Through the Window of Religions

The origin of religion remains shrouded in mystery, lost in the annals of time. While historical records trace the evolution of specific religions like Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism, the fundamental question of how religion itself began remains unanswered. The complexity of this inquiry is compounded by the fact that early religious practices, such as those in Hinduism and ancient Egypt, were heavily altered over time, with powerful individuals manipulating them to suit their needs.

The lack of accurate historical records contributes to this ambiguity. Early forms of religious beliefs, whether in Hinduism or elsewhere, were subject to distortion and transformation. Those in positions of strength altered these practices without witnesses, erasing crucial details from history. Their motivations may not align with contemporary ethical standards, but their actions achieved the intended result — the concealment of critical facts beyond their imagination.

Even as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Catholic Church shaped its version of Christianity, marked by discrimination against women and slaves. The truth about figures like Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus remains obscured. Depicting religious figures, considered blasphemous by some, further complicates the exploration, despite the absence of explicit prohibitions in certain religious texts.

The windows of religious exploration were often intentionally kept closed. Attempts to open them were met with ruthless suppression or cunning manipulations. For instance, the classification of classical divisions in Hinduism, like Nyaya, Samkhya, and Vaisheshika, was altered over time, causing confusion about their foundational principles.

Reflecting on these historical transformations prompts contemplation about the purpose of religion. Was it designed to serve humanity, or did it primarily benefit a select few? Islam's rapid spread in regions like the Middle East and Africa is linked to the oppression faced under Christian and Jewish rulers who claimed divine authority. The rise of Islam promised equality, yet internal power struggles eventually led to the schism between Shia and Sunni sects, resulting in centuries of bloodshed.

Centuries later, a European renaissance challenged religious dominance, sparking scientific advancements and enlightenment. The French Revolution, partly fueled by opposition to religious pressures, criminalized Christianity temporarily. Despite these upheavals, Europe's religious identity did not hinder its rise as a colonial power, exploiting other nations economically and religiously.

Colonial rule witnessed mass conversions to Christianity, often pitting one regional religion against another. The narrative of Shivaite Hinduism being connected to Christianity emerged, fostering division. This pattern repeated globally, with even Buddhism undergoing changes, such as the Hinayanas' transformation of Buddha into a deity.

In the 18th century, Islam saw the emergence of the Wahabi sect, associated with contemporary terrorism. This illustrates that the demonization of Islam is often due to specific sects rather than the Quran itself.

In conclusion, the opacity surrounding the origins of religion, coupled with deliberate distortions, raises concerns about its contemporary practice. While some find solace in religious practices, for others, it may be a wasted pursuit. The lack of transparency can be likened to a disease, particularly for those with the comfort of economic stability. As individuals grapple with the complexities of life, blaming external factors often becomes a coping mechanism, deflecting attention from personal responsibility.

What's Nationalism??

The Incident and a Brief History

With the recent incidents which sparked controversy and debate over what constitutes nationalism and what makes a man/woman patriotic, its very much important to understand and discuss several topics in parallel, though these incidents brought the same old concept at the forefront : Left vs Right. The students who sang the song of so called "dissent" were instead promoting there naive ideology of a "Free Kashmir" forgetting that even today, Kashmir needs India more than it needs those people who sing that song, the so called song of "Azadi".

The students who raised that obnoxious slogan were doing reverse of what is expected from a government institution. Instead of promoting the idea of assimilation, pacifism and providing the solution to integration, they were instead asking for disintegration. Disintegration on what basis, only they can answer. The most shocking was the defense of the few of teachers and students who, allegedly, were hiding them. The point is, this way (if teachers and students have done so) they were not doing what was being expected from them. Instead they choosed to divert the entire attention toward the arrest of JNUSU president who was for sure arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by BJP MP, which is in itself a political move rather than a move to restore the broil on campus. Also entire feedback was being provided by only ABVP. None of the member of AISA or DSU or any other political wing of students was providing any information regarding the details of the incident.

