[Reader-list] The "Sickular" History

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Venugopal jee

Firstly I am sorry to have put up that statement. Since there are people who
do vote on communal basis (by this I mean a Hindu will vote for a Hindu only
and same for a Muslim), so therefore if the BJP is communal, it would indeed
get the votes of these Hindus, not zero votes. So on that count, you are
right, Sir, and I apologize for the same.

On the account of the Congress, I would say that wrong is wrong and the
Congress can't call itself to be secular because of such incidents even 100
years from now. And for the Congress anyway, the problem is more than that.
They have a stereotypical image of the Muslims (as seen in their Urdu
campaign posters they gave), and also would like this image to be there so
that Muslim votes get consolidated behind them, specially in states like the
one from where I come (Madhya Pradesh, where there are only two major
parties in contention, the Congress and the BJP), without doing anything
good for them.(Of course they announce salaries for the ulemas and the
maulvis, but what good is that to the aam Muslims who are poor and require
employment?)

Any party can and should be deemed secular not only when they respect the
faiths of the citizens, but do not indulge in any act which can or may
result in creation of hatred in the future or problems in communities. Their
consolidation this way can create problems in society tomorrow, as seen in
Gujarat. So the Congress, at least in its current form, is not helpful; it
has to be changed so that Muslims actually get benefited rather than
chanting the word 'Muslim-Muslim-Muslim' in elections like the way 'Om' or
'Gayatri Mantra' is chanted by some devout Hindus

Regards

Rakesh