[NoRagrets]

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_personal_law

3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code

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.

Triple Talaq: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_talaq_in_India

Nikah Halala: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_halala

[NoRagrets]

To understand the mess the British left behind, you must know Anglo Hindu (and Anglo Muslim) Law and its development. More of it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Hindu_law

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.

[lukan]

Look, I am not in favor of (british) colonialism and the problems it created. I am also not in favor of what Hungary is doing, the only country in europe(apart from Vatican), that is activly pushing christianity as a state dogma. We europeans mostly left the abrahamtic religions as state religion behind us and most want to get rid, of what is left.

So I am also not happy for Hindu Nationalists pushing for India to implement Hinduism as a state dogma. Because that is the same principle to me: a strong power dictates life for everyone else below them. That always means ignoring the needs of minorities. And the way you consistently leave out all the non Hindu indians in your lectures about Indias great history, indicates that this will be their fate in a Hindu India. Ignored and forgotten and supressed. The same fate you lament for Hinduism. There you care, but you don't care, when it affects others.

[NoRagrets]

Sincere query: Why are you ‘not happy for Hindu Nationalists pushing for India to implement Hinduism as a state dogma’?

It’s not your religion. It doesn’t affect you. India is a democracy. It would involve an election.

Should there be foreign interference in a democratic nation’s elections and how the citizenry want to run their country ?

It’s very strange. Why is everyone bothered about India? Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. There are over 50 countries in the world that are Muslim and follow Muslim law. What are your thoughts on that?

India was invaded and then colonized by outsiders. First with guns and then trade and then by religious conversions. This is history. Many Indians don’t like that.

It has barely been 80 years since India was released from the clutches of 250 years of colonial rule. India has the right to define herself and find her own identity using the chosen democratic process.

I find it very strange that so many non Hindus of the world are so upset about a country of one billion Hindus wanting the remains of their splintered partitioned and battered country to remain Hindu in identity.

One billion Hindus. Thousands of years of civilizational history and people who embraced new abrahamic faith in the past thousand years after giving up their pagan roots want India to give up her roots.. for what? India has resisted the cultural and civilizational and religious assaults and that is only due to lthe tenacity of the unified Hindu identity and faith. It won’t be weakened.

Our ancestors did not fight and resist invasions and assault for us to give up on our civilisational inheritance and Hindus have a duty to honor those sacrifices and generational trauma by keeping Hinduism and Hindu homeland and Hindu identity intact for our future generations.

Many gave up and embraced new faiths. Our ancestors did not. Hindus exist today because our ancestors thought Hindu identity was worth protecting. And we will. For our descendants.

[lukan]

"Why is everyone bothered about India?"

Why do you think "everyone is bothered about India"?

India was the subtopic here, so we are discussing India. And specifically your thoughts about India.

"Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. There are over 50 countries in the world that are Muslim and follow Muslim law. What are your thoughts on that?"

And my answer is pretty much the same. I am not in favor of any authorian nationalistic theocraties/monarchies. But if they are small and not aggressive, then it is not such a big deal, as "people can get away more easily".

Also, India has 1400 million people. Saudi Arabia has 30 million.

So Saudi Arabia is big and because of ther oil quite rich and powerful and yes, due to their system a constant problem and gets attention.

Still, India is waaay bigger. And "we" in "the west" are concerned, whether you will slip more into authorian religious nationalism, or if we share enough values to remain or become stronger partners against other authorian regimes (and yes, yes, "the west" is far from perfect and the freedom wars in iraq etc. is not something I supported, germany, where I am from, did not take part in that btw)

"Hindus exist today because our ancestors thought Hindu identity was worth protecting. And we will. For our descendants."

And you absolutely can. I have no problem with that. I am not anti Hindu. I was often singing Bhajans and will do so again.

But I do have a problem if you would supress other religions and ethnicities who also just want to protect their culture. That is my point. And maybe this is not at all what you want. But it very much sounds like it. At least implicit.

[NoRagrets]

>Why do you think "everyone is bothered about India"? India was the subtopic here, so we are discussing India. And specifically your thoughts about India.[…]

Perhaps you are mistaken. I was speaking about India and Hinduphobia. Everything else is the subtopic.

>And my answer is pretty much the same. I am not in favor of any authorian nationalistic theocraties/monarchies. [..]

But if they are small and not aggressive, then it is not such a big deal, as "people can get away more easily".[..]

How many wars have been fought in the past hundred years and how many in India?