Like ABVP, AISA members were also busy in making fake video in order to prove that ABVP member had shouted "Pakistan Zindabad". Just after the video was released, the JNUSU vice president went on to claim about the intention of ABVP to malign the campus.
Why AISA, which has its political affiliation to CPI is so dominant in the campus? Why ABVP members say that they are being constantly warned and threatened by the teachers on the campus? Why is this that the present BJP government is in a rush to take on the academic campuses? These all incidents have one historical answer : Thanks to Prof Nurul Hasan. When he became Minister of Education, he played a deadly game to create his own nation, a nation where every intellectual and student becomes trained communist so that the purpose of Indira Gandhi is served very well. And I must say, he succeeded very well. This move of him, that is recruiting teachers of communist mindset, did so great harm that Right wing was completely eliminated from the intelligentsia and what remained of Right Wing was only RSS, an organisation which virtually promoted that India which was hated most by the constitution of India itself,i.e, a HINDU RASHTRA

Aftermath of Incident

But what brought nationalism to the forefront of discussion on the news channel was when bunch of lawyers or incarnated Gundas beat up the journalists and manhandled the teachers in the courtroom. They were all shouting slogans of "Vande Matram" aggressively as if they have been awarded the contract of promoting Nationalism. The next day when one of the news anchor asked them justification for their action, she was asked shout "Vande Matram". Now the question arises : Is beating up the alleged "student" by the "lawyers" over the issue of slogans which were allegedly sedition can be branded nationalism? Is shouting "Vande Matram" and forcing people to do same "Nationalism" or patriotism? Is asking for the hanging or jail with severe punishment for the "student" charged for sedition nationalism?

All these questions have become so relevant today that they were never before, atleast after 1947. Now, the question is : What is Nationalism? What slogans can be regarded as the slogans of "dissent" from idea of Nationalism and what slogans can be regarded as slogans of "sedition"? The law and the constitution are very clear on this, they cast no confusion and leave no shade of doubt. They say that sedition are only those words or actions which incite or promote violence. The idea of India as a nation is well defined in the speech of "Objective" of Constitution by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru when Constituent Assembly was formed. Those were not the objectives written by Nehru but they were feedback by leader from every corner. The objectives was seen as disrespect by many Muslim leader because it had eliminated the inclusion of "Sharia Law", but that did not move away this nation. 

Later, after the constitution was give its final form by the Constituent Assembly, the Preamble defined the idea of India in its nine words. These nine words are in contrast to what has happened in JNU in the name of "free speech" and what has happened in Patiala Court in the name of "protecting" the sovereignty of Mother India. In JNU they were raising the pro-Afzal slogans, OK they can raise, but they were also raising slogans of "Bharat Ki Barbadi" which is definitely sedition. But, the point is this, that these were the slogans being raised not by fidayeens but by bunch of students who are driven by the idea of naive idealism, which can be treated by proper councilling. These slogans were being raised in solidarity (as per the pamphlets) with the people of Kashmir. This is not terrorism, this is confusion, confusion of what is dissent and what is sedition. Treating this with "danda" will only lead to further escalation of problem. Instead of arresting such people, its better to make them realise that they should be shameful for their act. Its these students who should take the call for regret and understand the depth of tolerance of this "Mother India".

As for the lawyers, they are not lawyers, they behaved like Gundas. Taking law into hand is not what is expected from a lawyer. They should be debarred from the council and made to work in "Vridhha Ashrams" so that they should realise what is expected from people residing in a democratic nation. Being a lawyer, they should enlighten the people and discourage them from taking law in their hands, instead they choosed the rverse. They justified the act and went on claiming that they were deeply hurt by the pain "inflicted upon Bharat Mata". But the point is, that everybody was deeply hurt but nobody had retorted to violence. Well I am pretty sure, that these goons are not the lawyers like Gandhi. How much honest they are only they know about that. Those claiming themselves to be the contractor of "deshbhakti" should check their collars, what they have done to this Mata. Crony Capitalism, massive corruption, riots, implication in FIRs and so on are the gifts of these contractors to their "only Bharat Mata".

