Communalism in Indian Polity

The official name of India is (in English) Socialistic Secular Sovereign Democratic Republic of India and is Union of States; states are represented at the centre by the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and people represented by a bunch Elected from Selected Criminals and/or extortionists and/or currupt individuals. Few honest women and men get no chance to represent their people.

India has about 17% molsems, 3% christians 1% Sikhs, less than 1% others and about 80% hindus. Other division known to politicians in India is there are around 16% Backward class, 3% Brahmins and something only Arjun Singh the Heinorouble HRD monster knows is that there are aroud 29% OtherBackwardClass people. Each of these religous groups have subdivisions. Lingayatas, Thakurs, Kammas, Vakkaligas, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas and so on. Can we call these communities? Oh I will as you shall soon see!

Media and Polity are unanimous in calling some parties communal: BJP (Peoples Party of India), Shivsena etc. Others call themselves secular: Indian Notional Congress, Communist Parties, Janata Dal etc. But actually "all of them" are communal parties. No exceptions.

Except for two occasions (once for BJP and then in Gujrath) in history Hindus have not favoured parties appeasing Hindus. They are concerned about their caste and the caste or the community of the MP/MLA. However others such as Christians and Muslims are satisfied to have some one from their community elected. Thus parties have no insentive to appease Hindus. Those tried this Hindu card have not been as successful. So what is the formula? Appease castes in Hindus and appease Muslims and Christians. Sikhs are a majority in Punjab. They have a different dynamics.

Thus it is appeasing communities based on caste or region or religion is the key policy of all the political parties in India. None is secular none is noncommunal. Why blame few parties? We have to blame all the parties.

Ok, let us fight on communal lines and let us go to hell together; shall we?