>Still, India is waaay bigger. And "we" in "the west" are concerned, whether you will slip more into authorian religious nationalism, or if we share enough values to remain or become stronger partners against other authorian regimes (and yes, yes, "the west" is far from perfect and the freedom wars in iraq etc. [..]

Ahh.. so you contradict your first comment. Everyone IS bothered about India and you say it’s because of its size?

India has a democratically elected government. Asking that all the religions in a secular nation follow the same Uniform Civil Code is not ‘Religious nationalism’.

>And you absolutely can. I have no problem with that. I am not anti Hindu. I was often singing Bhajans and will do so again.

Why do you sing Bhajans if you are not Hindu. They are in praise of Hindu Gods. Bhajans are an expression of Bhakti and devotion to Hindu Gods. Singing something because of its musicality has nothing to do with how you relate to or understand a religious identity or affiliation.

>But I do have a problem if you would supress other religions and ethnicities who also just want to protect their culture.[..]

That is not possible in a democratic secular nation. India cannot claim to be secular if Muslims have their own personal law and Hindus have their own personal laws. And the courts are expected to treat them differently.

Regardless, none of this affects anyone on an international level as in wars or terrorism. It is India’s internal matter.

>That is my point. And maybe this is not at all what you want. But it very much sounds like it. At least implicit.

I am a Hindu. I am interested in the survival of my faith in its spiritual homeland. Just like Jews, Christians, Muslims and others revere their spiritual spaces.

Hinduism is more inclusive and tolerant than any of the other predominant monotheistic faiths, but a secular democratic nation cannot treat citizens differently based on their faith.

If India is a Hindu country, minorities would still thrive as they did for thousands of years. Indian history is full of unequal treatment of Hindus and Muslims during Mughal rule and British colonization.

Hindus do not want to convert other religionists to Hinduism and only want a Uniform Civil Code to right the wrongs of the British meddling in our legal system through fair democratic elections.

To call this ‘extremism’ or ‘religious nationalism’ is somewhat disingenuous and untrue. Muslims enjoy far more religious freedoms and are considered equal citizens in India than Hindus in Islamic countries.

All of this can be fact checked through reputable sources and I leave it to you do your own research.

I think we have to come to the end of our conversation. I don’t believe I have anything more to share with you. Thanks for engaging in this discussion. Take care.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Somnath

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vijayanagar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

[lukan]

"Why do you sing Bhajans if you are not Hindu."

"I think we have to come to the end of our conversation"

If you ask a question, but are not interested in my answer anyway, then yes, this conversation has reached the end.

[heavensent]

>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....

[NoRagrets]

>And Buddhism, and Jainism. Sikhism too. You could learn a little about how was the treatment of Jains in the past.[..]

I am very aware of the history. It has been disproved.

>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.[..]

Secular means no religion has a special status over any other. Currently that is not true due to Shariat Law operating in India.

UCC or Uniform Civil Code implementation will resolve the issue.

>The places of worship law does not give any more rights to any specific religion.[..]

There are one billion Hindus and India is the spiritual center of Hindus. That it is even questioned and denied is interesting.

And yes, Hindus have a right over India. This is my opinion. Yours might be different.

>Did you forget Nepal?[..]

Nepal is no longer a Hindu country after the 2008 Maoist insurgency. Hindus have no official nation of their own even though there are one billion of them.

Hinduism was practiced all over Asia from Cambodia to Thailand to Nepal to Indonesia and beyond.

Hindu texts talk about Gandhari from the land of Gandhara(Khandahar Afghanistan) and the most sacred place of worship for Hindus..Mt.Kailash is in China. Pakistan was carved out of India by the British. Lanka was also Hindu.

The Hindu homeland lost a lot of territory and has been split and other faiths have become their dominant religions. What remains is the country known as India where 94% of the World’s Hindus reside.

And it is a democracy. If the people of India vote for a Hindu nation, it will be so.

>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.[..]

Special marriage Act can only be chosen if a Hindu marries a person of a different faith. If a Hindu woman marries a Muslim man under the Special Marriage Act, then in the event of divorce, it has to be granted by the law. If she converts to Islam before getting married to a Muslim man, she can be divorced by triple talaq. This has recently been challenged and banned by the Supreme Court.

This is important because inheritance laws are also different for children of converted Muslims vs children of parents married under the Special Marriages Act.

>If Hindu laws were to be applied, then the wife will have to kill herself when husband dies. See Sati practice.[..]

