Now days we are come to hear that secular and socialist fabric is in danger in India. “So called Seculars” says NDA government is in communal and not treats minority well. But as per my personal view many people need to understand what is secularism and socialism first.
Here, I am going to present some facts, various definitions of secularism and views of various people on socialism. Also I will try to put some facts that how “so called Seculars” contradicts their own views on secularism.
First, I will start from the preamble of Indian constitution. Here are the some text of preamble which I get from WIKIPEDIA.
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLIC, and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”
The Important thing is this is not the exact text adopted in November,1949. But this is the amended preamble. The preamble is only once amended in 1976 during the “emergency” in the 42 amendment of the Indian constitution. And the words like “Secular, Socialist, and integrity” were added through amendment. 
Now, we see the views of Mahatma Gandhi on religion and secularism.
He believes that “The State would look after secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency, and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern.” That means state has no right to interfere in views of any citizens related to religion, whether he is HINDU or MUSLIM or CHRISTIAN. It also suggests that any government scheme or policy should not be based on any religion or help to particular religion.
So, any state or central government shouldn’t make religion specific schemes or shouldn’t not give reservation on the basis of religion, which Congress/NCP government tried to do in Maharashtra. Also, on the state resources all citizens of India should have equal right irrespective of their religion. While former PM Manmohan Singh on 9 DEC 2006 in 52 meeting of National Development Council said that “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources”. . This contradicts their own idol M.K. Gandhi’s view.
For Mahatma Gandhi, Secularism meant:
“All subjects would thus be equal in the eyes of the law. But every single individual would be free to pursue his own religion without let or hindrance so long as it did not transgress the common law. What [M.K. Gandhi] wished India to do, was to assure liberty of religious profession to every single individual.” 
This means what Narendra Modi and Hamid Ansari did on wearing skull cap and lightning lamp respectively was not communal at all, which actually claimed communal by different sections of people at time.
Here are some reactions of people when Narendra Modi didn’t wear skull cap:
“To run the country, you have to take everyone along… at times you will have to wear a topi (cap), at times a tilak (vermillion mark on the forehead).” : Nitish Kumar (CM of Bihar)  And the same Nitish Kumar refuses to take skull cap, shawl from Muslims and also refuse to Cover Head at Patna Gurudwara.
“By not wearing the skull cap, he is sending an unmistakable signal to his hard core supporters that he will not cater to the needs of this community. He never misses an opportunity to signal his bias and bigotry to the nation.” : Shashi Tharur  The same Tharur said “Engineer defended the right of Muslim women to wear a burqa, but out of choice, not coercion. He spoke for both culture & freedom, Empowerment. ” (write on his Facebook status)
As per Jawaharlal Nehru Secular nation means there should be clear separation of religion and Politics which quite near to the western secularism. Nehru gave more importance to the ideas growing out of the Enlightenment, such as rational inquiry and scientific temper. Historians have suggested that he wanted a complete divide between religion and politics.
Contradicts to Nehru’s Idea of Secularism, Gandhi believed that “every activity of man must be derived from his religion.” He said “Many of my political friends despair of me because they say even my politics are derived from religion. And they are right. My politics and all other activities of mine are derived from my religion. I go further and say that every activity of a man of religion must be derived from his religion, because religion means being bound to God, that is to say God rules your every breath” 
In November 2014, Sonia Gandhi said “Nehru’s idea of secularism a must for country like India.” But in April 2014, she met shahi Imam when campaigns for LS election are running and demands appeal the Imam to demand “Secular” votes for congress. So we can say that Sonia Gandhi either not aware of Nehru’s idea of secularism or just use Nehru and secularism for only political gain.
Through, Nehru and Gandhi’s secularism contradicts each other, Political parties’ claims that they believe in “Nehru and Gandhi’s idea of secularism” and following it.
Finally for me, What I leaned and believe about secularism is “An individual person or group should have all right to follow their religion/faith, perform their religious rituals but that must not harm/insult others faith/religion, freedom and most important it must be as per law.”
Author: Tejash Patel (@Tejash__P)
 Wikipedia, Article: Preamble to the Constitution of India
 GEORGE KARUVELIL, “GANDHI ON RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE”, Chapter-III
 Times of India, 9 DEC 2006 edition
 Speech at Narkeldanga, August 17, 1947, CW, 89, pp. 56-7
 NDTV website, September 20, 2013
 The New Indian Express, 19 April 2014 Edition
In India now a days everybody talk about education. Everybody tell that education is main thing for development of education. Right. Our state governments and Central government also talk about providing education to all people. They announces new institutes for higher education, also improved various physical facilities to governments schools and colleges.
But the Main question is, all these step are sufficient? Will it really benefit society? Many says “of course, yes”. But also some people including me will tell “No”.
Why “No”? Answer can be given by another question ” whether we want to provide Quality education or Quantity Education?”. By starting new institutes and providing physical falsities may increase quantity but not improve quality. Here is the example from “Gujarat Model”. There is one government village school in eastern tribe area of Gujarat. The School has total 8 standards. All classes have separate classrooms. Government also provide facility of mid-day mill and purified water to students. School has wide ground, separate toilets for girls and boys, means all necessary amenities.School also has computers as well as facility of distance learning or e-class. But the major problem is number of teachers. Government opens new schools to nearby area of village for students who live their. Result is that the number students per standard is decrease in the school. But government has rule for teacher to student ratio. So this 8 standard school has only 5 teachers. Out of 5 teachers, two teachers are work for government works like electorate roll correction and counting of people etc. The question is how 5 teachers can handle 8 standards? with each standard has different syllabus. How one teacher can two syllabus in two standards at the same time? Will student get quality education?
