[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?