[Reader-list] The "Sickular" History

[Venugopalan K M]

Dear Rakesh,

In perfect agreement and with warmest regards,
Venu.


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
http://venukm.blogspot.com/