Comments by "Rutvik" (@rutvikrs) on "'What happened to ‘Hinduism is tolerant, secular’? Difficult question for an Indian today'" video.

The problem with France is that they allowed Hindutva to enter. 😂
43
When both your cheeks are slapped, remember that you have two more cheeks. 😂
3
@J.M.254 you seem to be asking in good faith: 1. Hindus have realised that reforms are directed exclusively at the majority. The state has taken over the major Hindu temples and prevented using community resources for internal reform. There are many who are not comfortable with freeing temples so the right wing is asking for parity and asking for state interference in Muslim, Sikh and Christian religious institutions to the same degree they do with the Hindus. The Congress rule was particularly bad because UPA 1/2 allowed double standards taking a pro minority stance such as allowing independence in mosque/church administration, proselytism and tax breaks while allowing for external criticism of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. 2. This has stirred the hornet's nest and Hindutva became a social response. It's not just Hindus, a lot of Jains, Buddhists and atheists involved in the movement. 3. You might never get those good old secular days back because the internet provided the Hindutva movement a window into the internal discussions of the academic/administrative elites and outsiders on how the native faiths and India are discussed and treated. They will forever judge people because Indian minorities kept strategic silence and did not criticise things like proselytism. 4. Indians are not leaving India because of religious tolerance, they are doing that because we trained an elite who don't have meaningful avenues for higher education, employment and entrepreneurship. Particularly in the MMS era where we focused on secondary education to drive up our services industry instead of Vajpayee's manufacturing drive.
3
Hinduism never condoned violence? Our Gods carry weapons, sacred texts are based on wars and our history is bloody as they come.
3
Truth and reconciliation never works. Why has SA devolved into race wars?
2
Cope
2
 @xyzzyx101xyz9 does the ability to run their own religious schools and institutions count?
2
@mlg1279 tiny bit of advice. Be more specific. Don't say crypto, say Gandhi was a Tolstoyian. As in Gandhi was more Leo Tolstoy's "Kingdom of heaven is within you" than the Gita.
1
 @tejraju don't rob my joy of seeing secular Hindus with Hindutva kids. 😂
1
@agnescraig2912 what is so bad about 1. Religious positioning in political statements when you hold the position that Indian secularism is about equality of religion rather than separation of religion from state? 2. Foreign dignitaries taken to places of worship? There are dozens of images of each political leader at Japanese shrines, Israeli sites and the Vatican?
1
2107Slash "Read the constitution" is not an appropriate critique of the points I raised. Chalo, since you preached it, let's check the practice. Name the part of the constitution that defines the nature of secularism.
1
2107Slash I am willing to educate myself and change my stance, just let me know which part of the constitution provides the definition of secularism.
1
2107Slash just as I suspected, you have no clue. The irony of asking me to read to the constitution. 🥲 1. Constitution is very much a book of definitions. It's a document of meta rules. Rules on how to form rules. 2. There are two schools of thought in Indian legalese. The art 25 camp and the constitutionalist camp. The former provides the definition you did, which makes Indian secularism unique because it asks for equal treatment of religions as opposed to the latter camp which insists on the dictionary definition "separation of church and state". Which means the government does not get to deal with religion like the US or European model of zero laws on religion such as personal laws. 3. It traces back to Ambedkar who consciously avoided the term as he recognised the theo-sociological differences between Abrahamic and Indian religions. Instead the constituent assembly chose to insert forms of conditions in relevant laws for instance fundamental rights. The word secularism was inserted in the 42nd amendment forcibly. 4. This has led to the unique situation where the laws allow for different forms of secularism to coexist. Our parliament and judiciary are allowed to legislate religious matters and must represent them that is why political parties are allowed to speak about religion unlike modern secular countries.
1