Like the fact, that apart from Hinduism, there is no no non abrahamtic religion in India (ignoring Buddhism) and 1200 years do not count as long enough and the fact that you despise secularism as colonism, yet claim we in europe have mainly religious states, like you also want in india?
I have to say, yes, I also do find that extremist.
[..]The Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 continues to be the law of land of modern India for Indian Muslims, while parliament-based, non-religious uniform civil code passed in mid-1950s applies to Indians who are Hindus (which includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsees), as well as to Indian Christians and Jews.[..]
Is this a secularism?
All I am saying is that if Muslims are allowed to practice their religious laws, Hindus should also be allowed to hold their religious law as Personal law.
The state cannot discriminate between two faiths and call itself secular.
I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus, Saying Hindus should have the same freedom and rights is causing me to face accusations of ‘extremism’.
Not a Hindu at all, but to me the idea that an ethnicity should be able to draw lines around itself to defend itself seems self-evident. Self-determinism and all that. And I that is a place where we can come together--come together to agree to follow separate paths and stop trying to force everyone into a generic govt that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
"Does me as a Hindu having an opinion about my faith offend you and strike you as extremist?"
No. I believe, you may believe whatever you want.
But I also believe, that when you define India as a Hindu Nation only, you do exclude all the other faiths and non faiths. That is my definition of extremism. In this case, going in the direction of a theocracy.
"I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus"
Because when you want India defined as a Hindu state, like you stated elsewhere many times, you do not want equal terms for all religions, you want a privileged position for Hinduism, integrated into the state.
I do understand, that you want to live in a Hindu state - the laws shaped by your believe. But why must it be as big as whole India? Because many Indians do not believe in Hinduism - and they will eventually fight, if they have to submit to laws, they do not agree with.
Can't there be a compromise, where the big state is somewhat neutral, but some local state/districts are more Hindu and some others maybe more Muslim or whatever?
I think this would be more peaceful for everyone. Live and let live.
Otherwise a big percentage of the population will never really identify with the Nation. And not fight for it, but against.
You see some of the results in this thread here.
edit:
This thread started with:
"Hinduism is no doubt a important part of india, but maybe not the only one?"
to which you replied with:
"India is Hindu."
Which seems at odds with freedom and equality for all religions.
Hindus might like a nation of their own when they are a billion in strength and India was where Hinduism was born and grew.
Hindus are a majority in India. 80% are Hindus and 94% of the world’s Hindus reside in India.
There is thousands of years of history of Hinduism in India. It was the colonial Brits who created a ‘secular’ India after they orchestrated the partitions of Pakistan and Bangladesh (as Muslim countries).
As a democracy, the nation has the right to choose a Hindu Nation/Rashtra over secularism. This is true for every nation in the world. As the only non abrahamic polytheist nation in the world, there seems to be some unfair expectations of India and what Indians want. Why?
The Abrahamic nations have split the whole rest of the world amongst them. Hindus have only one nation. Why can’t their have their spiritual land as a Hindu nation if it’s democratically desired and achieved?
It is the spiritual land for over a billion Hindus(whose rights and places of worship are being trampled upon in the name of secularism while other religions are not required to follow the law of the land)
Israel is a Jewish nation. There are many Christian and Muslim nations. Why wouldn’t Hindus want a country where they have civilizational roots to be a Hindu Nation?
Are all the countries of the world ‘secular’? Why do we expect India to be constitutionally secular? There are only 5 countries that have secular baked into their constitution, India, USA, France(Laïcité), Australia and Japan.
India is only secular by name. Currently, there is the nation’s law and then there is the Shariat Law for Muslims.
These laws especially impact women as it relates to marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession etc. the Christian and Hindu Personal Law are not at odds with the constitutional law.
To this end, BJP, the current ruling party wants a Uniform Civil Code where the law applies equally for every citizen.
It would nullify Shariat Law. It is a mockery of the word ‘secular’ when different laws and rights are allotted to different religions. It is against democratic principles. And fundamentally wrong.
India gained its independence only in 1947. It has not even been a hundred years and the country is still grappling with how to do damage control over the mess left behind by the colonial British.
>There is thousands of years of history of Hinduism in India.
And Buddhism, and Jainism. Sikhism too. You could learn a little about how was the treatment of Jains in the past.
>India is only secular by name. Currently, there is the nation’s law and then there is the Shariat Law for Muslims.
Personal law is not at odds with the secular nature of a state. Secular does not mean all behave the same, rather the state does not grant any unequal rights. The marriage and inheritance laws are still subject to Judicial scrutiny as and when needed. Also it is a poor understanding of India as a whole to throw these at Muslims, because there are different tribes with their own customs as well.
>It is the spiritual land for over a billion Hindus(whose rights and places of worship are being trampled upon in the name of secularism while other religions are not required to follow the law of the land)
The places of worship law does not give any more rights to any specific religion.
>Why wouldn’t Hindus want a country where they have civilizational roots to be a Hindu Nation
Did you forget Nepal?
>Christian and Hindu Personal Law are not at odds with the constitutional law.
On Christian inheritance, please read up on Mary Roy.
On Hindus laws, the Hindu marriage act are applicable to Hindu, but special marriage act also can be chosen for the marriage. There are a lot of customs across sects and tribes, which are not codified. They continue to apply. If Hindu laws were to be applied, then the wife will have to kill herself when husband dies. See Sati practice. Besides Hindu Unified Family is a tax entity which can not be used by other religions to effectively reduce the tax on a family. I see no mention about that when Uniformity and equal treatment is demanded.
>There are only 5 countries that have secular baked into their constitution, India, USA, France(Laïcité), Australia and Japan
The country is plagued with such misinformation and misrepresentation of facts, now deemed as whatsapp university. The above line makes it quite clear that where you get the information from. Could you add Azerbaijan to the list? A majority Muslim country in the caucuses with secular constitution?
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103752/http://www.un-az....