On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Thaths <tha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you saying the exact term 'Pseudo-secular' is common usage among > both sides of the debate? Or are you saying that the terms 'communal' > and 'pseudo-secular' are used by both sides to sling as accusations > against at each other?
Yes. I meant the latter. Congress and other parties will use the word "Secular" to mean that they will not do what they claim BJP will indulge in. They brand BJP as a communal outfit and then the BJP side will argue that Congress is pseudo-secular which is as much as valid as Congress's accusations of BJP being communal and Hindu nationalistic party. I didn't use the word Secular instead of Psuedo-Secularism because though the meaning of Secular in india is directly opposite of Communalism and Hindu nationalism ( for some) based on current trends. The real meaning of Secularism doesn't mean that. Hence the word pseudo secularism. I don't know if there are any other terminologies and variations of these various terms used by these two sides. But these are the most common I've seen in debates between two sides, and I merely told I will not want to be branded into both sides. If some people have already associated me with some side, I will not give any damn to that because I know what are my principles and I leave it to people to feel free to assume my leanings, tint of the glasses I watch the whole world through and all. > Please excuse me for not debating with you on this point. As I pointed > out above, I am not interested in whether Modi is a butcher or > Manmohan hides behind Sonia's italian scarf or Jayalalithaa has a > predilection for, umm, Sasikala. I used Manmohan's recent example which every national paper covered, to show what would be viewed exactly pseudo secularism of the Congress by the some parties. I will not also want to indulge in any debate further with you on this. I rest my case. Regards, -- Bharat | http://twitter.com/shettyb
