India is in a low scale civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Secularists are just picking the Islamist side.
The reality of it is that the Khangress was a Islamist party that ran India for decades, because any party that divides Hindus, attacks Hindus, and gives Muslims preferential treatment is a Muslim party. No the Gandhis are not real Hindus.
Any “Hindu” secularist that weakens, divides, and attacks Hindus are abetting Muslims who want to take over India in the long run. Simple as. In a real civil war traitors get shot. This has jack shit to do about “secularism” vs “religion”, and everything to do with a Hindu society vs a Muslim society.
Thank you for articulating something many feel but hesitate to say aloud. In today’s discourse, almost any assertion of Hindu identity—be it celebrating festivals, demanding equal rights, or asking for a Uniform Civil Code—is too easily labeled “extremism.” Meanwhile, similar expressions from other religious groups are often framed as cultural richness or community assertion. This imbalance erodes trust in the idea of secularism and fosters resentment. The Modi government, for all its rhetoric, still has significant ground to cover in enacting reforms like the UCC and truly ensuring equal treatment for all citizens, regardless of faith. Until then, the promise of fairness remains incomplete.
As a western/European based Pagan/polytheist I find it telling that even in a large country where the indigenous religious religion is dominant, Abrahamic religions are still favored. It seems to reflect a global bias towards Christianity & Islam. Self deprecation perhaps? I will also add that I don't believe that the "civil religion" of Christian trappings should be part of official government ceremonies etc. It just reinforces the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" and now we have theocratic fascism. Various laws pushed by right wing Christians have been passed allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs. So you definitely don't want to follow any examples from us.
I certainly believe the reason is misguided. I do endorse the fact of problems and systemic failures. But this has broadly less connection to the fact of secularism. It's important to acknowledge that all faiths must be allowed to practice whatever in whatever manner in whichever system without any barriers. But the economic-social factors do play a role. India is certainly without doubt a Hindu majority state, thus the regulation of temples/funds is necessary given the massive inflow of devotees. This is an obvious chance of mismanagement. Now not the fact that govt interference solved mismanagement, but checks and balances in such a large system is imperative.
Second, the fact of letting minority communities function without interference is the beauty of Indian secularism where we do not impose authority/guidelines for communities that are harbouring here. Imposing conditions would in fact negate the fact of them being selectively unique and thriving carefree in a majority led country. (Triple Talaq, interference in Personal Muslim laws did take place successfully) (Reforms in Madarasa and systems of education is happening too!) (So the completely hands off approach is not followed in any minority community per se-be it Jainism/Buddhism/Islam)
Third, I can resonate with the kind of raging chest for questioning or frowning on our Hindu faith that has developed, but this is a global trend. I'd love if you take a look at how Christianity and it's practices are frowned upon during festivals in developed areas like the US. So technically, the loop of demeaning a culture is a broadly global phenomenon with huge credit to external influences that have indeed aroused in us a resentment for our own cultural practices. I find my friends from other minority community including me finding it outdated/cliche or too religious to follow any religion (not just Hinduism, but broadly everything)
The concept as far as what I understand from secularism is loving each religion and it's faith. Have state interference in places where it is crucial like education, job, laws and institutional funds. In broad, sense the state must reinstate the outlook for which secularism was established. It's about building, recognising and valuing each others beliefs and faiths. (plus also permitting atheists or introverted religious people to thrive without forcing a method of worshipping God on anyone, often we fail to recognise this as we believe faiths are fixed since our births) If we embrace and remove the negativity with switching religions, then automatically the problems of armies/violence towards other religions will stop because then other person's religion is also my religion but just that my religion might me dearer to me but that doesn't reduce my love for another person's religion.
If we go by the logic that massive inflows of devotees and fund management justify state control, I get it—temples like Tirupati pull ₹1,000 crore yearly (2023 stats). Fine, checks make sense. But can we ensure that money’s used explicitly for Hindu purposes—temples, festivals, community growth? Would you be okay with spending Waqf money on public welfare? That’s your answer, I guess—a secular government can’t promise faith-specific use; it’ll sprinkle it on “public good” or whatever. If Hindus managed Hindu temple funds, it’d stay in the faith—building, preserving, thriving. That won’t happen with a secular entity in charge—it’s too busy being “neutral” to care.
