow cloth so that people were not able to distinguish who the small Jewish community was amongst them and at that time be able to deport them into camps.

They were not Jews. They were human beings. It does not take somebody who is Jewish to understand this, and it does not take somebody who is Christian to understand the problems in the Sudan. It does not take somebody who is a Hindu to understand the kind of terrible fear and anxiety that must be going through that small population in Afghanistan that is suffering under this threat that is about to be implemented by the Taliban.

On the day that that happens, I believe that we are all Hindus, or we are all Jews, or we are all Christians. We all belong to humankind, and when any group of people, no matter how small, no matter how different than we are, is threatened with extinction, annihilation, persecution or any other terrible thing, then we must all identify with them.

I would suggest, in addition to passing this resolution, Mr. Chairman, that on the day that the Taliban enforces their resolution, that those of us who would like to do so on this Committee and in the House of Representatives wear yellow bands for that day that say I am a Hindu so that these people do not feel so tragically alone, because they know what the future holds in store for them, if history be any judge.

The core issue here is, or rather, should be, the drafting of children in the process of promoting a cause. Whether the cause is worth promoting or not is a secondary issue and not really germane to Abhi's post.

To what extent should children be indoctrinated or even implicated by their parents and community organizers in any political cause no matter how worthy the cause? The operative term is "political." If these children were carrying a banner that said "I love my Hindu religion" or even "I love Hindutva" or something that was more self-expression than a politically motivated denunciation of an entire country, I don't think Abhi would have found it newsworthy. Read what the banner says. It is a blanket denunciation of India's secularism. My question is whether children should be taught or even allowed to say that.

As a parent, I was bothered by this picture. I was also bothered when I first heard my little daughter's Israeli friend express fairly strong opinions about problems in that region. They were both ten years old at the time. If other parents are not concerned over this picture, I say "to each his own." There is probably more than one rule book for parenting.

before you turn blue in the face from all the shouting.

Hmm.. I am not the one doing the shouting here :)

Now in India you cannot by law set up an educational institution that proclaims its mission as follows

What about the DAV schools? Whatever their mission proclamation, they are unabashedly vedic in their teaching mission. There are many, many other schools of that ilk all over the place, whether established by organizations, or as one-offs.

Paranoid Android, thanks for presenting a personal perspective that has details and facts. It's enormously gratifying to hear the trajectory of Kashmiri pundit politics as you see it and particularly the expressions of sympathy for what happened in Gujarat and Orissa and the rejection of RSS politics that existed within the politics of the pandit community

At the same time, I want to know how those of us who do care about human rights, about South Asia, and about f-ked up situations in general can best understand the situation outside of a communally framed analysis of the situation - and in the long on all 'sides.' I think Rahul was right on in pointing out that the Indian state has failed both Kashmiri Hindus and Kashmiri Muslims and I would reprhase, still in the original meaning of what he said I think, and say that it has failed people in Kashmir as a whole, among many other people, as has the Pakistani state.

Being curious, what are the different strands now among the politics of the people that make up the Kashmiri pandit movement- I know in kashmir in general, there are autonomists, there are fundamentalists of several religion and national stripes, there are political operators and opportunists, and there are two massive states involved who use Kashmir as a ragdoll. But if you or anyone really could recommend any insightful authors that are analyzing and describing the politics of the situation and the political groups that make it up, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

What are "Hindu" religious principles?

They are whatever Hindutva advocates say they are, obviously. And take out those scare quotes, mister! We Hindus have textbooks we must disfigure correct!

Floridian:

The core issue here is, or rather, should be, the drafting of children in the process of promoting a cause

This part of a procession was about Kashmiri Hindu Association. Parents of these kids are victims of the situation in Kashmir, they would have already overheard a lot of things that you would consider inappropriate for your kids.

To what extent should children be indoctrinated or even implicated by their parents and community organizers...

Go to youtube and search for Blue star or 1984, check out a few hits. This bannar is nothing compared to the crap that you might find.

It is a blanket denunciation of India's secularism.

I do not think so. There is a context here - check out the following banner, that may close the loop for you.

