बुधवार, 30 अक्तूबर 2013

जानिये भाईजान !इस देश में सेकुलर होने का क्या मतलब है

जानिये भाईजान !इस देश में सेकुलर होने का क्या मतलब है 

(१) मुसलामानों की हिमायत करते दिखना (सिर्फ दिखना है हिमायत करनी नहीं है अगर की गई 

होती तो उनका शैक्षिक आर्थिक स्तर ये न होता जो आपको आसपास दिखता है ).

(२) झगडे के बाद खासकर जब वह हिन्दू मुस्लिम मत के अनुयायियों के बीच फूटा हो ,गोल सफ़ेद टोपी पहने के आना दंगा क्षेत्र को सम्बोधित करना। 

(३ )बढ़ चढ़के इफतयार पार्टी देना भले उसका आध्यात्मिक ,सामाजिक अर्थ पता हो न हो। 

(४ )नितीश -मुलायम -लालू -पासवान दिखना (होना भी  है सिर्फ दिखना नहीं )क़्या करते दिखना -

मुसलामानों की हिमायत। देश की संपत्ति पर मुसलमानों का पहला हक़ बतलाना सबसे बड़ा 

सेकुलर होना है।

ओसामा को ओसामा जी कहना उन्हें दफने  ख़ाक सम्मान पूर्वक करने के बाबत उदगार व्यक्त 

करना।अगर संविधान इसकी इज़ाज़त देता तो एक भोपाली बाज़ीगर भोपाल में इनका मकबरा 

बनवा चुका होता।   

(५) एंटी -मोदी रहना ,मोदी को गुजरात का आर्थिक ओढ़ना न मान कर सांप्रदायिक तत्व बतलाना। 

(६ )एक ऐसी समिति बनाके उसका मुखिया चर्च की एक एजेंट को बना देना जो मुस्लमान बनाम 

अन्य के बीच झगडे में अन्य को दोषी माने और अपनी बे -कसूरी का सबूत जुटाने को कहे। 

यहाँ सेकुलर शब्द का अर्थ भारतीय राजनीति में वह नहीं है जो इसका शाब्दिक अर्थ है। जिसके 

अनुसार स्टेट और चर्च में अलहदगी होना सेकुलार इंतज़ाम कहा जाएगा। पहले राज्य के मामलों 

में चर्च का हस्तक्षेप था जिसका खामियाज़ा अनेक चोटी के विज्ञानियों ने उठाया था। गैलीलियो की 

तो आँखें ही फोड़ दी गईं थीं चर्च के आदेश पर। आर्मीडीज़ की गरदन काट दी गई थी। 

धर्म और अध्यात्म से परे होना अर्थात अलौकिक होना रहना सेकुलर होना है। 

हमारे यहाँ चुनाव का पर्चा  नारियल फोड़कर मंदिर गिरजाघर मस्जिदों से इबादत के बाद दाखिल 

किया जाता है।

(7) मुसलामानों के प्रसादन (संतुष्टि )के लिए देश के सर्वोच्च्च न्यायालय अपेक्स कोर्ट का फैसला अध्यादेश से उलटकर एक

मुसलमान  बेवा का हक़ मारना सेकुलर होना है।

(८ )१९४८ से बंद पड़े अयोध्या मंदिर का पहले ताला खुलवाना ,फिर शिलान्यास करवाना सेकुलर होना है। 

लीजिए अंग्रेजी में भी हाज़िर है इसका अर्थ :

Secular :

(1) NOT CONCERNED WITH RELIGION -not controlled by a religious body or 

concerned  with religious or spiritual matters .

हमारे यहाँ अकाल तख्त  राष्ट्रपति को तनखैया घोषित कर देता है राष्ट्रपति दौड़ते हैं अकाल 

तख्त की ओर। 

(2 )NOT RELIGIOUS -not religious or spiritual in nature 

(3) NOT MONASTIC -not belonging to a monastic order 

(4) OCCURING ONCE IN A CENTURY (दीर्घ कालिक  ) occuring only once in the 

course of an age or century .

In physics we teach secular equilibrium during radioactive decay of certain longer 

lived elements .

(5)OCCURING OVER LONG PERIOD -taking place over an extremely or 


long period of time .


(7)LAY PERSON -a member of the laity .The followers of a religion who are not 

clergy .

मिलिए कुछ सेकुलर और इनके सरगना से 

Why Muslims should reject the politics of veto

by R Jagannathan

We do not yet know who is responsible for the bomb blasts at Narendra Modi‘s massive Patna rally yesterday that killed five people and injured scores. But we do know one thing: they have succeeded in vitiating the political atmosphere further. This is apparent from the negative and bitter positions taken by all political parties after the blasts.

