Talk:Pseudo-secularism

Pseudo-secularism in India

In my view, some information seems subjective. For example, the statement about Hindu religious songs/prayers being allowed in general schools is misleading. General schools do not have religious songs - the prayers are mostly based on (1) ethical poetry and do not refer to any god of any religion or (2) nationalistic songs like Vande Mataram or Jana Gana Mana. However it would help if someone can provide more accurate information and references. Thank you. Rohitbd 14:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

States non involvement with religion (A reference to the dictionary for the exact meaning of the word 'secularism' may be essential if the reader is an Indian as the word is often misunderstood in India) to my mind would go hand in hand with the right of people to profess/propagate religous thought. The state should not be for or against the religious faiths. Therefore no anti religion book, movie etc should be banned by the government because it is not the state's business to come out in the support of any religion. The state's role is to only ensure that the right to express religious views is upheld without threats of violence/fear by groups of opposing interests. Banning of books/movies by the state for fear of public violence can be resorted to but it would then imply an admission of failure of the civil machinery to maintain law and order and protect individuals and groups from expressing themselves - which is their right. A citizen of a secular state is as much within his rights to critisize any/all reigions as propagating the same. The state is no one to bat for the religious conservatives. In a secular state, the right to express/propagate religous views automatically includes right to criticise religious thought. (Blasphemy against any religion cannot be illegal in a true secular state).

Newspaper thing

[1] - As close as I have come to backing nids assertion as of right now.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, for what do you want a source?? Do you doubt that "The Hindu" backed Hussain when he painted the goddesses nude?? Or do you think that this behavious is secualr and you want a source which says that this is the behavious which is exactly called pseudo-secular.--nids(♂) 08:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I want a source that calls the Hindu pseudo-secular. Otherwise it's, if nothing else, OR. Hornplease

Except that proving the Hindu backed up Hussain (which I'm looking for) while giving the documented reaction on the Moh'd cartoons would obviously verify double standards, which would not be OR.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldnt. Please read WP:OR, in particular [2]. Hornplease 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah but that was before the RSS Gujarat quote calling it pseudo-secular. Point C is verified as well from the RSS and from mainstream publications like the pioneer [3] (kept it until pioneer article is found). Perhaps newspapers should be removed and title changed to "M.F. Hussain vis-avis Muhammad Cartoons" or something.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not if you dont want a long disquisition on the dissimilarites between the cases. Best not to drag it in. If you keep this article free of partisan wrangling, that will be a job well done. Hornplease 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct in the dissimilarities. Mf Hussain insulted Deities while the cartoon merely insulted a dead person. The only diference was that Hindus reacted in a civilized manner. Its even worse than I stated before.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Others might have other views; I have heard Khajuraho and what not quoted in this context. I myself have no opinion. But does it belong on this page? It's clearly a synthesis that falls under WP:OR. If nothing else, all other cases discuss state policy. reHornplease 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes Khajuraho. The outside of the temple is actually a set of guidelines ("illustrated" if you get my drift) of what not to do. the inside sanctum is free of pornographic nonsense. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That sound you hear is me not caring. The point is that there are arguments made on bith sides, and if you include one you have to include the other, made by about as many people. So the page should be kept free of, as I said, partisan wrangling. Finally, please note that my remarks about syntheses and state policy still stand. Hornplease 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So hornplease, what kind of a source do you want. Where The Hindu says that it has behaved in a pseudo-secualrist manner. Gr8.nids(♂) 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The only sound I hear is Akon. Since you obviously have reasons against calling "secular" newspapers Psec I guess us non Psec will just have to disregard your POV like we did on Category:Hindu politicians. Nids, there's no point in arguing with a secular, see what Mani Shankar Aiyar says.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear what I am saying. Unless you have a Reliable source saying that it is a major problem that newpapers are pseudosecular, you cannot have it here. Putting two things together like was done earlier is a specific violation of WP:OR, especially the synthesis section I referred you to. In any case, newspapers do not belong here - every single other example is of state policies. This isnt a generalised list of hypocrites. Hornplease 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Will it be fine for you if we just report this incident and call it secular.nids(♂) 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is fine in Pseudo-secularism except the destruction of all things Hindu.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not sure what that is supposed to imply, Baka, but I assume it was directed at me. Whatever. Nidhish, thank you for listening. I dont think that the incident can be reported on this page. It doesnt fit in with the rest of the examples, for one; all the others are about biased state policy. It doesnt have citations as being discussed sufficiently elsewhere.

