Re: [IAC#RG] URGENT: Important group notice

Dear Mr. Sarbarjit Roy,

As usual in your discussion, you catch the only point that you are aware of. let us try shariat court? or polygamy practice? or Owasi speech?  I understand that you are just providing me your knowledge (and I am grateful for the same), maybe these may be flaws but I never have understood the meanings and incidences associated with the points as below:-

a) To ensure equality among all Indians when dealing with the State, or when the State deals with them

Polygamy is allowed for secular group? (Banned in our cooperative countries)

Have separate courts?

Have different laws for divorce?  (Banned in our cooperative countries)

Not wanting to attend modern school.

No population control operation.(Banned in our cooperative countries)

b) To ensure that no religion is favoured or targeted or victimized or interfered etc by the State.

From my limited experience, state has being certainly following this stance vice versa for hindus, it always interferes with hindu religion. For secular class, well they can destroy Jay jawan smarak, molest police women and what not in mumbai for something happened in the distant land, stone pelt on our army personnel, and of course, then state has to "victimize" them. They are really a victim and our politicians and social members mumble uselessly on secularism.

I am against all religions, face what the truth is, let us be equal, let us lower the paper work in our constitution and legal framework, maybe the scenario will change.

Regards,

Hemant K

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Hemant

Please read Mr Zaidi's proposition holistically instead of taking a single word out of context.

The thrust of the proposition, as I understand it,  is that everyone should avoid using terms like a) pseudo-secularist b) pseudo-nationalist, c) secularist d) nationalist etc.

Not even 1 of these terms can be precisely defined.

In so far as "secularism" is concerned it essentially means "separation of Religious bodies and persons from State bodies and persons". This separation serves a dual purpose:-

a) To ensure equality among all Indians when dealing with the State, or when the State deals with them

b) To ensure that no religion is favoured or targeted or victimised or interfered etc by the State.

Your understanding of secularism is therefore flawed at many levels.

Another point in your email is about minorities not standing up when the national anthem, is played. Once again you have not understood the proposition correctly - it is not limited to minorities.  As I am an expert in this I shall explain it for you:-

India has a flag code - a set of circulars issued under National Emblems Act etc, by the MHA from time to time. As we all know, the "Jana Gana Mana" contains the phrase "Bharat Bhagya Bhidhata" translated as "Dispenser of India's Destiny".

When this hymn was composed in 1906-7 (not 1911 as misreported) it was a minor hymnal of the Adi Brahmo Samaj (of which I am incidentally now also the 'chief pracharak')  describing in detail the glory of India to arouse the national spirit of Brahmos everywhere.

As the Adi Brahmo Samaj, is and has always been, a movement of highest caste Hindus, the poem was in a Sanskrit metre and the music was set to notation the same year by Pratibha Debi Tagore and her younger sister Monisha Debi Tagore who had both also studied Western music in London and Paris.

Let me state in my official capacity that the phrase "Bharat Bhagya Bhidhata" exclusively  refers to "the Eternal Unsearchable and Immutable Being who is the Author and Preserver of the Universe" as defined in 1830 in the Trust Deed of the Adi Brahmo Samaj which is a very famous legal document of India.

The Deed further states that this term only refers to the aforesaid Eternal Being "but not under or by any other name designation or title peculiarly used for and applied, to any particular being or beings by any man or set of men whatsoever." So it is very clear that Bharata Bhagya Bhidhata does not refer to any King, Queen, Emperor, Empress, President, Governor, George etc etc. 

So, I choose to stand, or not stand, when the national anthem is played or sung publicly. My rule is clear, if it is compulsorily played when the President or Governor is present, I sit - because I do not recognise him/her as my God. If it is played on national occasions (military, parade, sports etc),  I stand at attention when it is played and join in the singing lustily if it is sung. I advise everyone else to also adopt the same rule.

Sp please don't talk about minorities not standing for national anthem - I, as religious leader of the faith for which the song was written and which wrote it - do not stand unless if it is played where the President of India also stands in broad daylight and in the open and with the President bareheaded.

When Madame President Ms. Pratibha Devi (whose name is also synonymous with that of the late musical author of the national anthem) once violated these covenants, I complained formally as the leader of Brahmo Samaj / Adi Dharm to the MHA who issued an OM on the subject to the I&B Ministry.

There is a similar history for the 'Bande Mataram' also, which we can discuss later.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Mr. Hemant Kshirsagar <hemantkshirsagar01@gmail.com> wrote:

Please Mr. Shama Zaidi, can you please mention meaning of the word "secular" in context with your statement below. I am not against any caste or subcaste, but many people term secular as minority groups (read muslims). In India, secular generally means the people who have much more privileged than any other community. But true meaning of secular means person who sees everyone in same level. But forgive me, it is imperative that minority people want different laws as citizen of india, they do not want to stand up for the national anthem, legally allowed for polygamy, (which other islamist countries have banned), dredge their women in black gowns, they want shariat law not indian justice system.

Main question "Does secularism means to allow different levels of rights and levels of inequality in society?" "Is it wrong to have people be equal in front of law atleast?"

Such differences in the attitude adopted by the minority communities, to seek out benefits from our corrupted government leads out only more poor people in these sects. With Divide and Rule adopted by Congress party gives impetus for such demands from minority communities to foster.

I wish to highlight plight of the hindus in Bangladesh or Pakistan. They are not even allowed to practice their religion or earn their daily bread, let aside being treated at par with the their other "majority" people. 

The "secular" people in india openly support such actions of their counter parts, with actions like marrying their daughters to bangladeshis and pakistanis. They line up for the person who attack parliament, for stone pelter who dies in attacking our RR army personnel,  (only becoz he want benefits of India and Flag of Pakistan). Even after doing this all, they call themselves "secular".

Now the time has came, when term "secular" or "secularism" has to be defined again. Hindus have been the most secular community, though people on this mail List will come forward with incidences supporting points against it.

Regards,

Hemant K

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Shama Zaidi <shamazaidi@gmail.com> wrote:

pseudo-secularists is as bad as calling hindu-nationalists as [seudo-nationalists. anyone who thinks in sectional terms whether minority or majority is a pseudo-nationalists whether secular or hinduvadi.

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in