Conclusion

In my opinion, Nationalism is another word for "Social Service". You not doing that, then please do not call yourelf to be nationalist. In that case you are just opportunist. In this story of JNU, those who raised slogans and those beat them or see nothing wrong in it, are nothing but just an opportunist to me. These JNU students were seeking some opportunity and these lawyers were busy seeking their opportunity, none was serving the purpose of "Bharat Mata". As per as the media is concerned, I have written a lot about them earlier, don't want to get my hands dirt again....

Whats the problem of Muslims

Around 650 A.D. Prophet Muhammad went on for establishing a religion which he thought would be peaceful and liberate people from the torture of Jewish and Christian Empires, which on the name of religion, used to project King as the ultimate messenger of God. The Kings were generally barbaric and segregated from the emotions of their own subjects. The people were frustrated, angry and hopeless. After the death of Christ, Church had unleashed mayhem on its own people. Females were butchered to death and the Kings later on, in the name of God , stole away the dignity of their own people. It is during these times that Middle East was in chaos and future seemed bleak. Prophet Muhammad was born but was orphaned very soon. He later on went on to establish his religion after revealing that he has been visited by Gabriel. In order to preach his religion, he made agreements from the neighbouring nations like Syria which was a Christian Empire then. But agreements were broken by these egoistic Kings, which led to War and eventual defeat of this barbarian Kings. People, who were frustrated saw hope in Muhammad. Muhammad's teachings enlightened them and again enforced their belief in God, for a very simple reason that, Muhammad said that he is the last prophet of God and "God is one". He always insisted that he is here to spread the message of God like "the other Prophets" have done, for example, Jesus. For Prophet, Christianity was not a different religion but another refined format of Christianity which had been highly compromised after the death of Jesus and hence it needed transformation. For Prophet, reformation was "Islam". It was not a different religion. He didn't kill those who refused to accept Islam but he killed those who rejected, resisted and betrayed Islam. All those Kingdoms who had betrayed the concept of "Children of Israel" were executed. The beginning was not good but the results were better than the past.

Present Day

So why has such a powerful religion which once liberated the people from torture, made them to rule over entire world has now become the reason for debate that why not to eliminate Islam? Why the people in West have got so much issues with this religion that they refuse to accept the children dying on their shore? Why a student from this sect is looked upon with suspicion? Why they are accused of creating ruckus in every country they live in

If one asks me this question, I simply have one line answer : " Its because nowhere they are in majority and wherever they are in majority, their policy is decided by Government which does not belong to their country". After the death of Muhammad, one unfortunate incident occurred which was not that unfortunate till then but it later, after 1000 of years, is making them to pay the actual price. After death of Muhammad, Islam was guided by three Caliphs which one big community of Islam denied to accept. This community later came to be known as "Shia" and their half brothers were those who believed these Caliphs and came to be known as Sunnis. Later on, states in Middle East were formed on this basis. So wherever, Shia were in majority, Sunni were in minority and vice versa. 

This one difference, made them so vulnerable to external interference, that after the fall of Ottoman Empire, the Islamic countries became mere puppets at the hands of Western Powers. Never ever the game of Christianity vs Sunni vs Shia was played because issue was not religion but the issue was OIL. Most of the fortune 500 companies belong to this sector and their revenue is so high that they can en-gulp 9-10 companies which offer similar salaries to their employees. What it meant that if one had control over Oil, then one had control over the economy of this WHOLE WORLD.

Gautam Buddha once said :

There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.   

And then began the game, game of proxy wars, game of money because it was very important particularly when most of the colonies were now self ruled state. Saudi Arabia was created in 1932. Up-till late 1950s these countries were doing good. There was human rights, girls were free in main cities and towns, they had their say. In Western World, the problem with this religion were racial but not "ideological". Being a Muslim was not an issue but being Asian, being poor, being African was.

When the authorities of these nations nationalised oil in their nation, the Western eyebrows were raised. Coup were orchestrated against the elected government of nations like that of Iran and the situation got even worse after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The region went into tormoil as Saudi was busy in projecting itself as the sole "contractor of Islam" and was always being encouraged by US and Europe. Saudis had no issue until then with the Iranians but from the late 1970s, the tensions flared because the Westerners didn't let loose any single moment to brew up the fire. They encouraged the fire with their proxy setups. West was engaged in continuous proxies at that time. They had failed to learn lessons from the Vietnam War and the irony was this that they still continued to call themselves as the masters and the most powerful.

