New Delhi, India (CNN) On the eve of India‘s independence, the man who would soon become the country’s first Prime Minister outlined an aspirational vision.

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru outlined a vision for a secular India.

---

Hindus believe the site is the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. However, Muslims have also prayed there for centuries.

The ruling on the Ayodhya site was seen as a blow to Muslims. It also came at a time when Muslims increasingly see themselves as second-class citizens in the predominantly Hindu country.

India has a long history of sectarian violence, but over the past few years, there has been a rise in suspected hate crimes against Muslims, who make up roughly 200 million of the country’s 1.3 billion population.

In August, the Indian government stripped the majority-Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, essentially giving New Delhi more control over the region’s affairs. That same month, nearly two million people in India’s northeast Assam state were left off a controversial new National Register of Citizens, which critics feared could be used to justify religious discrimination against Muslims in the state.

All of this comes under the shadow of the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist who has spoken out repeatedly against India’s secularism.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has roots in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing organization founded in 1925 that promotes the vision of a Hindu nation.

So when the BJP was reelected in May, Indian Muslims worried that the fabric of society could change. Modi dismissed their fears as “imaginary” — but less than six months into his second term, there are signs things could get worse for India’s Muslims.
A Kashmiri Muslim woman raises her veil in the air to pray in Srinagar, India, on November 10, 2019.

---

A secular nation

Although Hindu nationalism has come to prominence under Modi, it has been brewing for decades.

When India gained independence from Britain in 1947, Nehru, the architect of modern India, helped construct a constitution that protected the “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” — and the “equality of status.”

“Nehru was very cognizant of the fact that India was a diverse society and the only thing that could work was secularism,” Sanjay Kapoor, a political commentator and editor of independent political magazine Hardnews, told CNN.

In the years that followed, the notion of secularism became more abstract. Political parties — including Nehru’s own Indian National Congress (INC) party — began to pander to voters along religious divides.

In the 1980s, Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, and eldest grandson Rajiv Gandhi, both served as Prime Minister and continued to promote his vision of a secular India. However, Indira Gandhi also imposed authoritarian policies that prompted a backlash from voters and kindled growing support for the Hindu-nationalist BJP.

It was the issue of Ayodhya that first helped the BJP to gain significant electoral ground.

The disputed religious site was an old matter of contention that had only ever received local attention — but the BJP seized on it to help secure over half the seats in Uttar Pradesh’s 1991 state elections.

Men pay tribute to former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in Amritsar on October 30, 2019.

---

Rise of nationalism

At the time, political observers accused the BJP of fanning religious divisions and empowering Hindu nationalists. Those criticisms are still being leveled at Modi’s party today.

In 1992, only a year after the BJP’s election victory, right-wing Hindu mobs demolished the 16th-century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, triggering nationwide riots that left more than 2,000 people dead. It was some of the worst communal violence since India’s independence.

To some, this was a moment that changed Indian politics. Kapoor, the editor, recalls how some of his fellow journalists saw the destruction of the mosque — and the ensuing riots — as the end of secular India.

After a slew of corruption scandals in the 2000s, the INC lost support, opening the gates for the BJP to come to power.

In 2014, Modi and the BJP swept to victory in national polls, becoming the first party to win a parliamentary majority in 30 years. It was a move toward nationalism, even before right-wing politics took hold in the United Kingdom with Brexit, and Donald Trump’s “America’s First” campaign in the United States.

To those tired of what they saw as cronyism and political dynasties, Modi’s promise of economic reforms while restoring traditional Indian values appealed.

But India’s new leader also promoted religious nationalism.

In Modi’s first term, Hindu vigilante groups killed dozens of people — many of them Muslims — allegedly for slaughtering or transporting cows, which are considered sacred by many Hindus. Critics said the presence of a Hindu nationalist government in Delhi encouraged hardline supporters to commit violent acts against Muslims and other minority groups. A charge the BJP has vehemently denied.

