Bengaluru: Before the present NDA came to power in India in 2014, with a repeat return in 2019, the erstwhile governments, (reference is inferential), have mostly compromised for their vote bank politics, to try to secularize the acts of terrorism in some parts of India particularly in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, with the sordid help of local dispensation of the governance which was mostly the main political party of the country which ruled this country for more than 50 years.

The terrorist attack on Indian Parliament denotes a strike against the freedom, secularism, pluralism and sovereignty of India. India has never taken decisive steps to crush the terrorist network in Pakistan or generated within the country by the vested interest of communal linkages linked to Islamic Jehad, through effective diplomacy or with the use of abundant military force. The reasons behind being the vote bank politics to keep the selected class of the masses happy and cheerful for garnering votes to remain in power at the cost of the overall territorial integrity of India.

Such actions of the then ruling political dispensations were willful attempts to secularize the terrorism in its various forms by claiming to govern under the banner and hypocrisy of secular governance. In this context the situations in Jammu and Kashmir were always peculiar and full of fanatics of religion when the political dispensations of those times always tried to see the fate of this terror of fanatics of religion, through the prism of secularism for their vote bank politics. Post independent India witnessed serious terrorist threat in the state of J&K and Punjab.

Although, the terrorist movement in Punjab has been completely crushed but even today, in J&K not a day passes without the grim reminder that the violent philosophy of the terrorists has taken strong roots in the state of J&K. Ethnic cleansing through various forms was the major characteristic of this jehadi terror perpetrated in the state of J&K. The terrorists made the Kashmiri Pandits flee their homes and live in their own country as refugees. But there was never any will exhibited or endeavor shown by the ruling political clan of the country before 2014, to fight this terrorism back with the same force and might, including striking at its roots as also its founding fathers in Pakistan. A distinguished action in this behalf would mean going for military strikes at the bases of these terror hubs including against the country nurturing it, which is impliedly Pakistan.

The simple reason being as one can infer, that the political tutors of that time sitting in governance would treat India as a secular country and would neither counter nor crush such acts of terror, with equivalent response to eliminate these terror brands, for not annoying their vote bank column, which in particular had a big role to play in Kashmir mostly, to accommodate terror, both by being directly involved, as also being involved in harboring the terrorists. They pocketed the terror and its devastative results as brazen insults to the majority population of India, under the colorable caption of so-called secularism, when our security forces while countering this terror became a fodder for this terror with a conspicuous silent approval of the pseudo secularist ruling political masters of that time. The other major causality and a historical human tragedy which gave birth to, by such an act of secularization of terror resulted in the mass exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir, along with their mass massacre and looting and usurping their livelihood, property of ages as also uprooting them from their genetic base of the roots of Kashmir, of which they are the aboriginals.

Then what was seen happening in Jammu and Kashmir immediately with the start of militancy in 1989-1990. Dr. Farooq resigned as Chief Minister. Governor's rule was imposed in January-1990, when Jagmohan a former Indian civil servant who also served as the 5th governor of Jammu and Kashmir was appointed as the Governor of the State. It is the time when Kashmir was going through worst phase of militancy. He did a commendable job to curtail militancy during his shortest stay as the Governor of the state. There were insurmountable administrative hurdles created by politicians of the state, with the help of the politicians from Delhi who had lost their power and the ruling chair when Jagmohan was forced to resign in May 1990.

Who does not know the episode of the kidnapping of Dr. Rubaiya Sayeed the daughter of Mufti Mohd. Syed, when he was the home minister of India at that point of time, by the JKLF terrorists, when it is alleged that she was released in exchange of five number arrested dreaded terrorists from JKLF.

At 7:00 p.m. on 13 December 1989 Dr. Rubaiya Sayeed was set free, two hours after the government released the five jailed militants namely Sheikh Abdul Hameed, a JKLF "area commander" Ghulam Nabi Butt, younger brother of the late Maqbool Butt; Noor Muhammad Kalwal; Muhammed Altaf; and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar (Mustaq Latrum), who created havoc after their release by killing innocent Kashmir Pandits.