As a parent, I was bothered by this picture.

Sure, as a parent only you know what is best for your kids, that does not make the parents of these kids any lesser parent than you are.

BTW: Are you Chachaji of yore ?

If the first banner reads "India's Secularism Implies Anti-Hindu", then any true Indian...would have ensured that the second banner would read "Not India's Secularism Or Anti-Hindu". Which it doesn't. Therefore it's fake.

Personally I prefer "Not Anti-Hindu Implies Not India's Secularism" :) Or a series of banners:

"India's Secularism Implies Anti-Hindu"
"Anti-Hindu Implies Big Macs"
"India's Secularism Implies Big Macs"

QED

To call the Indian constitution Secular is blatant doublespeak. If there is a better, more accurate term, suggest it.

De facto pro-Hindu.
Aspirational.
Living document.
Conflictedly liberal and social democratic.
Too long.

SULABH: BTW: Are you Chachaji of yore ?

You must be new around here. I have been the Floridian ever since I began commenting a few years ago. My point was the same as yours - that parenting is a personal matter. That's why I said "to each his own."

I do miss Chachaji, though. He was a scholar and a gentleman. If he was around, and maybe he is, he would have surely dug up some arcane fact from the Indian constitution or something equally ponderous to enrich the conversation around here.

Go to youtube and search for Blue star or 1984, check out a few hits. This bannar is nothing compared to the crap that you might find.

cf. "circling the drain". if you set the bar low enough, you will exceed it.

You must be new around here.

Not exactly - but thanks for the clarification.

I do miss Chachaji, though. He was a scholar and a gentleman. If he was around, and maybe he is, he would have surely dug up some arcane fact from the Indian constitution or something equally ponderous to enrich the conversation around here.

Well.. :) I do not miss him :), but I sincerely hope he is doing all right.

I agree with Sameer #18, but woh this is a popular debate....shows that Indians have a problem with secularism, or is it just that when abroad away from orginal culture,one feels insecure?

"Why on earth should there be affirmative action for poor people?? Blacks were mistreated in this country; the poor, not so much."

My dad was once enamored of Communism (didn't last for him and I subscribe to no isms or ists), so he had an interesting collection of writings on the "workers' struggles" in the U.S. I think he was fascinated that this purported democratic cornupcopia had such a muddy underbelly in its labour relations history.
Black AND poor was likely to be worse than white AND poor, or native American AND poor. But the poor always get screwed.
Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? He originally wrote to expose the plight of the urban poor (immigrants, mostly Lithuanians, in this book) working in the slaughter houses, but the middle classes who bought the book fixated on the horros of the unhygenic meat industry. Naturally. That was the only thing that would affect THEM. All I can remember, aside from the graphically described animal slaughter==which unnerves me to this day == is that kids drowned in the mud outside the shacks and the parents wished they'd never left Lithuania, wherever that is.. It was Chicago but it sounded like a Mumbai slum during monsoon season, only much more hopeless, dirty and decrepit.
Moving on to another burgeoning industry of the early 20th century, the steel mills, There is a case documented in the National Archives where the owners of a mill in the upper midwest actually locked the doors of room in the factory where a kids' birthday party was underway (held on a weekend as i recall) when a fire broke out, the malicious action being provoked by an ongoing labor dispute.
Then there's the Triangle Bldg. fire of New York is another case where class played a part. The characters who were responsible wrangled out of it and were actually operating another, similar factor only a few years later.
Class all the way.
These are just a few dramatic examples of classism at work.
The conflict between workers (poor of all races) and the "corporate powers" of the day were often violent beyond belief, and whatever schooling the kids got was geered to make docile workers out them. The U.S. wasn't as different from "undemocratic" countries as they like to think.
To this day class animosity drives policy and politics but not in obvious ways you'd find in other "undemocratic" countries.
The poor get screwed all the time. Classism is what communism was supposed to "fix." Not that it did.

Now I get it, the banner I mean. The most powerful person in India is a Christian, not to mention a woman and a white and a firangi The second most powerful person is a Sikh. Neither religion accounts for more than 2.5% of the population. India's secularism must be anti-Hindu.

