In a previous article, I tried to draw attention to what I thought was the failure of Indian secularism. In this article, I would like to identify its anti-Hindu character. In 2013, Bharatiya Janata Party general secretary Venkaiah Naidu said his party would introduce nationwide anti-conversion laws if his party was elected to power in 2014. : 385 As of January 2018, however, the party did not yet have a majority in the upper house of parliament. Party chairman Amit Shah called on opposition parties to support them in passing such a law.  The U.S. State Department has stated that the recent wave of anti-conversion laws passed by some states in various Indian states is seen as a gradual increase in Hindu ideological nationalism (Hindutva).  The government established the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the National Minority Commission (NCM) to investigate religious discrimination and make recommendations to local authorities to address it. Although they have no power, they are usually followed by local and central authorities. These organizations have investigated numerous cases of religious tensions, including the implementation of „anti-conversion laws“ in many states, violence in Gujarat against Muslims in 2002, and attacks on Christians in Orissa in 2008.  The preamble to the Indian Constitution contains the word „secular“ and articles 25 to 28 imply that the state shall not discriminate, frequent or interfere with the profession of any religion.  However, it protects individual religions or groups by adding religious rights as fundamental rights.
Article 25 states: „All human beings have the equal right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, exercise and disseminate freely with respect for public order, morality and health.“  In addition, article 26 states that all denominations may settle their own affairs in religious matters. All these rights are subject to state regulation.  The rest of Singh`s article deals with Article 48, which orders the state to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves, and articles 343 and 351, which make Hindi the official language of the Union and order the state to spread the Hindi language, which „uses mainly Sanskrit and secondarily other languages“ for its vocabulary. The current government`s bias against Hindi and the emphasis on protecting cows are then entirely constitutional, although one would like it to be different. Your wishful thinking is great, but do we have the necessary political will? The Hindu majority does not even gather online for a common cause. The elected Hindu government is not particularly bothered when members of his party are killed. This constitutional amendment is not their game. Hindu society should take to the streets, protest and get out of it.
In the meantime, please propose to declare/celebrate the anniversary of Lavanya`s death as „Anti-Conversion Day“ so that we can save many more innocent children. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution.  Modern India emerged in 1947 and the preamble to the Indian Constitution was amended in 1976 to affirm that India is a secular state.  The Supreme Court of India has ruled that India has been a secular state since the adoption of its constitution, what this amendment actually did is explicitly state what was previously implicitly included in Articles 25 to 28.  Every citizen of India has the right to practice and promote his religion peacefully. However, there have been numerous incidents of religious intolerance that have led to unrest and violence, including the 1984 anti-Sikh massacre in Delhi, the exodus of Hindus from Kashmir from Kashmir and Punjab in 1990, the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 and the anti-Christian unrest in Odisha in 2008. Some perpetrators of the 1984 Delhi anti-Sikh massacre have not been brought to justice despite widespread convictions.     No constitution can function without deciding on a state of emergency. However, since the state of emergency can take literally any form and cannot be specified too narrowly, it depends on the executive, which is sovereign when it comes to making the final decision.
Thus, in the decision on the state of emergency, we find the strange and contradictory coincidence of the greatest weakness of the constitutional apparatus with its greatest strength. Read more: The need for the Indianization of the Indian Constitution in the BJP Rule Article 30(2) reads as follows: „The State shall not discriminate against any educational institution in granting aid to educational institutions on the grounds that it is under the direction of a minority, whether based on religion or language.“ By remaining prisoners of the debate on secularism, we forget the real problem inherent in the idea of a constitution. We must not forget that Sharjeel Imam was indicted not only for sedition, but also under the UAPA anti-terrorism law. While it is likely that the sedition case will not hold (as former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju noted here), the UAPA case could face harsher consequences as it allows for arrests without a warrant. The police have 180 days to file a complaint and the accused cannot apply for bail. It is obviously a law that was drafted specifically for emergency situations. A glaring example of the anti-Hindu nature of Indian secularism is how Hindu temples have been adopted by state governments. The scale of this practice is simply staggering. What is even more troubling is that some of the states where the BJP is in power have not stopped this practice. If constitutional bodies, self-proclaimed guardians of the constitution and human rights groups had acted and outraged even one percent of what they did after the Godhra riots in Gujarat, the genocidal extermination and persecution of Kashmiri Hindus could easily have been avoided.
The genocidal pogrom against the Hindus of Kashmir remains the greatest national shame in independent India, nowhere in the world after the Nazi Holocaust, to which we turned a deaf ear. Even after a quarter of a century, our silence is deafening. In the minds of Hindus, the question rightly arises as to whether, in this way, the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to profess the Hindu religion manifests itself when Hindus become a minority in a region. Appeal to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi: Sir, there is no doubt that you are a Dharmian Prime Minister rooted in civilization. People have placed immense trust in you to preserve and promote our ancient civilization. You have a huge mandate to free Hinduism from constitutional submission by amending Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution to give Hindus equal rights on an equal footing with minorities. I hope enough evidence has now been presented to convince the skeptical reader that the accusation of the anti-Hindu nature of Indian secularism should be taken seriously. Hindu students who have been denied access to their ancient civilizational texts through public education learn nothing about Hinduism and its ancient civilizational heritage. On the contrary, public education was designed to brainwash Hindu students into hating and denying their own religion and culture.
Uprooted youths who shout anti-national slogans such as Bharat tere tukde tukde honge are products of anti-Hindu public education. Part 1A of Article 30 calls on the government to ensure that minorities receive preferential treatment when attempting to establish an educational institution. This was added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978. So the question that Dr. Singh and all those who are trying to re-read or recover the Constitution today must ask themselves is: can we imagine a functioning legal system without a state of emergency? And if not, doesn`t it require a radically new reflection on what should be right? This, I believe, is the real philosophical and political conundrum caused by any constitution, not just India`s. In fact, it is a disturbing cover-up that appears from reading article 28 as well as articles 29 to 30, which grant minorities special rights to establish educational institutions to teach their religion and culture. Therefore, only Hindu texts and knowledge can be taught, but not those of others. It seems that it is a diabolical project to destroy Hinduism by denying Hindus access to their ancient texts and religious, cultural and civilizational knowledge through public education.
We deliver more than 10 to 15 high-quality articles with expert ideas and views. From 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. late at night, we work to make sure that you, the reader, see what`s right. Therefore, only socio-economic criteria should serve as a basis for the selection of beneficiaries for all social systems. Yet huge sums of public money are given to minorities solely or mainly because of their religious identity, which is unconstitutional and anti-secular. Denial of educational rights to fragmented Hindu society: Article 30 grants minorities rights to education to the exclusion of majority Hindus. Therefore, inappropriate state interference weakens the functioning of Hindu educational institutions, while Article 30 protects minority institutions. The 93rd Constitutional Amendment and the sectarian applicability of the Right to Education Act have worsened the situation of Hindu institutions.
To escape the tyranny of the state, certain sections of Hindu society demanded a separate religious status to claim the educational rights of minorities. What is the effect of such blatant sectarian public funding? A Hindu who is not entitled to a particular advantage of a minority can suddenly claim it validly if he converts only to Islam or Christianity.