The worst happened when Westerners trained some fighters to harm USSR interests. It is here that the table were turned against the Westerners and later on against the whole Muslim World. The fighters whom they had trained, later on wore the mask of "Zihad" and butchered  Westerners themselves. The unfortunate incident of 9/11/2001 in which thousands of US people died (innocent because they had not voted their government for their death), turned the table against Muslims. After that series of terrorist attacks started and the religion which had once aspired to bring peace on to the region, brought havoc instead. The war mongers used Holy Quran and the idea of Wahabbism to unleash Zihad against their own people. The rest was done by US and NATO when they entered soils of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

I am not talking much about India because the conflict among Muslims and Hindus in India is more about the vague idea of what we call as freedom from "British Empire". The Britishers ruled this nation for 150 years because of only one fact : Tipu loosed to Britishers. Tipu was a Muslim who was denied aid from the neighbouring Maratha Kingdoms. That virus still infects us. Its more than 200 years since that incident.

Conclusion

Prophet never unleashed Zihad against own people because by the time Prophet had died, there were no cars and there was no US, Saudi or Iran.

The Grand Indian Marriages

Marriage in India is not practically a marriage, its a filtration process, a process which is in every religion and no one, I mean no one, whether love marriage or arrange marriage, is immune from it. The point is this, that marriage in India is not a personal concept at all, its a social concept.

"Look her, she got married at 23 itself !! Such a happy Lady.... Don't you think that you should too??"
"Look at him, he got married at 27 itself, just after he finished 1 year after an MBA. Don't you think you should too??"
"I am about to die, let you keep my last wish alive. I want to see my granddaughter/grandson married. I want to hold my Grand-Grandchild in my arms".... So lovely,, isn't it??

From the above para, as you can see, these are religion-less comments, in other words, universal and eternal..... 4 years of age gap is welcome since ideal age is 23 and 27. So nice... Dear Reader, you must understand that these standard ages had some social amendments. In earlier days it used to be 16 and 21, 5 years to 4 years.

Now we should look upon the filtration process. When it comes to water purification, generally there are three different methods : RO filters, Aqua-guard and Simple Candle Filters. One day, few men and women of some Indian society, combined them all in a step by step sequence. The RESULT : They got MILK from WATER !!! Waaaaaaawwwwww....

They used their head now, knocked it and knocked it many times. Then they came up with this idea : If water can produce milk then what men and women will produce if they are also subjected to similar process. One of them argued that they will produce Super Childs, his argument was a welcome. But then one intellectual argued : " Since water which is considered at par with milk, has produced actually milk, therefore, the men and women will actually produce GODS since Children are incarnation of Gods (if we subject them through this process)." Everybody was like : "Hmmmmm"

And hence began the quest of this process. What should be the process? The priests from every section like Hindu, Muslim, Christians, Sikhs etc. were appointed, Religious books were "bought" (and I think they must have been read too) and ideal and suitable places were identified. And the results were as follows :

Religion Filters (the numbers 1,2,3 etc. represents the sequence of filters to be used)

Christians : 1.Vatican Sect/ Orthodox Sect 3. Tribal/Non-Tribal
2. Roman Catholic/ Protestants

Muslims : 1. Muslim 3. Pathans/Qureshi etc.
2. Shia/Sunni

**Hindus thought that they are oldest, so they need a better filter, hence they came with six filters :
Hindus : 1. Hindu 2. Caste 3. Subcaste 4. Gotra 5. Kul-Devta (neglected nowadays) 6. Kundli (this is an adjustable filter)

Hmmmmmmmmmm............. Similar is the case of other religions, you can add in the comments. Well, in the end, I must admit, it was a significant achievement by our ancestors and marked a clear cut chapter in our Indian Heritage and Culture. We must carry onto these traditions and make sure that the Holy Soul of our ancestors are happy and enjoying their eternity......

