Democracy Secularism And Majority
Majority by definition means that major section of population 'believes' in a certain idea or concept. It has no relation with religion as such. The sole basis of democracy is that '
the majority view shall prevail'. Secularism stands on the basis that administration will have no relation with any faith or religion. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that because India has majority of Hindu (Sanatan) population and that's why it is still a secular country. Secularism by no means means non-religiousness, it simply demands that it is okay for person to have a faith or no faith but he/she cannot force anyone to change or leave his/her faith.
I have three questions for readers to think
- Has Majority ever been recognized and given due respect in India?
- Did any democratically elected government take a majoritarian decision freely in India?
- Has India ever been truly a secular country?
I am a Hindu and I am absolutely not ashamed of it. Does that mean I stand against Muslims or any other religious people? Of course not. But, we have been fed this ideology for a long time that, identifying oneself as a Hindu is communal. So you can be publicly a Muslim or Christian or even Atheist and you are secular and the moment one says I am a Hindu you become communal? By which definition of Secularism this is true? Unfortunately the socialist and leftist ideologies since the times of Nehru have created this false perception. The mainstream media which always leaned towards left of center flamed this view all the time. For a long time Hindus are told that we should be ashamed of our religion, faith and culture. Always criticize your culture to prove you are progressive. In my view this is absolutely nonsense. We must denounce any culture that does not follow norms of humanity (like
Sati Pratha) and we must hold on to the culture which takes a closer to humanity. For long time
majority has tolerated this propaganda and for last 65 years there was no one who openly said 'Majority Matters!'
After many decades Majority of India has found people who are not afraid to uphold the basic of Democracy that 'Majority Matters' ! For a long time majority of India was waiting for leaders who are not ashamed of his roots and his culture.
Why do we give importance to majority in a democracy? Because, democracy is a better way to find people's consensus on many issues. We choose a majoritarian government so that they can make choices and take decisions which majority of population has consensus on. But have we ever witnessed that happening in India? No! Minority appeasement and vote bank politics is not new to us. We all have lived and grew with it. But, can it be acceptable? India got freedom in 1947 but till today we do not have 'one person one law'. Why? because India's elected governments avoided to do it because they did not want to hurt particular group of people. For long time India also needed leaders and government to take decisions which majority have given them mandate for.
Elected governments in India for a long time have avoided taking decisions in favor of majority. We must not forget that majority has given their mandate to elected government to take decisions which the majority has formed consensus on.
We Indians take a lot of pride in calling India as a secular country. But are we truly secular? The moment someone says I am a Hindu we paint him/her communal. Lutyen's media thinks that it has monopoly over the narrative of the country. For a long time they were busy making an Anti-Hindu propaganda calling Hindus regressive. Of course there are bad people and bad customs but does that make all Hindus bad or regressive? Can we call India secular when there are personal law boards and personal laws based on religions? Can there be secularism when rituals and festivals are banned only if they are followed by one particular community? Is there a secular country where media asks caste and religion of the victim before reporting the incident? When we look at selected targeting of people in West Bengal and Kerala and none of the media reports about it, can we say we are secular?
Secularism by no means demands that one cannot follow any faith. It simply means that administration and governance must be separated from religion and faith. India can never be secular until there are Personal Laws and Personal Law Boards.
For a couple of years I can see that Bjp is getting aggressive. The policy of Bjp has changed drastically since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister. Please read my article on this
subject. Also, for long time majority of the country especially Hindus were taken for granted and were told not to utter a word otherwise they will hurt minority's sentiments or will be called fascists or communal. But, what our mainstream media failed to understand that people can now see through their agenda thanks to Social Media. There is a reason why Narendra Modi communicates with people to social media and people like it.
The Indian Politics is changing.
I will just present the current situation and perception created by leftists, mainstream media and self proclaimed intellectuals. The JNU students who call for Azadi and Breaking of India are basically practicing Freedom of Expression and We who say not matter what nobody can be allowed to think or work for breaking our great nation are fascists or communal.
Why Can't A Yogi?
Yogi Adityanath[/caption]
Yesterday on 18th March 2017,
Yogi Adityanath was declared as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and it seemed like all hell broke loose. Many of the usual suspects are either mongering fear or crying out laud for the secularism. Many are saying RIP to secularism. I must confess that I personally was very surprised to see Yogi Adityanath to be declared as a CM. May be he will prove to be a good or a bad CM. This is something the time will tell us. The propaganda by which I was distressed was the propaganda all the usual suspects are following to tell that minorities in Uttar Pradesh will now have to live in fear. This is the most bogus theory I have heard so far.
In 2014 the same people were saying that if Modi gets elected as Prime Minister of India, Muslims will have to live in fear, there will will riots all around, minorities will be oppressed etc. Many of the mainstream media stars invented terms like Intolerance, Ghar Wapsi, Award Wapsi, Saffronization etc. Fortunately by the arrival of Narendra Modi on the horizon all these false media stars are exposed and nobody listens to them. Simply they have lost their credibility. It was bound to happen because one can build a narrative on untruth and falsehood but that narrative can never withstand the scrutiny of logic and truth. If one did not see that people of Uttar Pradesh for along time were governed by leaders who never envisioned anything beyond religion and castes. Now, with Modi in the center they saw an opportunity to break away from caste and religion based politics. Political Pundits are still struggling to accept their defeat.
Similar kind of hysteria can be seen the moment Yogi Adityanath was selected as CM. My Twitter and Facebook pages are flooded with all sorts of allegations and taunts. Many have expressed their feelings to leave the country (just like many US citizens promised to leave the country if Trump became President). I am sure they will not leave our country India just like those hypocrites in USA. The simple reason is that their hypocritical and twisted narrative is rejected by majority and they want to project themselves as victims constantly. It serves their purpose to portray themselves as victims to proves that India has become intolerant.
It's not about tolerance or intolerance it is about us the common people of India who now openly reject these hypocrites.
It is so funny to see that the same media which did not want Bjp to win in UP is now advising Modi not to appoint a communal person as CM of the state, where Modi was communal a couple of years ago in their view. The same people failed to predict Bjp's win are now preaching people of UP whom they should choose as CM. Many are saying that Yogi Adityanath did contest state level elections. My answer is that The days when India was secular under UPA government, we had a Prime Minister who was never elected by people directly and here is a CM candidate who is five times member of Lok Sabha the lower house which consists of representatives directly elected by people. We cannot undermine democracy if we don't like the candidate and this is exactly what media and other self proclaimed secular liberals are doing.
I am not a supporter of Yogi Adityanath nor I am writing to defend Narendra Modi. I just want to make a point that in a democracy we must respect the mandate and judge anyone on their performance. I don't know whether Yogi Adityanath will prove to be a good administrator or not but according to our constitution if any citizen can hold a constitutional position in the government Why Can't a Yogi?
Disclaimer: These are personal views and opinions I own them completely. My views and opinions must not related to my employer, Autodesk in any case.
Comments
Post a Comment