What about the DAV schools? Whatever their mission proclamation, they are unabashedly vedic in their teaching mission. There are many, many other schools of that ilk all over the place, whether established by organizations, or as one-offs.

Rahul mere bhai, calm down. The Arya Samajis have claim to have nothing to do with mainstream Hinduism and have had themselves classified as a religious minority. The Ramakrishna Mission too tried to get itself classified similarly (and unsuccessfully) because the covetous eyes of one of the states (I think TN or WB) turned towards it, and the state in question attempted to take over its colleges and schools.

I think Rahul was right on in pointing out that the Indian state has failed both Kashmiri Hindus and Kashmiri Muslims

...and there are two massive states involved who use Kashmir as a ragdoll.

Doc Am if this is your current state of knowledge the state of your ignorance must be terrible. Let's put it simply for a community like the Kashmiri Pandits that has been butchered and driven out of its home and hearth, anything short of reparations and resettlement is an insult.

Rahul mere bhai, calm down.

I am, and have been, calm. Are you sure you aren't looking in the mirror? :)

nothing to do with mainstream Hinduism and have had themselves classified as a religious minority.

So, you define away everybody who doesn't conform to your view of Hinduism, be it the Arya Samaj (yes, I am aware it was a reform movement), or the Ramakrishna Mutt, and ignore the myriad other schools which recite Hindu prayers, and teach Hindu mythology as a part of "moral instruction" so you can focus on perceived injustices.

The finances of the state of Jammu & Kashmir are almost entirely underwritten by the Union government.

Not to mention the ostensible security, with the army running roughshod encountering, killing, raping, and pillaging Muslim civilians.

Now I get it, the banner I mean. The most powerful person in India is a Christian, not to mention a woman and a white and a firangi The second most powerful person is a Sikh. Neither religion accounts for more than 2.5% of the population. India's secularism must be anti-Hindu.

I think you got it wrong. It was a banner by Kashmiri Hindu Association - I would not blame Kashmiri Pundits if they are venting.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if the banner were carried by adults and simply read "Hinduism does not proselytize."

BTW, what is India doing to preserve Hindu culture in Kashmir?

Go to youtube and search for Blue star or 1984, check out a few hits. This bannar is nothing compared to the crap that you might find.

cf. "circling the drain". if you set the bar low enough, you will exceed it.

Yep - I agree with you Rahul - comparing with 'Blue-Star 1984 rappers' would be setting the bar way too low.

"Now I get it, the banner I mean. The most powerful person in India is a Christian, not to mention a woman and a white and a firangi The second most powerful person is a Sikh. Neither religion accounts for more than 2.5% of the population. India's secularism must be anti-Hindu."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

So, every Muslim and every Christian is, by definition, a raging bigot? I am an atheist who would love to see the back of religion in our lives, and even I don't believe that.

That's for them to tell. I have no idea. Going by the holy books it seems so.

So I just proved why the two are not so different.

religious BS is different from religious supremacy BS

Again, I see a very valid question from PA.

Also - I understand many of you object to kids carrying these banners, because they have not thought through the issues and not made their choices. Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

That's for them to tell. I have no idea. Going by the holy books it seems so. So I just proved why the two are not so different.

Ok, so you believe that Christians and Muslims are, by definition, bigots. Good to know. I see why you think it is a valid question then.

Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

To answer PA's question, I will feel sorry that their ability to perform evidence-based reasoning is being clouded when they don't know different. But not as sorry as if they are taught that the world is out to get them.

Will all of you think along similar lines if you see a kid doing an aarti or namaaz, because isnt that just a more acceptable form of indoctrination as well?

And why do you consider arti and namaaz a more acceptable form of indoctrination? What makes them more acceptable, and lashing out against a country or policy less acceptable indoctrination for children? Because they are totally different. One is culturalization, the other is indoctrination. If there is one defining characteristic, culturalization is for something. Indoctrination is somehow, subtly, against something. That's what makes one more acceptable than the other.

