Is Nehruvian secularism morally bankrupt?

On April 16, A Horrifying visuals have emerged in the Palghar lynching incident where a mob of over 100 people killed two Sadhus and their driver even as the Police stood there as mute spectators, just letting the barbaric act unfold.

In the vedio that floated on social media, one of the Sadhus is running to save his life and trying to latch on to the policeman as the cop he releases himself and walks away, leaving the Sadhu to the mob. At around 42 seconds into the video, one could hear one of the bystanders scream “maar, Shoaib, maar”.

Did we hear anything from a libtard or a secularist who tweets on every single issue? Is this Nehruvian secularism? let's look at Nehruvian secularism...

The word secular was firstly raised by Nehru in a Constituent Assembly. But not added that time, In 1975 at the time of emergency Indira Gandhi dexterously added this in the Constitution.

The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as "the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion." But in India it means only one thing — eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic.

The most pertinent and crushing critique of Nehruvian secularism was made by K.M MUNSHI. He states :

"In its (secularism) name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism, condemns religious piety, particularly in the majority community.

He further states:
In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularismn sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of Somnath temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. .If however the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues...
if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up".

The fears expressed by K.M MUNSHI on the Nehruvian secularism are valid even today. 'More 'secularism" in India will end up feeding what is fights: the so-called 'Hindu fundamentalism'.

Sitaram goel views on Nehruvian secularism : The concept of Secularism is a gross perversion of the concept which arose in the modern West as a revolt against Christianity and which should mean, in the Indian context, a revolt against Islam as well. The other concept of Secularism, namely, sarva-dharma-samabhava was formulated by Mahatma Gandhi in order to cure Islam and Christianity of their aggressive self-righteousness, and stop them from effecting conversions from the Hindu fold. This second concept was abandoned when the Constitution of India conceded to Islam and Christianity the right to convert as a fundamental right. Those who invoke this concept in order to browbeat the Hindus are either ignorant of the Mahatna's intention, or are deliberately distorting his massage.

The Nehruvian version of secularism, which has done more harm to the polity than good. it has fitted one caste against another and one community against the another and prevented the so called minority communities from integrity with the national mainstream. The nehruvians have considered India not as a Hindu nation but as a multi racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural cockpit. Just like Britishers, they have tried their best to suppress the mainstream society and culture through "minorities", that is,  the colonies crystallized by imperialism. They also tried to divide our society in fragments, and create more "minorities" in this process. In fact, it has always been their full-time occupation to eliminate every expression of Hindu culture, to subvert every symbol of Hindu pride, and persecute every Hindu organisation, in the name of protecting the "minorities".The nehruvian formula is that a Hindu should stand accused in every situation, regardless of the real culprit.

In words of Sitaram goel, if India is to live, Nehruism must die.

What did Ambedkar say about muslims?

American historian Eric Louis Beverly informs us in his book Hyderabad, British India, and the World that the Nizam of Hyderabad had offered Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Rs. 75 million if he and his community members converted to Islam. He said:  "The brotherhood in Islam is confined to the believers; that is, only to Muslims. It cannot promote universal brotherhood. I will not convert to islam". He saw conversion to Islam as a factor contributing to the 'denationalisation' of Dalits.

According to Dr Ambedkar, the brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man.
"It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is fraternity but its benefit is confined within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
..... Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was deprived from Islam and Islamic countries".

He argues that Islam can never allow 'a true Muslim' to adopt India as his motherland. He says the religion tells faithful to treat non-Muslims (Kafirs) as enemies. A kafir is inferior and without status. 'That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohammad Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.'

According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the Hindus and Musalmans living as equals'. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps. Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abodr the of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. The fact remains that India,  if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the  Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. Not only can they proclaim jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.

In Pakistan and Partition of India, Dr Ambedkar writes:
The existence of social evils among the Muslims is distressing enough . But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organised movement of social reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication . . . they oppose any change in the existing practices.
Islam is a system of social self- government and is incompatible with local self - government , because tie allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in this country which is his but on the faith to which the belongs To the Muslims ibi bene ibi patria ( Where it is well with me, there is my country ) is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.