Europe and Its Refugee Crisis

In this age of frequent Civil Wars, perhaps what world  had never witnessed so far, Europe is reaping its own harvest. Europe with the aid of its God Father (America) tried not only to revolutionise and change the discourse of Arab Nations by imposing Democracy but also it did not turn away from using violence through its creation called NATO. Europe thought that it will end what it use to call "crisis", the dictatorial crisis by a single blow, by promoting violence and using proxy groups for weakening the corresponding government. The Arab Spring got a humongous public support, many of the dictators gave up like that of Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt but the Syrian Government did not. Instead Syrian Government bombed the protesters and created a vacuum, a vacuum of trust among its own people. This vacuum created enough opportunities for radical groups to grow up. They got their support from few people who were among those hurt by the violent measures taken by the government to curb the so called Arab Spring. Among these groups who were dreaming of their reign, there was one group which was promising people of an Islamic State, a unified Islamic State which would be ruled by a Caliphate just like the olden days, those olden days in which Islam ruled, conquered, built mosques, eliminated everything and anything which was detached from Allah....

Many people misled by this notion, supported every bit of IS views. But who knew that IS was not Islam. It was Wahhabism, an extreme Sunni sect which wanted Sunni Islam built on the concept of Wahhabism and Deobandi. Wahhabism does not respect even the Sufi sect, they believe in either the submission or cutting-off any demonstrator who does not accept their choice. Later on IS started persecuting all of them who denied its Wahhabi stand and the Sunni notion. Different local groups such as the Kurdish groups, who were once declared terrorists working against state, suddenly gained support not only from the people but from government too. But it was already too late as America had delayed the calculations a lot. Six months after IS had started holding strong grounds, US President Barack Obama admitted that they had heavily under-estimated IS. IS now controls more than 50% of the Syrian territory and almost 500,000 people have lost their lives to this Civil War.

Europe : Double Trouble

Europe is losing money very fast. PIIGS have already gone bankrupt and they are withdrawing themselves from pumping money in any situation which does not mean business to it. And at this situation the refugees who number in millions, have arrived at its door seeking asylum, its right to live and avoid the conflict of which they are nothing more than just a victim. The refugees are finding it very hard to live with dignity that they even did not bother the lobbying by UK in 2014 to get away with Mare Nostrum. Mare Nostrum was a mission focused over saving refugees from drowning but UK wanted them to drown so that they should not take that journey. But the situation back at home were so dangerous for these refugees that they multiplied their attempts and risked their lives for reaching Europe which has a lesser stringent laws for Refugees and respects Human Rights more than any continent does, may be not by spirit but at-least by rules. Refugees were also encouraged by European public who welcomed them everywhere which is not only "Being Human" but also slapping its own government.

The mass killings, severe conflict, armed race, proxy wars and many other factors which led to mass exodus of the Syrians is such that One-Third of the Syrians are refugee in their own state and and another 4 million have fled their country. Most of them are educated, employable, in new age group which are perhaps the demand of the European State. But Europe is going bankrupt, it is not ready for this much of rehabilitation. A few countries such as Hungary has said that it won't accept any "Muslim" population despite this fact that even if Europe takes the entire population, the percentage of Muslim population with respect to total population residing in Europe will increase by hardly 1% and still it will be less than 5% of the total population. This same sick attitude of Europe has led to participation of around 4000 European Muslims out of nearly 35000 in IS. The isolation of its own people just because they belonged to some religion, gave a push to recruitment drive of these extreme religious outfits, and now Europe is repeating the same. 

Trouble or Opportunity

As mentioned earlier, the European population is an aging population. Europe needs educated youths. Also the vague argument over Muslim population does not stand any chance as the refugees once given an asylum, try very fast to engage within the country, open their own business as is evident in case of Syrian refugees who belong mostly to at-least an average family. They afforded $1000 per head to cross Europe. So if given chance, then they will contribute to Economy and perhaps return very soon of what is being invested on them right now. We have defaulters who have cheated for years, can't we give these refugees a chance to show them what is an observed fact. Also, since a war torn refugee is himself/herself a sufferer, so it is observed that most of the refugees try to live a very peaceful life in their new place. During this, they compromise a lot with their interest so that they do not disturb the natives and limit their own chance of a good life. More than that, these refugees had not created IS but it was created by the political and strategic vacuum which was created by US and its European Allies (who are refusing to accept them). Till now, despite this huge crisis, its the first option of US and its Allies is that the Syrian Government should step down first and then they will co-operate with the office of Syria over the issue of IS. Such a trash.....