See, I’m all for the government stepping back—let it fix roads, schools, a million other messes instead of choking temple infra with manpower and bureaucracy (HR&CE Act) that could be used elsewhere. But why only Hindu temples? Pull state control from all religions—casteist Christian churches with Dalits stuck in back pews (Tamil Nadu), sectarian Sunni-Shia mosques with clashes in Hyderabad (2023), Jain trusts, the lot. Equal freedom, not just Hindu shackles. You say “minority thriving” is secularism’s beauty—sure, but Triple Talaq’s banned (2019), Madrasas face reforms (NCPCR, 2024), yet the state’s heavy hand on Hinduism dwarfs that. Christianity’s got casteism and splits—Orthodox vs. Protestant—while Islam’s got its Shia-Sunni divide and lower-caste Muslims barred from higher-caste burial grounds (UP, 2022). So why not regulate them too? Pure logic says secularism doesn’t pick favorites between minority and majority faiths—right?
There’s a gap between disdain and straight-up attacks—stone-pelting on Ram Navami, Hanuman Jayanti (2023 reports), pandals trashed in Bangladesh (2021). Ever hear of police guarding Christmas in the US? Nope. Criticism’s fine—Hinduism thrives on debate, it’s in the roots (Upanishads, anyone?)—but this barrage of propaganda hits indigenous faiths hardest, not Abrahamic ones. Holi’s “wasteful,” Diwali’s “pollution”—where’s that energy for Eid or Easter. We need to address the scale and impact of these in reality.
Your “secularism is loving all faiths” take—sure, intervene in education, jobs, funds where it’s crucial. But after 1,000 years of invasions—killing, pillaging, raping, looting—can’t Hindus expect leaders we elect to protect our faith? Conversions gutted us—millions lost to force or lure (Mughals, British, post-1947 missions). I’m not saying ban others; I’m saying let us guard ours. Your “switch religions, end violence” idea’s nice, but it’s off-topic—faith’s personal, not my beef here. My point’s simpler: equal rules, not Hindu burdens.
Yes, I understand your point. But this is requires a complete regeneration of ideas. Also, by switch religions I did not mean conversions, but openness to follow all faiths without any mandatory overt requirement. This requires a foundational change, but maybe integration of diverse religions and their representatives in the main stream lead to some resolution, but only with constructive debate. We're such an amazing blend of a country and this kind of violence in any side seems quite heart-wrenching. (It's time for some intentional change by stakeholders from all sides)
“I am an unapologetic Hindu, and nothing will change that. Yes, my faith has its flaws, but we have survived because we adapted. While the Greek, Roman, Mediterranean, Egyptian, Nordic, and Indigenous American civilizations faded away, we endured. Why? Because we evolved. “
1. Most people are opposed to PM Modi going to the CJI's home, not for the puja itself.
2. I would argue for scrapping government support for any kind of religious education. I don't think governments should support religious boards, especially when they teach nonsense (Madarsas especially).
3. Having seats reserved for economically weaker sections in Hindu religious schools seems fair to me, as it provides opportunities for the poor. I doubt rich Muslims go to madrasas, so it likely doesn't matter there. Same for Christians, but I get your point about religious interference.
4. More scrutiny of Hindu traditions is good in my opinion, and the prevalence can be explained by it being the majority religion. Moreover, Hinduism is much more flexible in many ways, and people are more prone to accept changes—so the changes are demanded. The same is not the case in other religions, although I would love to see more voices coming from them.
5. I do notice calls for sustainability in Islamic and Christian festivals as well, and I think it's a good thing—even when only Hindus are asked to behave more mindfully.
6. Some special treatment for minorities is acceptable in a democracy, especially when the foundations of the nation were built on deep religious violence. It helps them feel at home and not threatened.
India is in a low scale civil war between Hindus and Muslims. Secularists are just picking the Islamist side.