Hey Rahul, how are you doing? There was a post on Kipling the other day. I remembered reading T.S. Eliot on Kipling sometime in my previous life. Went back to it. "A versifier, not a poet," said your Mr. Eliot about Kipling.

@131

On an aside, I want to respond to this comment from you three days ago, but I didn't want to contribute to a second derailing of the thread on domestic violence. So I will respond here.

The difference is that there aren't actual Nazis arguing on most blogs, whereas there are hard and soft supportesr of Hindu right politics very present on this one.

You said:

That's nonsense if you wanted to define it. Even going by the usual definition of equating any Hinduphilic comment to "soft/hard Hindu right politics" there has been nothing like that so far on this post. That can only mean that you are being Bachmanesque in pointing to things not in evidence. Given your very lazy equivocation and open Hinduphobic attitude - hat tip to Ponnniyin Selvan - your thinking needs to be deconstructed first and laid out bare.

blog != post. If you take me at my original meaning, perhaps this thread, among many others, will clarify to you exactly how accurate my lazy equivocation was. Spriiingtiime...for Mooodi...in Guu-uuj-raaaat..

"A versifier, not a poet," said your Mr. Eliot about Kipling.

I have always felt this way, but obviously never articulated it in as beautiful a manner as Eliotji. H'nble members of the jury, I present for your perusal, Exhibit A: If, which will enjoy pride of place in any self-respecting annual high school magazine.

Hey Rahul, how are you doing?

Doing great. One of these days, you should share your email address so I can take you up on your offer. What can I say? As a desi, I never forget a promise of hospitality :)

Enough. Seriously I (and the others that run this site) have had enough. We haven't been enforcing our own comment policy for far to long because frankly we haven't had time. That will hopefully change starting today. When we are disgusted by the comments on our own thread it is no longer fun to blog. Many of you are entitled to your views but are no longer welcome on any of my threads. I will strictly enforce the long standing comment policy (see the anti-secular part) and ban at the first offense. Recent comments have detracted greatly from the positive community aspects of this blog that I want to foster. Thanks.

Rahul: One of these days, you should share your email address so I can take you up on your offer.

Rahul, drop me a line at toobizzy4@yahoo.com and I will honor my invitation. Anyhow, getting back to the post, which is really about children's involvement in political issues and not really about Hinduism or India's secularism per se, there is an interesting phenomenon evolving in the diaspora. Religion has become the provider of culture. The Hindu temple has never been the center of social and cultural activities in India. It is strictly meant for religion. In the US, perhaps out of necessity, the temple has evolved as the center of culture. Can politics be far behind? Some food for thought, I hope.

I don't quite understand the hostility among so many Indian Hindus toward Christian missionaries converting those they help. If the conversions are genuine, then what is there to complain about? To quote Jesus, not even the gates of hell will overcome his church, so what hope does hinduhumanrights.org have? If the conversions are false, then why does it even matter? They are not true Christians at heart and will you begrudge the poor taking advantage of the generosity of others?

With regard to the original story, using kids in a form of protest is similar to the LTTE saga that just passed around the world. In Australia, there have been numerous protests in mainly Melbourne, with Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils boiling their anger over on the streets during what was meant to be a "peaceful" protest. Both sides are guilty in my opinion. Nonetheless, while supporting extreme views and airing them in public in a country which is not even involved (In this case, America) is disgusting; and using children as protesters is REALLY despicable. These kids don't know what they're supporting or why they're supporting it. Yet, they are the ones who get brainwashed by ideas that aren't their own. If they grow up to believe it on their own accord is upto them but the parents who subject them to these personal protests at such an early age, should take a good look at themselves. It should be made illegal. Just my two cents.

Abhi:

Many of you are entitled to your views but are no longer welcome on any of my threads. I will strictly enforce the long standing comment policy (see the anti-secular part) and ban at the first offense.

This would actually reflect negatively upon you. I understand and respect why you might not agree with everyone who comments here, but banning people whom you disagree with is merely a recipe that ensures polarization and hampers dialogue. It's your blog, but do think of what your actions mean before banning.