It is also a confirmation of the political narrative hatched by 

Modi’s detractors: to show that he is inherently divisive and 

hence responsible for all the bad things that happen during 

the course of this election campaign. Janata Dal (U) CM 

Nitish Kumar said “Bihar has never had a tradition of 

violence and such attacks have never taken place before.” 

Really? What were the Bodh Gaya blasts about? His party 

spokesperson Sabir Ali hinted on TV that these things were 

happening only because of certain developments of the last 

few months. I have no doubt the only development he was 

referring to related to Modi’s emergence on the national 

scene. And Digvijaya Singh’s prime concern in a tweet was 

to point out the coincidence between Modi’s rally and the 


The purpose of this article is not to speculate on who caused the blasts and who will benefit from it (as if that is the most important question when blood is being callously spilt), but how the politics of hate is really flowing in the reverse direction as well. It is assumed that the BJP has the copyright on hate-mongering, but it is even more true that for the phony secularist, Modi, BJP, the Sangh Parivar and anyone who prefers them is the hated “other”.

This politics of reverse hatred is what is manifesting itself repeatedly in election after election and it is being propagated with the singular motive of consolidating a Muslim votebank. The real divisiveness lies in every party trying to prove it is secular by demonising the BJP and, in the process, encouraging – even instigating – the minorities to think they have a veto on who will rule India.

This is false empowerment that is resulting in the real marginalisation of the Muslim in the economic sphere even while handing him/her a veto in deciding against the BJP. In the “secular” narrative, the real test of Indian secularism lies in Muslims exercising their power of the veto against Modi or the BJP, and not in treating them like any other citizen with the same basic needs of education, jobs and aspiration.

he “secular” gameplan is to use the BJP to frighten the daylights out of the average Muslim so that he exercises his vote to defeat that party and, in the process, forget to demand the real things that matter to him. If Muslims constantly use their vote as veto and nothing positive, can the national atmosphere ever be secular? The communal veto runs counter to the idea of a citizen voting after exercising his or her judgment.

When the Muslim is constanty asked to bail out secularism by voting against one party, what is the chance that politics will ever be over real issues? What stake then does that national party have in secularism?

It is to their credit that some Muslims are trying to break out of this trap set by the “secular” parties – but  so far they have been pushed back into their traditional cubby holes. Consider the long list of Muslims who had to beat a hasty retreat for even hinting that Modi may not be an untouchable: Maulana Vastanvi, Maulana Mahmood Madani, and Maulana Kalbe Sadiq most recently. They have been shouted down as voices unrepresentative of  ”real Muslims”. Journalist Shahid Siddiqui has been hooted out for merely having the temerity to interview Modi. A Gujarati businessman, Zafar Sareshwala, who has taken the courageous step of opening a dialogue with Modi and, in the process, opening the doors for many Muslims in Gujarat, has been excoriated as a self-serving person who is selling Muslim interests down the Sabarmati.

This was the real purpose of Rahul Gandhi‘s references to 

Muzaffarnagar’s Muslims and their alleged dalliance with the 

ISI – a remark that has boomeranged on him and exposed 

once again the “secular” effort to treat the BJP as the only 

communal ogre to scare the minorities into exercising their 

vote again as veto.

The Patna blasts will surely be used to suggest that they 

happened because of who Modi is, and what the BJP 

allegedly stands for: hatred and destruction. But there is no 

one to question that repeated spews out of “secularists”.

In 2014, Muslims have one more chance to break out of their isolation by using their vote to think of themselves as citizens and not as a votebank. This doesn’t mean voting for the BJP, but it certainly means voting with their hopes rather than fears.

They have to take a chance with some of their choices. India can be truly secular only when it can countenance a so-called communal party in power and the country still remains recognisablly secular at the end of it all. The BJP is also playing into this faulty narrative by being repeatedly shrill on secularism. Its best bet is to stay calm and give Muslims a chance to think for themselves.

Veto is an anagram of vote. But the two mean different things. It’s the difference between being driven by fear or hope. It’s about exercising rational choice rather than being reduced to a bundle of negativisms by so-called “secularists”.


Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-muslims-should-reject-the-politics-of-veto-1198325.html?utm_source=ref_article

Hard choices, grim facts for Muslims in 2014 elections

Indian Muslims are in a dilemma. At a time when the nation is getting polarised, they are not sure which pole should be their destination. From the most powerful Muslim scholars to the common man in the streets of Aligarh, they are all asking the same question: “Who should we vote for in 2014?” I have never seen Muslims so unsure, confused and fearful of the future as they are today.

Muslims across the board have lost faith in so-called secular parties like the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the BSP. They understand clearly that these are casteist parties which use Muslims as a vehicle to achieve power; they are neither secular nor interested in the welfare of Muslims. Parties like the BSP are focussed on the security and empowerment of Dalits and use Muslims as a ladder to achieve their goal.