This is not true.Sati was practiced by certain Hindus.. Rajputs who were warrior tribe. The women jumped into the funeral pyre when their Hindu warrior husbands were defeated in battle by the Mughal invaders. They preferred death by suicide to capture and rape by Muslim soldiers.

This is not a Hindu practice. Hinduism is highly decentralized with each community defining their way of life.

>Besides Hindu Unified Family is a tax entity which can not be used by other religions to effectively reduce the tax on a family.[..]

You are probably thinking about HUF or Hindu Undivided Family. This is a tax filing as a family. The karta is the head of the family. And members of four generations are co parceners. I am very familiar with this section and have filed many returns for clients under HUF.

Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are also included even though it says HUF. Legally, the Unifed law applies to all. The corpus is formed by joint ownership of inheritances, family gifts etc.

If Muslim personal law and Christian personal law are scarped, everyone can come under the same Umbrella. This is why UCC is important.

According to Muslim law, the heirs are the successors of the deceased who are legally recognized by the Shariat to inherit his estate, given that they are not impeded from inheritance. The heirs succeed to the estate as tenants-in-common in specified shares. There is no joint tenancy in Muslim law and the heirs are only tenants-in-common.

Similarly, Christians have to follow Indian Succession Act of 1925. The UCC will make everything level for all. The Shariat was based on the Anglo-Muslim Law crafted by the British which was done without their understanding of the texts. All of this requires an overhaul. This will also include WAQF Act.

UCC will make Muslim Indians true and equal citizens of the democratic India but that would necessarily involve giving up Shariat Law.

India has many religions but Muslims should want to be part of a unified democratic nation. UCC is the path forward.

>The country is plagued with such misinformation and misrepresentation of facts, now deemed as whatsapp university.[..]

I am not sure what to make of this statement or how I should respond to it??

>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....[..]

A secular state is a country that officially maintains a separation between religion and government. It ensures that no religion is given preferential treatment or support by the state, and religious beliefs do not influence governmental decisions or laws. Examples of secular states include France, the United States, and India, where the government operates independently of religious institutions.

Historically, the process of secularisation typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds being used for religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leaders to come to power regardless of their religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Azerbaijan

[..] Islam is the majority religion in Azerbaijan, but the country is considered to be the most secular in the Muslim world.[5] Estimates include 97.3% (The World Factbook, 2020)[6] and 99.2% (Pew Research Center, 2006)[7] of the population identifying as Muslim. Of these, a majority belong to the Shia branch (55-65%), while a significant minority (35-45%) are Sunni.[a][1][9] Traditionally, the differences between these two branches of Islam have not been sharply defined in Azerbaijan.[..]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Azerbaijan

[..] Islam arrived in Azerbaijan with Arabs in the seventh century, gradually supplanting Christianity and pagan cults.[8] In the sixteenth century, the first shah of the Safavid Dynasty, Ismail I (r. 1486-1524), established Shi'a Islam as the state religion,[8] although a portion of people remained Sunni. The population of what is nowadays Iran and what is nowadays Azerbaijan were converted to Shia Islam at the same moment in history.[9] As elsewhere in the Muslim world, the two branches of Islam came into conflict in Azerbaijan.[8] Enforcement of Shi'a Islam as the state religion brought contention between the Safavid rulers and the ruling Sunnis of the neighboring Ottoman Empire.[8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Azerb...

[..] Freedom of religion in Azerbaijan is substantially curtailed.[1][2] The Azerbaijan government, which follows a strictly secular and anti-religious ideology, represses all religions.[1] The majority of the population in Azerbaijan is Muslim, mainly Shia. According to Michigan State University political scientist Ani Sarkissian, "the Azerbaijani government attempts to control religious practice to keep it from becoming an independent social force that might threaten the nondemocratic nature of the regime."[1] The government censors religious literature and closes down religious institutions that it considers objectionable.[1] Political speech by religious institutions is forbidden and clerics are not allowed to run for political office.[1] The display of religious paraphernalia, flags and slogans, is forbidden, except in places of worship, religious centers and offices.[3] Ashura festivities in public are forbidden.[4] The wearing of the hijab in public institutions and schools is forbidden.[5][6] The government uses mosque closures to repress independent Muslim groups that act independently of the state.[1] Clerics that act in ways objectionable to the state face dismissal and arrest.[1] The government does not restrict religious conversion, but it does forbid proselytizing.[1][..]

All of this begs the question: Is Azerbaijan a Secular state?