Then again, the dialogue here on this thread has been largely been "ZOMG! Hindutva-vadis are evil!", and "Yeah? Well, your momma's a pseudo-secularist!", interspersed with "Won't anybody think of the kids?". It's like scripted theater from pre-2004 CNN Crossfire and we don't have a Jon Stewart to tell us off. No amount of serious dialogue (or inane humor from me) can help that situation.

I will strictly enforce the long standing comment policy (see the anti-secular part) and ban at the first offense

How else do you expect people to comment on an anti-anti-secular blog post? Perhaps the anti-secular part needs some definition?

With regard to the original story, using kids in a form of protest is similar to the LTTE saga that just passed around the world. In Australia, there have been numerous protests in mainly Melbourne, with Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils boiling their anger over on the streets during what was meant to be a "peaceful" protest. Both sides are guilty in my opinion. Nonetheless, while supporting extreme views and airing them in public in a country which is not even involved (In this case, America) is disgusting; and using children as protesters is REALLY despicable. These kids don't know what they're supporting or why they're supporting it. Yet, they are the ones who get brainwashed by ideas that aren't their own. If they grow up to believe it on their own accord is upto them but the parents who subject them to these personal protests at such an early age, should take a good look at themselves. It should be made illegal. Just my two cents

Although I don't quite agree children being part of any protest, but the effect of one day's procession (or even once a year's protest) is nothing compared to the brainwashing that goes on most of the madrasas on a daily basis, and in the sunday schools in a weekly basis. Religious organizations (of ANY religion) should stop brainwashing their kids for power and political gains.

But then again, would we be annoyed be Rwandan children of the expat march to denounce the genocide, or if Palestinian kids protest against the loss of their homeland, or would Jewish kids stop celebrating many of the rituals that commemorate many of the pre-nazi era suffering of the Jewish people for centuries? So, why can't these kids protest loss of their homeland ?

However, without the context (that this was to highlight plight of Kasmiri Hindus), this poster just doesn't feel right at all. My 2 cents too...

Perhaps the anti-secular part needs some definition?

See comment 137 as an example of what violates the comment policy

Abhi, just curious: What trajectory did you want/hope this thread would take when you posted ?

This would actually reflect negatively upon you. I understand and respect why you might not agree with everyone who comments here, but banning people whom you disagree with is merely a recipe that ensures polarization and hampers dialogue. It's your blog, but do think of what your actions mean before banning.

No, what hampers dialog is having to refute every bullshit statement made by a few individuals who bully others and dominate threads (or repeatedly convert some unrelated topic into and Indian Jingosim topic). I rarely ban anyone and if you look at my threads over the years you will see lots of opposing viewpoints. However, the very identity of SM, as judged by some of these threads has changed. I feel I have not been aggressive enough in enforcing our comment policy because I just don't have enough time. I think some of the others feel the same way. For better or worse what the commenters on our site say reflect on us as bloggers. I am therefore going to make an active effort to simply enforce the comment policy. I will not be arbitrary but you should notice the difference.

So, you define away everybody who doesn't conform to your view of Hinduism, be it the Arya Samaj (yes, I am aware it was a reform movement), or the Ramakrishna Mutt, and ignore the myriad other schools which recite Hindu prayers, and teach Hindu mythology as a part of "moral instruction" so you can focus on perceived injustices.

