[ephemeralkey]

> Secularism in modern India is a synonym for Hinduphobia ...

  1. Secularism is a constitutional principle enshrined in fundamental rights in the Indian constitution. The fundamental *Right to Equality* in the Indian constitution already implies this. Although, the word *secular* was added explicitly to the constitution through the 42nd Amendment (in 1976), it has been implictly read in through various Supreme Court rulings. The dishonest equivalence of secularism with Hinduphobia is by those who want to attack the Right to Equality.

  2. The comment mentions polygamy permitted under Muslim personal law. Marriages in India are governed by personal laws. There was a time when inter-religion/inter-caste marriages were illegal. Polygamy among Hindus was legal until 1956 when the Hindu Marriage Act (a personal law) was amended to outlaw polygamy. There is a landmark case currently underway on the equality of marriage sought by LGBTQ+ individuals to bring same-sex marriage the same legal protections as marriage between a man and a woman. This is an evolving legal area. The courts are quite conscious of the fact that not everyone, including Hindus want personal laws to be overturned (as it also impacts succession, property rights etc.,). There will be broad based support for overturning some anachronistic personal laws due to intersectionality (eg: Hindu gay men wanting to marry or Muslim women wanting triple-Talaq (divorce) law overtuned). 

> It is only in "secular" India that organized religious conversions were allowed (emphasis added) ...

  3. It is right there in the constitution. Article 25 (1) states that: *Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion*

  4. The word *propagate religion* includes religious conversions. So, proselytizing is covered by the constituion. The law also says *forcible conversions* are illegal since it infringes on right to freely practice one's religion. Of course, the fascists will equate all proselytizing with forcible conversions.

[ta_vf7xjd34cc]

> Secularism is a constitutional principle

The constitution can say whatever it wants. The only thing that matters is what actually happens on the ground. Successive governments have adopted Hinduphobic positions and laws while claiming to be secular. Why are only Hindu temples under the control of various state governments? Why don't governments take similar control of cathedrals, churches and mosques?

There is example after example proving my position. All you have is some words in a document that are belied by the actions of those meant to observe it.

> Right to Equality

Religious minorities can run their own schools where they can teach their children their way of life? Can Hindus do this qua Hindus? Again, words in a document that contradict other words in the same document.

> Hindu Marriage Act (a personal law) was amended to outlaw polygamy

Why were Muslims not given the same benefits or punished in the same manner (whichever way you want to look at it)? How can you be secular and equal if two men or two women are treated differently before the law for the exact same action? This is a joke masquerading as justice.

> Of course, the fascists will equate all proselytizing with forcible conversions.

You can believe that Christianity is so superior to local religious practices that an entire state almost completely adopted the religion voluntarily in 3-4 generations. Given the history of Christian missionaries in India, South America and other parts of the world and the tactics they adopted, this is a simplistic argument/position.

There is literature available from Missionaries, in their own words, as to their opinions about Indian religious traditions and the people practicing them. Arun Shourie has written a couple of books on the subject.[1][2]

An individual here or there converting to a different faith is one thing. When religions conversions are used to shift demography, this has national security implications. Separatist movements grew in Kashmir and Nagaland. The partition of India was done on Muslim vs. non-Muslim lines where Muslim-majority provinces became Pakistan. Onlygodists will always be in conflict with Manygodists because their worldviews are fundamentally different.

Organized conversions must be banned. If the constitution has to be amended to do it, so be it.

[1] Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas

[2] Harvesting Our Souls: Missionaries, Their Design, Their Claims

[ephemeralkey]

> Why are only Hindu temples under the control of various state governments?

That is because historically, a lot of the land (farm and non-farm) came under the Hindu temples when the temples were under the administration of kings. The British East India Company took over the administration which then transferred to the provinces (prior to independence) and then the states post-independence. Different states then passed laws. For eg: See https://hrce.tn.gov.in/hrcehome/hrce_about.php for Tamilnadu state's Hindu religious and charitable endowments department.

> Religious minorities can run their own schools where they can teach their children their way of life? Can Hindus do this qua Hindus?

Ofcourse they do. I studied in a school ran by a Hindu trust and we had students from all religions. There was morning devotional prayers (Hindu hymns), friday bhajans (singing religious hymns) etc., and everyone attended. Stop spreading this hate about us vs them.

> When religions conversions are used to shift demography, this has national security implications

Ah, the national security bogeyman! Why don't you try shifting the demography of the armed forces to address that? I think men and women in defence forces from all religious backgrounds would have something to say about that.

[ta_vf7xjd34cc]

> Different states then passed laws.

A "secular" state will treat all places of prayer and worship the same. If it controls only Hindu temples but not churches and mosques, it is not "secular."

> Ofcourse they do.

The constitution and the RTE act treat minority and non-minority institutions differently. Everything from the funding structure, to what can be taught, to how the teachers are appointed, to whether religious education can be imparted differs. Hindu institutions can do certain things but under restrictions that are not applicable to minorities. Again, this second-class treatment is considered to be "secular."

> Stop spreading this hate about us vs them.

I am not the Onlygodist here. It is Onlygodism that creates us vs them.

> national security bogeyman

So the insurgency in Kashmir and Nagaland does not have religious characteristics and is purely secular in nature? The partition of India was done on a purely secular basis?

[ffgjgf1]

> Hindu institutions can do certain things but under restrictions that are not applicable to minorities. Again, this second-class treatment is considered to be "secular.

An argument can be made than Hindu institutions are already dominant and without certain laws curtailing what they can do/giving special privileges to minorities balances this out to some degree.

And analogy with company law/regulation could be made. Different rules generally apply to monopolies and corporations controlling majority of their respective markets than to smaller companies to prevent them from abusing their position.

[ta_vf7xjd34cc]

> special privileges to minorities

Is not secularism.

I would be happy if the constitution openly stated that Hindus must remain second-class citizens in the eyes of the law and that minorities will be first-class citizens. This is hardly any different from zimmi/dhimmi status accorded to non-Muslims under Islamic rule.

> Hindu institutions are already dominant

If you apply this logic at state or district levels, the so-called minorities are in a majority in many districts and states. It then follows that churches in Nagaland and mosques in Kashmir should be under state control and Hindus should be accorded minority status in those states.

> analogy with company law/regulation

Companies do not exist freely in nature. They are a creation of the State and exist at the pleasure of the State. One cannot treat individuals like that and then talk about equality and secularism.

[raincom]

What kind of nonsense is that? Just because Christians are dominant in the West, does it mean that their secular govts should control Christian institutions in their countries?

[ffgjgf1]

I assumed state control of Hindu institutions actually gives them advantages over other sects? (like state funding etc.)

> does it mean that their secular govts should control Christian institutions in their countries?

Well… that was the main reason why the reformation happened and that was the case in many countries for a long time. Clearly it gave these state run churches a massive advantage over other denominations (of course European countries have moved away from this in last 100-200 years).

I thought it worked similarly in India as well (i.e. your argument is that India is not truly secular because the state is still supporting Hindu institutions more than Christian/Muslim ones?) Of course I don’t really know anything about organizational structure of Hinduism? I assume it’s extremely decentralized compared to most Christian churches, which would mean ensuring funding without government support would be more complicated?