Though Assad (Syrian Monarch) could not be given a clean chit but he is trying to make sure that IS is put on the back-foot despite this fact that his neighbours, like Saudi Arabia, are keen on destablising the Syrian Governmnt as its a Shia Government (and Saudi's are Sunni and so is IS). Saudi and its neighbouring countries such as Oman, UAE have accepted zero refugees (shamelessly) but Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt are taking care of 95% of the refugees. Europe should try to utilise these refugees on humanitarian ground as it needs them more than they do. Europe will starve for people if it does not accept youths at faster rate. This unfortunate moment has given them such opportunity, they should utilise it. Europe should stop singing the vague "Muslim" song and should understand that refugees tend to commit less crime than the natives as they have arrived in Europe not to loot but to find better opportunity. IS is not refugees' creation but of Europe itself !! 

Politicians of Today, Politicians of Yesterday !!

People argue that there has been a steep decline in the dignity of politics by the politicians and they are on completely different sides as compared to their predecessors who represented India during and just after the Indian Independence. In my view, its a bogus argument. Demoralisation or declination of an institution or a discipline does not occur overnight. In my view, the decline of the dignity of politicians, if not the politics, had been a major contention of doubt by "Pitahmas" of politics of every generation. Be it the representatives of Socialist party of 1922 in the ministries of later period or the Congress Party after the Government of India Act 1935, every time there was a sign of reluctance shown by the senior members in participation of elections and ministries crafted by the Britishers because they knew well that most of the humans, including those who are sage, often submits his/her principles to the virtue of "power". And unfortunately, it came out to be true. One of the prime reasons for the Congress to withdraw from the ministries was the increasing level of corruption among its ruling members. After the independence, in 1948 itself there was Jeep Scandal Case which was termed as the first major scandal case in independent India's history. Also, during the making of Constitution, people involved in the different Constitution making committees showed their genius character which they had imbibed, but the members who had been participating in the debate some times exposed their conservative views when it came to issues like National Language or the marriage at will or religious laws particularly the Sharia Laws. The members who had been making noise regarding the Sharia Laws were the previous members of Muslim League. In my view, the present so called "secular" leaders and the communal ones are no way less than any Muslim League members as they are ready to put wedges between the social fabric so that it could continue to strengthen their political base. 

Is there any Difference?

The history is repeating itself because the causes are the same and their is no change, perhaps, in the quality of factors which lead to this. Not to speak of the uneducated or illiterate people, even the educated class continues to behave as if they hold a fake certificate. The entire idea of democracy could be successful only if the people respect the meaning of individual's behavourial quality and not of individual's dynastic quality. Still today this practice prevails in the so called "Institutes of National Importance" like the NITs, IITs etc. where regionalism or the party representation has a lot to do with the college politics. And today with the availability of Social Media platforms, any leader escapes the media questions and answers those on his/her own terms by a tweet or a post. The only difference which makes the behaviour of politicians today and yesterday different is their approach towards media. The "Pitahmas"  used to be media friendly but the politicians today brand any media agency as an agent of the opposite party. In my opinion this is the only difference. The aggression among the politicians have become rampant and they don't want anybody to differ from their opinion. If anybody does, then he is a Pakistani, or an agent, or a Hindu terrorist. 