If you want to start an article on the Hussain controversy, go ahead. It might belong in the discussion there. Hornplease 08:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this behaviour is not Pseudo-secularist?? I dont see any other scenario in which you can say that this incident can not be reported on this page.--nids(♂) 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasmaking a comment on Secularism as a whole. Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nidhish, I am arguing that pseudosecularism is properly applied as a criticism to government policy, as it is everywhere on this page. Also, it just isnt cited or non-OR enough, as I also pointed out. Hornplease 22:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We have specifically pointed out incidents through which it is clearly inferrable that "The Hindu" acted in pseudo-secularist manner. Do you agree?? What i could collect from your comments is that you want a source which specifically says that the way in which "The Hindu" behaved is called pseudo-secularism. (i.e. it is not enough to source 2+2 and equate it to 4. we will now have to find a source that says the complete equation 2+2=4.)--nids(♂) 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to say whether I think this instance is sufficient to say that the Hindu acted in a particular manner. It is true that I think you need a reference that states "many people frequently accuse newspapers in India, especially the Hindu, of being very pseudosecular".

I also think you are missing the point that the article focuses only on governments. There is a reason for this. Governments are bound to secularism. No individual or newspaper is similarly bound; there is no law stopping them from being hypocrites. So it isnt really that encyclopaedic; the article isnt a list of hypocrites. Hornplease

India

The previous version described the term pseudo-secularism as if it was a listing of facts. However, it fails to take into consideration that the term is used as a political smear word in Indian politics. My wordings deal with how the term is used in the Indian context. The chapter could be expanded, but the former version should not stay (especially the 'media' section is hilarious). --Soman 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Germany

So what are the two Christian groups? Lutheranism and Catholicism (e.g., from Bavaria)? Inquiring minds want to know. Ggugvunt 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The so-called Landeskirchen (regional churches) -- Lutheran and Reformed, or a union of the two -- raise almost all their income through the church tax. The Roman Catholics are also supported by state taxes. The government in effect passes the plate for the church and is paid by the church for its services."--Editor2020 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany is a highly irreligious country so you cant speak about Pseudo-Secularism in Germany. The Majority of the People in Germany doesnt care about Religion.--88.66.159.127 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

india / communal

Can we have a contextual definition & link for "communal" in the section on India? I'm loath to attempt one, myself, but there needs to be some additional information here. --Lquilter (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

1. Theory of Evolution is of course taught in schools.

2. Religion lessons are taught in the same sense as history lessons, they are objective.

3. Mosques are built by private foundations, not the state.

Turkey was actually before the takeover by Islamists in 2002 already at best semi-secular.--88.66.159.127 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources, OR

Most of this article is OR based on someone's interpretation of the term, and I've deleted it. There are some decent sources here [4] to help rewrite it (starting with the lead). For the use of the term as applied to the Middle East, see [5]. Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Is this term notable enough to warrant it's own article? If the Elenjimittam article is the only source we have, I'd say this should be a section in Secularism in India and not a stand-alone article. See WP:NEO. SPat ^talk 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are we ignoring the elephant in the room?

The USA is either pseudo-secular or nominally secular. The latter means secular in name only. To me that is pretty much the definition of pseudo-secular.

Roughly half the US population insists the nation is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values. And in these "blue states," where this opinion is in the majority, government assemblies are known to block non-Christian prayers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended for suggesting specific changes to improve articles, that are not based on original research or personal opinion. Also, you're extremely confused if you think it's the blue states (majority Democrat states) insisting America is a Christian nation. The red states (majority Republican states) are more right wing, filled with more people who insist that America is a Christian nation, and are more likely to complain whenever someone tries to stop Christian prayers during gov't functions but still stop non-Christian ones. Blue states are more likely to either allow prayers from all religions, go with a non-denominational "moment of silence," or else discourage public prayer during gov't functions. The article is not ignoring an elephant in the room, it is simply not imagining one. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The US is actual pseudo-secular because there are Creationist Museums that teach that the world was created by god just like the bible tells it for example.--88.66.159.127 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification tag deleted with no explanation, source doesn't appear to back the text

User:Greenbottle6 removed the clarification tag from: "Makarand Paranjape sees the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the demolition of Babri Masjid{{clarify|date=October 2014|reason=Unlike with the 1984 riots, the INC was not directly involved here, so what exactly does the author mean?}} as examples of the Indian National Congress practising pseudo-secularism."<ref name="Paranjape2009">{{cite book|author=Makarand R Paranjape | title=Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gslfcdHp0soC&pg=PA50 | accessdate=16 April 2013 | year=2009 | publisher=Anthem Press | isbn=978-1-84331-797-5 | page=50}}</ref> but didn't clarify or justify the removal. I then looked at the source, couldn't see how it backed the statement (which seems to be the reason for the clarification request) and removed the entire text, only to be reverted on, oddly, NPOV grounds. Here is the source:

"In India, secularism came to be redefined as equal respect, not indifference, towards all religions, or what Vinoba Bhave, expounding Gandhi, called sarva dharma samabhava. Under Congress rule, this equal respect turned into appeasement of Muslim clergy, as in the Shah Bano case, or murderous rage against Sikhs, as in the riots after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The Babri Masjid, too, was demolished when a Congress Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, ruled India though the destruction was carried out by the Sangh Parivar. The Congress lost the trust of some Hindus and Muslims, not to mention the Sikhs, by its equivocations and mendacity. When the Babri Masjid fell, Muslims learned that the Congress could not be relied upon to defend their interests; this signaled, so to speak, the end of minoritarianism as the official policy of the state. In accepting BJP majoritarianism, I would suggest, that Indians came grudgingly to acknowledge that the best guarantee for pluralism in India was neither hyper-secularism that showed contempt to all religions or pseudo-secularism that allowed the cynical manipulation of religion for political ends, but an acknowledgement of critical I Iinduism as a source of plural values and ways of life."