A bleak future

When Modi came to power, he had three key election promises. He would overturn the autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir, build a temple to the Hindu god Ram at Ayodhya, and impose a uniform civil code that would create one law for all, regardless of their religion.

Six months after being reelected in his second term, Modi has already made headway in achieving two of his aims.

In August, he withdrew Article 370, a constitutional provision that granted Jammu and Kashmir relative autonomy and protected the rights to employment, property ownership and state aid for its permanent residents. The government also imposed a communications blackout in the area.

People in Jammu and Kashmir — which has been downgraded to a union territory — fear that Modi’s move will encourage migration to the Muslim-dominated area, which could alter its demographics.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Ram Temple can be built at Ayodhya has also prompted a backlash from Muslim communities.

Activists stage a candlelight vigil urging people belonging to all religious communities to maintain peace and harmony before the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya, in Bangalore on November 7, 2019.

---

Asaduddin Owaisi, the president of Muslim political party AIMIM, said the judgment was a “victory of faith over facts” which the BJP would use to achieve its “poisonous agenda.”

“A resounding message has been sent to more that 200 million Muslims in the country that they must bear every humiliation and injustice with the silence expected of an inferior citizenry,” he said in a tweet.

Now, some wonder how long it will be until a uniform civil code is imposed.

Currently, India has separate marriage, property and adoption rules for people from different religions — but a code would wipe those out. That particularly worries the Muslim community, as it could mean that Sharia law no longer governs their marriage, inheritance, and succession.

Analysts worry that India’s attempt at marrying a pluralist society with a secularist system of governance will continue to be chipped away at as the ideas proposed by Hindu nationalists gain mainstream credence and support from citizens and public institutions.

“There is something deeper at play here that is not only the outcome of electoral strategy,” Gilles Verniers, assistant professor of political science at India’s Ashoka University, told CNN.

“There is a deeper, structural, societal transformation taking place.”

Verniers said Modi’s BJP was creating a nation where citizens of different religions were increasingly second-class citizens.

The editor Kapoor’s concerns are broader — he is worried about the health of the world’s biggest democracy.

“I think it’s bad for democracy. Especially the secular democracy we were brought up on, we were told it would be fair to minorities, fair to everybody,” he said. “(The government) has a clear idea about where they want to take India and it has nothing to do with secularism.”

Read more: CNN wants India to tolerate an Islamic state and Shariah law within its territory to uphold ‘Secularism’

---

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/asia/india-muslim-modi-intl-hnk/index.html

[Disclaimer]

The post In secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The media-political establishment of the United States of America suffers from remarkable hubris. Despite the atrocious conduct of the USA in recent times, the liberal media and the Democrat party continues to feign moral superiority over the rest of the world, especially India. As the USA continues to struggle through an era of the great divide, CNN has become the embodiment of the rot that has taken over the country. In an article published by CNN on the 20th of November titled “In secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim”, the author expects India to tolerate a state of affairs that the USA will never tolerate within its own territory.

The author uses the abrogation of Article 370, the Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi case and the NRC to paint a picture of Muslims in India living as second-class citizens.

The author of the CNN article about India says about the Ayodhya verdict, “The ruling on the Ayodhya site was seen as a blow to Muslims. It also came at a time when Muslims increasingly see themselves as second-class citizens in the predominantly Hindu country.” The author states further, “In August, the Indian government stripped the majority-Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, essentially giving New Delhi more control over the region’s affairs.”

Read: Research Scholar slams the western media and academia for its bias against Indian ‘rightwing’

She adds, “That same month, nearly two million people in India’s northeast Assam state were left off a controversial new National Register of Citizens, which critics feared could be used to justify religious discrimination against Muslims in the state. All of this comes under the shadow of the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist who has spoken out repeatedly against India’s secularism.”

This is a deliberate attempt to slander India at the international scene. We can only be grateful for the fact that CNN is not taken seriously even in the USA, let alone in India. And it is precisely this adamant refusal of the alleged news network to ignore facts at the altar of a preferred narrative that has destroyed CNN’s credibility.

