Comments on: Structural asymmetric secularism

By: The Acorn » A lesson in opposites

The Acorn » A lesson in opposites — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:08:39 +0000

[...] But why the subterfuge? For neither Sonia Gandhi, nor the Left nor any of the regional parties are truly secular. And they are far from being [...]

By: socal

socal — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:36:46 +0000

Sharma might just have given us a neologism; not exactly, but something close. Secularism in India is terribly asymmetric as it prejudges groups and tries to even out their advantages. This prejudice is at the root of the “asymmetry” that is compounding our problems.

Aside, Arvind Sharma is the same guy whose essay on Hinduism replaced the “admittedly nasty” one by Wendy Doniger on Encarta Encyclopedia– thanks to Sankrant Sanu’s activism of course.

By: Sriram

Sriram — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:52:46 +0000

There is a saying in Tamil which roughly means “one could donate only what is surplus”. The Indian form of secularism assumes that the majority are well off and have surplus resources to donate to the minority, who inherently are poor. Not just economic resources.

By: Niraj

Niraj — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:51:00 +0000

The problem with India’s consititution is that it is suppose to treat all religions equally? But what does that really mean? Why is there a perception among some religious groups– i.e. Hindus– that they are being shortchanged, while Muslims seems to be getting more benefits?

It would be best, in my opinion, that all mention of religion be excised from the constitution, and the Ministry of Religion be dissolved; meaning no more Hajj subsidies, religious quotas for government jobs, etc. Government should not be in the religion business at all.