Nowhere does it suggest that practicing pseudo-secularism by the INC caused these events. It mentions "pseudo-secularism that allowed the cynical manipulation of religion for political ends" but doesn't directly accuse the INC.

As Greenbottle6 has insisted that the text be kept until it's discussed here, I'm doing that now. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok you agree that demolition of babri mosque is a clear proof of anti minority pseudo secularism and think that there should be a clarification tag you can add it. In my view keeping mosque demolished till now is clear pro minority bias by government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbottle6 (talk • contribs)

@Greenbottle6: I do not see where Doug Weller suggested that. Please do not pretend that users or sources say things they did not actually say -- doing so makes it impossible to simultaneously assume both honesty and competence from you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

He is clearly saying why clarification tag is removed. I have explained. Assume good faith. I amnot saying how many churches and mosques were demolished during partition. Or what the education minister was told on telling the pathetic condition of Christians and Muslims by these pseudo secularists. Ld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbottle6 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greenbottle6:, our policy states that the source must clearly back the text. It doesn't and you aren't arguing that it does. You are stating your opinion, and that doesn't belong in the article, see no original research. And the article certainly isn't about bias by the government. And quoting my comment about "assume good faith" doesn't deal with the fact that I didn't agree to anything like what you say I agreed to. I said that the source doesn't back the text. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You agree or don't agree it is not the concern of article. Agree. People have eyes to see. I'm astonished to see this article how it is compiled. I was doing research so I said so. The source clearly back the text. If it is not you can see whole articles on babri mosque and anti Sikh riots. There is no need to cite sky is blue as per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbottle6 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't just tell someone "Agree" -- you have to provide a reason. Whether or not others agree is the concern of the article. As Doug Weller has already pointed out, the source does not support the text. You apparently need the WP:SYNTH policy cited at you -- we only summarize text, we don't interpret it. Two well-educated native speakers have looked over the source and cannot see how it supports the text. It does not actually say "the INC's pseudo-secularism resulted in riots." It mentions how the riots lead to distrust of secularism in general, whatever form it manifest as. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is not being terribly productive, as Greenbottle6 appears to be dodging the issue. The content is not supported by the source. Therefore, I have removed it once again. If a reliable source supporting it is found (and that is highly unlikely, considering the fact that the very term "pseudo-secularism" is largely a pejorative term used by politicians, rather than scholars) it can be reinserted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Minoritarianism

The subject is same as Minoritarianism, and the context is limited to India alone. So it is better to merge this article. Crashed greek (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources suggesting it is identical to minoritarianism? The sources currently in the article discuss it as a pejorative term. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. The scope of this article is one thing, and perhaps it should be edited to better reflect that scope. And if another article should be made with the scope proposed by the nominator, that is also permissible. But moving this page does not accomplish any of these goals, nor is it in line with policy. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Pseudo-secularism → Criticism of secularism in India – I propose in this section that Pseudo-secularism should be moved to Criticism of secularism in India, and that content from the Secularism in India article be split off into this one. Here is my reasoning.

Firstly, this article is about a term used in many countries, but the content is exclusively about India. Indeed, the page Pseudo-secularism (India) already redirects here. This content is therefore much better placed on an article that is explicitly about India, such as the title I have proposed. Another article could then be created at this title to cover global use of the term.

Secondly, the article about Secularism in India is a clear WP:POV article, and needs to be rewritten and reorganised. There is enough content about criticism of Indian secularism to split off a whole article about it. There is useful content on the Secularism in India article, although it would need to be rewritten. If such an article was written, it would cover essentially the same topic as this article, and it would be silly to have two separate articles. Thus I think it better that we undertake a merger at the same time. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This page is about a term, not about any criticism. If the OP wants to write about criticism of secularism (in India, perhaps), then they need to start with a section in the concerned main article. If it is accepted that there is a lot of content then it can be spun off from there. Please make sure to understand Use–mention distinction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons mentioned by Kautilya3. TiggerJay (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the nominator. Besides most of the content in this page is about India so, it seems fine to me to move to the suggested title. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with K3. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: the article is about the pejorative term, not a body of criticism. I'm not sure that "criticism of secularism in India" would be a viable article in any case: "opposition to secularism" might be. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Please add in the Example section:

The Government of Tamil Nadu distributed free rice to Muslims during Ramzan which elicited protests.

157.49.166.124 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It needs to be described as pseudo-secularism, otherwise it's WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References