Rahul, chill mere bhai, I am not classifying Arya Samaj or Ramakrishna Mission as Hindu or otherwise. This is a classification that Arya Samaj adopted and has successfully maintained for itself for quite some time. Reciting prayers and teaching the Hindu epics doesn't make it a Hindu school. Only if it is allowed to combine the so called secular education and religious goals under one roof and remain a non-profit institution does it become a Hindu equivalent of Loyola or Crescent Engg. As the law stands now that is not permitted. The Ramayana and Mahabharata are of course great works and should be required reading in all schools in India. An Indian education is incomplete without them. "Moral Instruction" isn't a mandated course either in the curriiculum prescribed by the CBSE or the many state boards of education in India. It is minority institutions that have the leeway to organize special classes on this subject. Both in the first school I went to (a state board Catholic school) and Loyola College I had to take one such class. In the Catholic school, Christians took catechism, while we heathens took "Moral Science" which was simply summarised set of lessons with God standing in for Jesus. In Loyola we heathens took a course in Ethics, Catholics took Catholic Studies and Protestants took Christian Theology. In our Ethics class we had a cassocked holy roller (about the only one I encountered in Loyola) who spent quite a bit of time telling us that most of what we did was bad. In schools run by the Chinmaya Mission - that admit children of all faiths - there are after school classes available for any student who is interested. The Ramakrishna Mission too does something like that although a great many of the schools it runs cater to the very very needy.
In Madras some of the best schools are run by Hindus Padma Seshadri, State Bank Officers Assoc. High School, Vidya Mandir, KFI, and even Hindu Higher Secondary etc are run by Hindus but have nothing to do with Hindu tradition instruction. Sishya - a very preppy school - run by the KIT Thomas Trust is run by Christians but is non-parochial to the extreme with many Christians preferring to send their children to St.John's rather than the very "modern" and "fast" school.

Now since you have no idea of what I ideas I have about Hinduism you should be careful before you talk about my "views". AS I said before, chill bhai, chill.

The finances of the state of Jammu & Kashmir are almost entirely underwritten by the Union government. Not to mention the ostensible security, with the army running roughshod encountering, killing, raping, and pillaging Muslim civilians.

J&K of course needs all the security it can have. The Valley is full of murderous thugs who butchered the Kashmiri Pandits and remain determined to cleanse the Valley of any trace of Hinduism. Further Pakistan infiltrates terrorists at will who have a large community of sympathisers in the Valley. So the security is justified. As for that bit about running roughshod etc., that's just a loser's refrain. The terrorists years ago underestimated India's resolve. They have been paying the price ever since. As for the rest of the whine it is the usual lies. Nothing new there. Read Praveen Swami to sort out your notions.

blog != post. If you take me at my original meaning, perhaps this thread, among many others, will clarify to you exactly how accurate my lazy equivocation was. Spriiingtiime...for Mooodi...in Guu-uuj-raaaat..

Doc Anon in action, smear away! We have heard this before. And that is very interesting. The Malaysian government dubbed the HindRAF an LTTE plant. Doc Anon goes one step further and simply conflates anything Hindu with Gujarat. And that means Doc Anon just ran out fuel, juice, I mean gas! You should raise the level of your game, I am sure you can do better. And it is interesting, I guess when you have spent a lifetime finding a justification for your apologia, you start projecting. Like that one guy in the troop who insists everyone else is marching out of step.

@ Wanderer: "Why does secularism imply Anti Hindu? I would say names like Hindustan implies anti secularism"

i have said this before and i say this again. The name "Hindustan" was coined by Persians. the suffix "-stan" meaning "land" and the term "Hindu" to them meant "Those who lived around and beyond the INDUS river." Today we refer to these people as "Indians", "Desis", "South Asians" whichever you prefer. It has nothing to do with religion. The religion that you are referring to is called Sanathana Dharma. ALSO the constitution of India does not recognize the name "Hindustan" as an official name of the country most probably because people like you would have a problem with it. The name "Bharat" however is recognized by the indian govt.

Good Day to you sir/ m'aam.

Abhi, just curious: What trajectory did you want/hope this thread would take when you posted ?

I wanted and expected a vigorous debate with views from both sides (and I knew both sides would be passionate). There is a difference between vigorous debate and thinly-veiled bigotry however. The same people keep crossing that line despite a hundred past warnings.

jyotsana chill. I have no problem with you expressing your views but stop being uncivilized in how you address other commenters when you do so. There is no need to be rude.

Abhi: However, the very identity of SM, as judged by some of these threads has changed

Yes, it has, and I will tell you why in a private e-mail. Many of us have been SM's ardent fans and supporters for years. So it is sad to see it change. But I will tell you the one thing you can do turn it around, and why none of you ever do it is beyond me. No, it has nothing to do with banning people whose only fault is that they are wrong, iconoclastic, stupid, contrarian, prescient - take your pick.