Thousands of young men gathered at Rajouri Kadal to take them out in a triumphant procession, when they quickly disappeared to their hideouts. In the name of resuming of normalcy Elections were held in September-October 1996.

Farooq Abdullah was again installed as the Chief Minister of the state, after the elections.

It was the common talk of the town then that the 1996 Lok Sabha elections and assembly elections in the state were possible due to efforts of counter-insurgents like Kuka Parray head of Ikhwan-ul-Muslemoon terror group.

Under the Chief Minister ship of Farooq Abdullah in June-2000, The Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly passed a resolution for the restoration of autonomy to the state and demanded that the union and the state government ''take positive and effective steps for its implementation''.

Chief minister Farooq Abdullah claimed restoration of autonomy was not only imperative to address the aspirations of the people of the state, but also a step forward to normalize relations between India and Pakistan.

So he was advocating the cause of Pakistan. He said then that if Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah would have gone the Jinnah way; I might have become prime minister of Pakistan which I can never become in India. ''Don't push us to the wall.''

After the fall of NC Government, which lost in the elections of 2002, PDP came into power in the state. Their leader preached that we will not solve the problems of terrorism through gun, but by talks with them. He would often say ''Hum Goli se Nahi, Boli se Masla hal karyen ghey''.

Under this slogan numerable sops were given to the terrorists and most of them were released unconditionally who after their release again consolidated their positions with the apex help from Pakistan and again consolidated themselves and laid deep roots of militancy in Kashmir particularly in south Kashmir.

Again after his demise the power got transmitted to his progeny as usual, which has been a tradition in Kashmir, when the new Chief Minister would often say that we have to give healing touches to the people of Kashmir which mostly included the militants and the security forces were restrained from retaliating back to the attacks of the terrorists. Under this game plan the terrorist got a golden opportunity to settle themselves with ease and make terror hubs as per their choices, which is being faced now by our security forces very ferociously particularly in south Kashmir. This all happened under the banner of secularism which was used to secularize the terrorism, with an active go ahead from the political masters of those times for their vote bank policies. But with the present ruling political leadership, it has now come to a grinding halt when such activities have been crushed with an iron hand. Most of such secular temperament leaders who ruled the state for decades had to cool their heels in preventive detentions.

The word 'Secularism' is European evolved: - In one of the issues of Reasoner, a Journal from Europe, when its editor Geroge Jacob Holyoake in December-1891, used this term 'Secularism', to describe a social order that was separate from the teachings and the influence of the Church on the State, meaning thereby not allowing any religious domination to interfere in the working of the Government. So for as Indian constitution is concerned there is still a lack of clarity about the reason behind the concept of including the word 'secular' in the constitution. Erstwhile governments in our country used the word secular as inscribed in the constitution to start various schemes and plans exclusively based on religious affiliates. Under this symbol religion became the basis to set up various bodies like 'Minority Commissions', Ministry of Minority Affairs etc.

We are quite familiar with this fact where such an arbitrary terms have been used to fund Hajj pilgrimages, reservation in the education sectors, like the recommendations of 'Sachar Commission' and the like. Per se it is apparent that preferential treatments by the government towards a particular community, when it violates the fundamentals of our constitution. How do we link secularism under such circumstances with the constitution? It is at variance or is misused.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in the meeting of the National development Council of India in 2006 that we shall have to devise innovative plans to ensure that the minorities particularly the Muslim minority is benefitted the most.

They have the first right on the resources. Is this the secularism?

The original constitution dated the 26th January 1950, did not have any word like Secular in it. This insertion of the word 'Secular' into the constitution was done by Smt. Indra Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, when she imposed emergency in 1975, suspending democracy and got introduced the word 'Secular' in the constitution through 42nd Amendment to the constitution in 1976, by modifying the preamble of the constitution by introducing word 'Secular', to appease the minorities. This is thus a game plan of a particular political party which ruled this country for decades only by selling the vote bank politics one way or the other to remain in power without any tangible regard for the integrity of the nation and its nationals.