The reality of it is that the Khangress was a Islamist party that ran India for decades, because any party that divides Hindus, attacks Hindus, and gives Muslims preferential treatment is a Muslim party. No the Gandhis are not real Hindus.
Any “Hindu” secularist that weakens, divides, and attacks Hindus are abetting Muslims who want to take over India in the long run. Simple as. In a real civil war traitors get shot. This has jack shit to do about “secularism” vs “religion”, and everything to do with a Hindu society vs a Muslim society.
Thank you for articulating something many feel but hesitate to say aloud. In today’s discourse, almost any assertion of Hindu identity—be it celebrating festivals, demanding equal rights, or asking for a Uniform Civil Code—is too easily labeled “extremism.” Meanwhile, similar expressions from other religious groups are often framed as cultural richness or community assertion. This imbalance erodes trust in the idea of secularism and fosters resentment. The Modi government, for all its rhetoric, still has significant ground to cover in enacting reforms like the UCC and truly ensuring equal treatment for all citizens, regardless of faith. Until then, the promise of fairness remains incomplete.
As a western/European based Pagan/polytheist I find it telling that even in a large country where the indigenous religious religion is dominant, Abrahamic religions are still favored. It seems to reflect a global bias towards Christianity & Islam. Self deprecation perhaps? I will also add that I don't believe that the "civil religion" of Christian trappings should be part of official government ceremonies etc. It just reinforces the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" and now we have theocratic fascism. Various laws pushed by right wing Christians have been passed allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs. So you definitely don't want to follow any examples from us.
I certainly believe the reason is misguided. I do endorse the fact of problems and systemic failures. But this has broadly less connection to the fact of secularism. It's important to acknowledge that all faiths must be allowed to practice whatever in whatever manner in whichever system without any barriers. But the economic-social factors do play a role. India is certainly without doubt a Hindu majority state, thus the regulation of temples/funds is necessary given the massive inflow of devotees. This is an obvious chance of mismanagement. Now not the fact that govt interference solved mismanagement, but checks and balances in such a large system is imperative.
Second, the fact of letting minority communities function without interference is the beauty of Indian secularism where we do not impose authority/guidelines for communities that are harbouring here. Imposing conditions would in fact negate the fact of them being selectively unique and thriving carefree in a majority led country. (Triple Talaq, interference in Personal Muslim laws did take place successfully) (Reforms in Madarasa and systems of education is happening too!) (So the completely hands off approach is not followed in any minority community per se-be it Jainism/Buddhism/Islam)
Third, I can resonate with the kind of raging chest for questioning or frowning on our Hindu faith that has developed, but this is a global trend. I'd love if you take a look at how Christianity and it's practices are frowned upon during festivals in developed areas like the US. So technically, the loop of demeaning a culture is a broadly global phenomenon with huge credit to external influences that have indeed aroused in us a resentment for our own cultural practices. I find my friends from other minority community including me finding it outdated/cliche or too religious to follow any religion (not just Hinduism, but broadly everything)
The concept as far as what I understand from secularism is loving each religion and it's faith. Have state interference in places where it is crucial like education, job, laws and institutional funds. In broad, sense the state must reinstate the outlook for which secularism was established. It's about building, recognising and valuing each others beliefs and faiths. (plus also permitting atheists or introverted religious people to thrive without forcing a method of worshipping God on anyone, often we fail to recognise this as we believe faiths are fixed since our births) If we embrace and remove the negativity with switching religions, then automatically the problems of armies/violence towards other religions will stop because then other person's religion is also my religion but just that my religion might me dearer to me but that doesn't reduce my love for another person's religion.
If we go by the logic that massive inflows of devotees and fund management justify state control, I get it—temples like Tirupati pull ₹1,000 crore yearly (2023 stats). Fine, checks make sense. But can we ensure that money’s used explicitly for Hindu purposes—temples, festivals, community growth? Would you be okay with spending Waqf money on public welfare? That’s your answer, I guess—a secular government can’t promise faith-specific use; it’ll sprinkle it on “public good” or whatever. If Hindus managed Hindu temple funds, it’d stay in the faith—building, preserving, thriving. That won’t happen with a secular entity in charge—it’s too busy being “neutral” to care.