The Ayodhya verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the conclusion wasn’t decided by the Narendra Modi led government. Will liberals now say the Supreme Court has fallen victim to Hindu Nationalism as well? Of course they will, it’s because they respect institutions only when they peddle the liberal agenda. Regarding the abrogation of Article 370, will the USA tolerate a law that provides for an Islamic state within its territory? All of us know the answer to that question and yet, India is expected to tolerate the same. Why?

Read: If Western ‘liberals’ can whitewash 9/11, imagine what they did to our history

With regard to the NRC, it is the duty of every country to ensure that illegal immigrants do not leech off the limited resources that are available to it. And the exercise is designed to suit that purpose. The political establishment of the USA may have different ideas but it is the moral imperative of every government to prioritize its own citizens over illegal immigrants. The political establishment of both parties in the USA do not believe it to be so. That is why Donald Trump got elected in the first place.

One of the reasons why the USA is so divided today is because of immigration. The Democrats support it because it increases their vote-bank. The Republican establishment supports it because it benefits businesses. But the average American is sick of it and does not want such a thing. That is why they voted Donald Trump to power, someone who promised to fix it but has been unable to due to resolute resistance from the political establishment.

India has different priorities than the United States and we still live in a country where Democracy at least functions the way it is supposed to. Narendra Modi promised to abrogate Article 370, he promised to enforce the NRC in Assam, his rise to power is defined by the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement and he has never shied away from it. Indians elected Narendra Modi to power on the basis of these promises and he delivered on these fronts. This is how a Democracy is supposed to work, not like the USA where an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want illegal immigration but the political establishment of both parties conspire to force it upon them.

Read: Of Nationalism and Hindu history: When fiction writer Romila Thapar writes for racist NYT, the result is bound to be poppycock

Then, the author of the CNN article argues that the future looked bleak for India because of the looming prospect of a Uniform Civil Code. She says, “Currently, India has separate marriage, property and adoption rules for people from different religions — but code would wipe those out. That particularly worries the Muslim community, as it could mean that Sharia law no longer governs their marriage, inheritance and succession rights.” And adds, “Analysts worry that India’s attempt at marrying a pluralist society with a secularist system of governance will continue to be chipped away at as the ideas proposed by Hindu nationalists gain mainstream credence and support from citizens and public institutions.”

It is a ridiculous assertion that could only find credence in the minds of Western liberals. Does Sharia have any place in American society? Would their favorite president Barack Obama propose Sharia law in America? Did Muslims live in great fear in the USA during Barack Obama’s tenure as President? They did not have Sharia law governing United States jurisprudence back then and they do not have it now either. If any party or politician would propose Sharia law in the United States, they would be hammered by everyone. Why is it then that Western liberals expect India to tolerate Sharia law in our country? Is the USA a less pluralistic country because it doesn’t have Sharia in its society?

Amusingly enough, the enforcement of a Uniform Civil Code is a pretty liberal idea and every liberal ought to celebrate the abolition of Sharia law. And yet, we see continuously that its liberals who explicitly support Sharia. It only goes on to show that liberals love Islam more than liberalism and liberalism ends where Muslim feelings begin.

Read: Dangerous reporting with the use of Hindu-Muslim binary fanning religious popularization: Kashmiri Americans write a scathing letter Washington Post

The article also uses Asaduddin Owaisi, a rabid hatemonger whose own brother wanted the Police to be lifted for 15 minutes so that Muslims could show Hindus who were the boss, to further its own charade. It also uses various other ’eminent intellectuals’ to further the notion that India is headed towards dark times.

Apparently, in order to uphold Secularism and liberal values, CNN believes India has to tolerate an Islamic state within its territory, it has to tolerate Shariah law and it has to tolerate illegal immigration as well. Does this look anything like Secularism or Liberalism? If it does, India wants none of it and it voted for a party that wants none of it either. And the political party is respecting the voters’ wishes. That is how Democracy is supposed to function.

Read more: In secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim

The post CNN wants India to tolerate an Islamic state and Shariah law within its territory to uphold ‘Secularism’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.