This aggression is because of two things : 

first, they are finding it very difficult to adjust with the changing generation; too much of media presence which even takes a dig when they play hide and seek while watching porn in the respective assemblies; presence of women in the nation and in every field which is shaking their feet and taking off their grounds. Such is the danger that they even make sexist remarks out of frustration in order to demean its importance. Second is the changing equation of the people itself. In the paragraph above, I have written about the bigot nature of people who till now used to vote on the basis of origin of the corresponding leader, but what could be witnessed now, and which is a good sign, that even in the state election of Bihar, "relative development" is going to be an issue and from a caste based politics it might change to party based politics. which though may not be good but certainly can be branded as an improvement in the present circumstances. Previously when Nitish Kumar's party came, it came on the agenda of development only. That election was a departure of Biharis from caste based politics. But the darker side is this that RJD loosed election not because of this departure but the critical role played by Ram Vilash Pasvan in wooing the Muslim votes away from him. Lalu had his share still less the Muslim votes. In other words that election may not be a complete departure but it was indeed a beginning and it won. 

Conclusion

People are still wandering and they will continue to wander and this wandering will strengthen the politicians to further deteriorate the standard of politics, one example is the recent stalemate of the Parliament which is not only stalling processes but in my terms, its about taking the country on back foot. The onus is on the people to distinguish between what they had contended for and what do they achieved as a result. The movement does not need a leader but individual leader who can guide themselves and not copy any one else.

   

Why Indian version of Secularism is the Best

The very basic definition of secularism is very simple to understand (though even more tough to implement in one's own life),i.e., unbiased orientation to any religion or some consider that secularism means any doctrine that rejects religion or religious considerations. But as we all know, legal processes have their own version in every aspect. There are two versions of secularism considered widely, one is the Indian Secularism and the other is Western Secularism. As per Indian Secularism, the state can interfere in religious sanctions, rules or anything else which it considers uncomfortable with respect to rights conferred on its citizens or residents by it which have evolved out of hundreds of debates, years of struggle for equal right towards its freedom from a foreign government or its peaceful era during a Mughal Empire which turned disastrous during Aurangzeb. Whereas the Western Secularism does not interfere with the definition of secularism at all. It has imbibed it as a principle definition, its definition strictly means that state has nothing to do with religious considerations.

The point is this that the two definitions are good on their own where Indian secularism, with respect to state, is not a hundred percent definition but the definition of Western Secularism could be said to be hundred percent in its character. But the point is this that India and West have one thing in common, they adhere to the Human Rights (HR) and HR should not be violated on any grounds. Now the point is this, that as per HR, Indian Parliament and Courts can direct anyone to put its religious sanction on back foot and must follow the state's decision  whereas with regard to West it becomes difficult. Due to this sometimes Western nations find it very difficult to accommodate its people from other nations to adjust in its environment whereas in India, its very clear, messing with state on the name of religion is not good for health though political sector may show sympathy (often).

This clear perception, in case of India, drives the third generation to normally a no confusion state but in case of West, it often goes out of order. This has resulted into participation by the third generation into terrorist organistaion such as IS etc. from the Western countries but from India, despite having larger share of population, there is very little participation.

**The Third Generation means the second successor of a migrant. So suppose a person moves to another country then his grandson/grand daughter belongs to third generation

Part of the problem also lies with the western society which generally does not digest easily any new comer and instead of considering her/him part of the family, considers her/him as a "resource sharer". One of the reason which may sound valid to those who are exposed to such situation is this that the westerners are finding it very difficult to cope up to the competition which they have never witnessed. And the version of their definition further reinforces that conclusion as they discriminate people on the basis of culture they pursue, and since state can absolutely not interfere with that culture (which is good but turns out to be bad), they brand those other people as "migrants". This results in this that despite living in the corresponding countries for may be more than half a century, these migrants though may not be officially a migrant any more, but psychologically they remain so. European countries are very different from USA, in my opinion the Europeans are still very conservative and orthodox kind of people. Even USA did not see such a huge participation in terrorist related organisation like ISIS by its citizen as the Europeans did. Things in America turned out bad only after the 9/11 attack.

Conclusion

Leave aside the communal organisations like RSS or All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen or Indian Christian Front, the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court of India could be regarded the best on their platforms as compared to any other in the world. We allow people not only to upkeep their religion (unlike French Court which does allow Christian nuns to wear veils but does not allow Muslim women to wear Burqa ) provided it does not violate any basic feature of our Constitution but we also do not allow any body to say anything derogatory against any religion like "Charlie Hebdo" in the name sake of so called "Freedom Of Speech".