Virus of secularism was injected by Indira Gandhi of Congress via the 42nd constitutional amendment in the year 1976, when entire opposition was incarcerated under Internal Emergency imposed by her in june 1975.
This virus was introduced in the preamble of the constitution of India. Prior to 1976 need for inducting this word was not felt. A country where all world religions coexist, 8 prominent religions are head quartered, the land that has provided refugee to all persecuted regardless of their religion, not a single incident of any caveat or condition imposed on refuge seeker through its entire History.
Founding fathers did not deem it fit to include this word “Secularism” at drafting stage, why? Were they short sighted or unaware of India’s history , track record or simple refused to accept thr plural composition of India?
We must also enquire and define what is Secularism? Here I take assistance of wiki this is what is recorded
Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries
“Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the statefrom religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.[Notes 2]
Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius; fromEnlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and from more recent freethinkers and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell.
The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known assecularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.[ Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons. The term “secularism” was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. Although the term was new, the general notions of freethought on which it was based had existed throughout history.
Holyoake invented the term “secularism” to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. Anagnostic himself, Holyoake argued that “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.”
Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, “the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience.” However, in the view of soft secularism, “the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion.”
In other words when we hear a person claiming to be secular deserves to be laughed at since only a foolish person can make such claims.
Lets look at what Secularism has achieved in India, has it proved to be that precious glue which bonded the society better or has it created indelible fissure which today threaten the very existence of the Nation.
I will leave it to the readers to reach their own conclusion, instead of foisting my opinion as the gospel and only truth.
Congress introduced secularism for political purposes. The pie size remained unchanged, number of political parties increased, in order to retain its pole position this was a ploy employed by Indira Gandhi in 1976, Rest as they say is History.
Without going into the endless list of crimes committed over the years in the name of secularism.
I just post this Image, which was posted on twitter.
Photo speaks what a million words cant describe.
Do we need to ask the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh? Logic employed for differing compensation amounts. Is It “ Secularism” of the highest pedigree?