See, I’m all for the government stepping back—let it fix roads, schools, a million other messes instead of choking temple infra with manpower and bureaucracy (HR&CE Act) that could be used elsewhere. But why only Hindu temples? Pull state control from all religions—casteist Christian churches with Dalits stuck in back pews (Tamil Nadu), sectarian Sunni-Shia mosques with clashes in Hyderabad (2023), Jain trusts, the lot. Equal freedom, not just Hindu shackles. You say “minority thriving” is secularism’s beauty—sure, but Triple Talaq’s banned (2019), Madrasas face reforms (NCPCR, 2024), yet the state’s heavy hand on Hinduism dwarfs that. Christianity’s got casteism and splits—Orthodox vs. Protestant—while Islam’s got its Shia-Sunni divide and lower-caste Muslims barred from higher-caste burial grounds (UP, 2022). So why not regulate them too? Pure logic says secularism doesn’t pick favorites between minority and majority faiths—right?
There’s a gap between disdain and straight-up attacks—stone-pelting on Ram Navami, Hanuman Jayanti (2023 reports), pandals trashed in Bangladesh (2021). Ever hear of police guarding Christmas in the US? Nope. Criticism’s fine—Hinduism thrives on debate, it’s in the roots (Upanishads, anyone?)—but this barrage of propaganda hits indigenous faiths hardest, not Abrahamic ones. Holi’s “wasteful,” Diwali’s “pollution”—where’s that energy for Eid or Easter. We need to address the scale and impact of these in reality.
Your “secularism is loving all faiths” take—sure, intervene in education, jobs, funds where it’s crucial. But after 1,000 years of invasions—killing, pillaging, raping, looting—can’t Hindus expect leaders we elect to protect our faith? Conversions gutted us—millions lost to force or lure (Mughals, British, post-1947 missions). I’m not saying ban others; I’m saying let us guard ours. Your “switch religions, end violence” idea’s nice, but it’s off-topic—faith’s personal, not my beef here. My point’s simpler: equal rules, not Hindu burdens.
Yes, I understand your point. But this is requires a complete regeneration of ideas. Also, by switch religions I did not mean conversions, but openness to follow all faiths without any mandatory overt requirement. This requires a foundational change, but maybe integration of diverse religions and their representatives in the main stream lead to some resolution, but only with constructive debate. We're such an amazing blend of a country and this kind of violence in any side seems quite heart-wrenching. (It's time for some intentional change by stakeholders from all sides)
Very well written. You speak for my heart.
I totally agreed with
“I am an unapologetic Hindu, and nothing will change that. Yes, my faith has its flaws, but we have survived because we adapted. While the Greek, Roman, Mediterranean, Egyptian, Nordic, and Indigenous American civilizations faded away, we endured. Why? Because we evolved. “
You nailed it Bro!
Bravo…Bravo.
I enjoyed the post. Some points to note:
1. Most people are opposed to PM Modi going to the CJI's home, not for the puja itself.
2. I would argue for scrapping government support for any kind of religious education. I don't think governments should support religious boards, especially when they teach nonsense (Madarsas especially).
3. Having seats reserved for economically weaker sections in Hindu religious schools seems fair to me, as it provides opportunities for the poor. I doubt rich Muslims go to madrasas, so it likely doesn't matter there. Same for Christians, but I get your point about religious interference.
4. More scrutiny of Hindu traditions is good in my opinion, and the prevalence can be explained by it being the majority religion. Moreover, Hinduism is much more flexible in many ways, and people are more prone to accept changes—so the changes are demanded. The same is not the case in other religions, although I would love to see more voices coming from them.
5. I do notice calls for sustainability in Islamic and Christian festivals as well, and I think it's a good thing—even when only Hindus are asked to behave more mindfully.
6. Some special treatment for minorities is acceptable in a democracy, especially when the foundations of the nation were built on deep religious violence. It helps them feel at home and not threatened.
Thanks for reading.