Rahul, chill mere bhai

Still looking at the mirror while you type, I see? :)

"Moral Instruction" isn't a mandated course either in the curriiculum prescribed by the CBSE or the many state boards of education in India.

In Madras some of the best schools are run by Hindus Padma Seshadri, State Bank Officers Assoc. High School, Vidya Mandir, KFI, and even Hindu Higher Secondary etc are run by Hindus but have nothing to do with Hindu tradition instruction.

hahaha. This would have been a killer comment, if I didn't actually know about these schools and what they teach, by virtue of family and friends. Are you telling me they do not have Hindu prayers, or do not teach Hindu mythology as part of their moral instruction/moral science routine? Are you claiming they do not have regular class hours for moral instruction, both in CBSE and assorted state boards? You choose to actively ignore the practices that shape laws, and instead focus purely on perceived injuries to your spectacularly sensitive skin so as to further your grievances. The idea that children in a large majority of schools do not get schooled in Hindu legends, myths or ideas is thoroughly risible.

As for that bit about running roughshod etc., that's just a loser's refrain. The terrorists years ago underestimated India's resolve.

Shorter jyotsana: "I am fine with killing random Muslims in the valley because they are all terrorists."

and I will honor my invitation.

Thanks, Floridian. I hope to meet you someday, hopefully soon.

In my view the kind of "anti-secular" that is a problem is not people who have questions about the applicability of Nehruvian secularism to the Indian subcontinent, or who wonder whether India in particular has applied its secularism correctly or fairly. Those are fair questions, which have been raised by serious scholars (such as Ashis Nandy, for one).

Rather, the kind of "anti-secularism" that has become a problem is reflected in comments by people who clearly have an animus against people from different backgrounds than their own. It's people who seem fundamentally prejudiced in favor of their own community, be that community Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, or Christian -- and predictably express that prejudice in comment after comment, sucking up all the available oxygen. Is there any one way to say who that is? No, we have to call it as best we can. Are we going to ban everyone we disagree with? Again, no.

Shorter jyotsana: "I am fine with killing random Muslims in the valley because they are all terrorists."

Quit it Rahul. You can't expect her to be civil if you aren't.

Quit it Rahul. You can't expect her to be civil if you aren't.

Sorry about that. (BTW, jyotsana is a "he".)

Let me rephrase: Why do you dismiss willy-nilly the rampant violation of civil liberties of innocent Muslims in the valley by agents of the Indian government, by saying they are all murderous thugs and terrorists?

Rahul:

Indiscriminate and brutal repression has been the only way throughout history that the state has resisted a guerrilla movement. What else has worked? Quote me some examples.

Out of curiosity, what is the flag they're showing in the parade - the one with the sun and red rays against a yellow background? i saw this in this vid as well with the gent who has a paddleboat powered by cycling.

Indiscriminate and brutal repression has been the only way throughout history that the state has resisted a guerrilla movement. What else has worked?

And, similarly, inflicting of terror upon civilians and affecting facts on the ground has been how guerillas have made an impact to their advantage in many areas (IRA is a prominent example, as are several independence movements, for example in Africa). You are making an argument from expedience, which I acknowledge, but then you must acknowledge the same for every side in this fight.

Further, will you excuse the natural reaction of hate and antagonism towards the state for perpetrating indiscriminate brutality on a particular demographic? Or do you expect them to grin and bear it because

Once it has got to that point, the best choice is to migrate out of the conflict zone, if that choice is open to you.

@ Abhi - Hope my post was not seen as inflammatory in nature. Those were just my perspectives, and this thread has clearly overrun its welcome. I will go back to making inane jokes and making comments on economics.

@ #120 (Dr. Amonymous) - There are many great books on Kashmir, however if I understand you right, the books you might enjoy are "Bonfire of Kashmiriyat" by Bamzai and "My frozen turbulence in Kashmir". Another excellent work of fiction that has Kashmir issue in its background is "Shalimar the clown" by Rushdie. If someone knows interesting book that deal with current day politics, please post here.

Thanks!