The second thing which stops quality education is syllabus in different universities and boards.Most the syllabus are politically influenced. some times the update of syllabus became center of scams. Those who design syllabus are highly paid peoples. They may be really intelligent. but actually they perform their duty seriously? Most of the times syllabus are copied from other universities without thinking much. Some times instead of including latest technology and events in syllabus, they make syllabus small and easy to pass the maximum number of students. In this circumstances how a student can get quality education?
Teachers in private institution are paid less as compare to government institutes and forced to work more. So they apply sort-cuts in duty. Like on-paper they show all work good but actually they not doing the work. same thing they do in checking answer sheets of exam. They are paid per answer sheet to examine. So to earn more they check more answer sheet and not consider quality of answer but quantity of answer and the students who write movie scripts are also passed in exams.
Many times a government rules also become the cause of low quality education. One of the rule is, teacher can not fail any student in primary school. So if student can’t able to even read or write anything can pass. So if child enroll in school then without learning anything he/she can complete primary eduction. Of course the percentage of literacy increase. But actually how many people learn?
Reservation is also one of the reason to stop supply of good teachers. If any general category candidate get 59% in eligibility test then he not eligible to become teacher,but if reserve category candidate get 55% then also he become eligible to become teacher. We need to think who can provide better education?
At last we must understand that quantity eduction just increase the “literate unemployment.” Is it better than “illiterate unemployment”?
Author : Tejash Patel
In this season of 2014 Parliament it seems that all parties not fight against the ruling party but fight against the opposition party. Most Parties attack on Narendra Modi lead BJP. They attack more on the “Gujarat Model” instead of past government works.
Before understanding the reason why Gujarat voted for Modi, we quickly see that why opposition attacks on Modi. Here are some reasons.
1> whether they accept on public or not but they believe that the mood of the nation is in fever of Modi and not Congress.
2> They believe that if Modi lead BJP then its difficult to work under him while they can easily blackmail Congress lead UPA as seen in past 10 years.
3> Many regional party leaders want to become PM and in MODI lead BJP it’s never possible.
Now we will see why Gujarat Voted for Modi 3 times.
“Hindutva” is the biggest issue in 2002 for people of Gujarat to vote. After 2002 Modi become “Hindu Hraday Samrat” and for that large number of Hindu vote for Modi.In later elections it was not a big issue and many who support him 2002 for Hindutva not give him vote for that.
Another bigger issue is rehabilitation or advance development in Kutch after earth quake. People know the good work under Modi government and that’s why they voted for him.
In 2007, Modi came with agenda of development. Many people feel the development under him. The major developments under his government are electricity, Water, Roads and security. At the same time Modi made his image as a strong leader who acted hard against terrorism. People want to came out of the ghost of the 2002 riots. But congress not understand the mood of the people. There is no major issue, especially on development against Modi so congress and their supporters starts to blame Modi on 2002 riots. Even Hindus want to forget 2002 issues but congress’ appeasement politics not let them to do so. The statements like “Maut Ka Saudagar” add petrol in fire. And Modi starts to blame congress leaders on “So called Secularism”. Ultimately this all things help Modi and he win again in 2007.
As time passes, People feel more development in infrastructure and industries. Even Rural areas of Gujarat got 24hour electricity. Women Empowerment and safety is largely improved in Gujarat as compare to other states. People see stability in BJP government, There was negligible cases of BJP leaders which disturbs daily life of people. But still congress not understand the mood of people. As they went far from power they went far from real public issues and blaming more and more on 2002 issue. And as a result large number of people make their strong bond with Modi and they voted for Modi irrespective of who is local candidate. And as a result the big leaders of Congress like Modhwadia, Shaktisinh Gohil loose in 2012 assembly election. After 2012 election congress became very weak in Gujarat as its large number of leaders and workers joined BJP.
Those who blame Gujarat model are far away from actual reality. There are some lies on corruption and etc but at least in Electricity, Road, Water, Women empowerment & safety, Industries, Development in tribe area, Health sector in urban area, Transport facility, Advancement in governance technology no one can blame Modi. And if they blame their condition will not different from Congress after 2014 in Gujarat.
Author: Tejash Patel
Article 370 is very controversial topic in India. It provides special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Because of this article not a single rule can directly be applied in Jammu & Kashmir without the permit of J & K government. J & K government only applies rules in JK which are beneficial to them and not to the JK public.A person who not the citizen of JK can not purchase land in Kashmir. It restrict the businessmen and companies, which are not from JK to make Investment in JK. And actually that limits the development in JK. There is a major problem of unemployment in JK which force youth to do illegal activities. The politicians and anti national elements take benefit of this situation. They explain to people that this situation only develop because of Indian government and if they want to do progress they have to make their own country.
Pakistan support this separatists and also support terrorist to unstable the situation at JK. People suffers because of that a very lot. Many of Kashmir origin people (KP) leave JK because of the instability and terrorism, Government of India not support them to settle their life at either place (JK or outside JK in India). This make demand to separation of Kashmir more loudly and many politicians even from India support that.
The main question how to stop all this? The only way is to connect people of JK with other part of India give them employment and help JK people to re-settle their life at their origin place. How it Possible? By invite investors and make new policies for them. How can they implemented? Only by removing Article 370!