Muslims had lost faith in the Congress after the demolition of the Babri masjid and the terrible Mumbai riots that followed. However, the NDA rule of six years and the failure of the ‘secular’ third front made them look again at the Congress under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi.

They believed she would be much more sympathetic to their plight and unlike past Congress leaders, would not use them as a mere vote bank. The UPA I, with its promise of implementing the Sachar Committee recommendations, gave them some hope. In 2009, Muslims by and large voted for the Congress hoping that concrete steps would be taken for their uplift.

However, today they are disappointed with the performance of the UPA on every front, especially with regard to promises made to them. Every Muslim leader I talk to in private, including the Congressmen and the Ulema close to the Congress, admit that the party has taken Muslims for granted for too long. What Maulana Mehmood Madni said publicly is echoed privately in every conversation: “Don’t take the Muslim vote for granted. Don’t browbeat us into a corner by instilling the fear of ‘Modi’”.

Muslims also have enough political maturity to understand that Muslim political parties will be counterproductive and will do more harm to the cause of secularism and will help Hindutva parties in polarising society. The Peace Party, the Ulema Council, the Welfare Party and older parties like the Muslim League or Muslim Majlis have been rejected in every election since Independence.

The Muslim masses followed ‘secular’ leaders like Nehru, Indira, Bahuguna, VP Singh, Mulayam, Lalu, Jyoti Basu and Sonia. But in the last 64 years, every one of them has disappointed the Muslims so thoroughly that they now have no faith in anyone.

The dilemma is that while Muslims have lost faith in so-called secular leaders and parties, they see no hope in Modi or the BJP; they don’t find an Atal Bihari Vajpayee to moderate a Modi. Muslims are apprehensive, rightly or wrongly, that if Modi becomes prime minister, he will turn the country into another Gujarat, which was labelled the laboratory of Hindutva.

They are being told that their very existence, their Shariat, personal laws, even religion, will be endangered. A large section of Muslims doesn’t want to vote for the Congress or the Samajwadi Party but is left with no option by the Modi brigade.

Muslim intellectuals and leaders are concerned at the growing polarisation in society. They can see that it is not only the BJP but the ‘secular’ parties too that are fuelling this fire of religious and communal polarisation. The demand for a separate Muslim political organisation is growing by the day.

Everyone from JNU students to villagers from Moradabad is pressuring Muslim leaders to form a party of their own. They want a ‘Muslim Kanshiram’, a ‘Muslim Mulayam’ or even a ‘Muslim Modi’ to emerge. They are searching for a messiah who will empower them and make them equal citizens in a democratic India. But most Muslim intellectuals know that a Qaid-e-Azam of the Indian Muslims will release a communal genie from the bottle.

At the moment, there are, broadly speaking, five views among Muslims. The first is the traditional view that Muslims have no option but to vote for the Congress in order to stop the BJP from coming to power. This view holds that only the Congress can protect the minorities.

The second view is that, in the name of secularism, Muslims have been taken for a ride for too long. Muslims want secularism but they also want jobs, education and security. Therefore, they should look for an alternative to these parties. Since there cannot be a national alternative, they will have to look for state-wise alternatives like the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, the BSP in Uttar Pradesh or the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi.

The third view is that Muslims should get out of this vote-bank syndrome and vote for individual candidates. In any constituency, a good, relatively honest and secular candidate, whichever party he or she may belong to, should be identified and voted for. This was the view earlier espoused by leaders like Syed Shahabuddin.

The fourth view is that Muslims should form a Muslim Democratic Alliance — a confederation of Muslim and minority parties. They should work for the consolidation of the Muslim vote, BSP style, and then bargain with other groups and parties for an alliance. This alliance should be secular and nationalistic in outlook but should focus on the problems of minorities. The common masses are eager to see this coming together of all Muslim parties.

he fifth view is that Muslims should get out of this secular-communal divide and try the BJP for a change. A small but growing section of Muslims argues that in reality there is no difference among all these parties. They believe that ‘secular’ parties will also take them seriously only when they start voting for a national political alternative, which can only be the NDA, as even the Left doesn’t take the talk of a third alternative seriously.

From the chaikhanas of Jama Masjid to Facebook and Twitter, the Muslim community is currently engaged in a heated debate. Nothing has crystallised but the community is genuinely worried and fearful about its future. The next few months are crucial.

Shahid Siddiqui is editor, Nai Duniya, an Urdu weekly and a former Rajya Sabha MP


HindustanTimes Tue,29 Oct 2013

My India My Vote

Manmohan says 'all secular forces must combine to face onslaught of people like Modi'

PM to meet Rahul ,stops short of admitting cong VP hurt  him 

1 टिप्पणी:

प्रवीण पाण्डेय ने कहा…

राजनीति के रोचक रंग ढंग।