Under the colour of free secular democracy, the private Indian satellite TV channels are nowadays airing their true hidden colours of Hindu zealots. Following Kautilya's Arthasastras on governance, they are "spreading disinformation & sowing the seeds of disharmony" among the people and doing great disservice to their professional duties of telling the truth &, in the long run, it will prove fatal for India & its image as secular democracy in the world. The so called private Indian media is extremely & violently biased & prejudiced is an accepted fact the world over that does witness lunatic fanatic anchors & panelists always gripped in a whirl of malignant narcissism against others.
Abul Kalam Azad, commentator of the Quran & one of the most ardent champions & supporters of United Secular India had to forsake his long association with Hizbullah & pure Muslim brand of Al-Hilal for propagating the new idea of Secular Indian Nationalism which was an evident conflict between his religious preaching and political deeds. (See full discussion in this regard in Siyasate Alhilal & Hindustani Musalman, (1990 Calcutta) by Obeidullah Fahed Falahi, his follower). Not only that the communal clashes were taking place right before & at the time of partition in India under the programme of "Shrudi Tehreek", the history of the Indian sub-continent was before Maulana that had references to the letters of Shah Wali Ullah Dehlvi, the greatest Mujadid of the sub-continent till date, written to Ahmad Shah Abdalli for rescuing the Muslims from a near to certain havoc at the hands of the Maratha Tehreek. Alas! He & his ilk including Sheikh Abdullah hadn't time to glimpse through the pages of history as they were completely immersed in propagating & advocating the cause of Secular Indian Nationalism. Perhaps they had been priding on the new political invention. George Washington has rightly stated that "those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat its mistakes". (Refer also to Abul Kalam Azad's book India Wins Freedom, especially his regrets over his political decision & comments on Nehru's chauvinistic secularism & see also Syed Naqvi's book "Being the Other: The Muslim in India", about betrayals & false promises of Indian secularism).
The hopes & the aspirations of the people with which they tied their fate to India are enshrined in the preamble of the Indian Constitution that inter alia says that India shall be a ……Secular (this word was added in 1976) Democratic Republic…….where every citizen shall have a right to profess and practice his own faith and worship. This is the basic structure of the Constitution of India which is immune from any kind of alteration, modification or change in the light of plethora judgments of the Indian Supreme Court. If the preamble or any part of it is altered that would shake the very foundation of the republic because "India is built on the foundations of a civilization that is fundamentally non-religious". (Ref Communalism in Indian Politics by Rajini Kothari (1998) 134). But thousands of communal riots in which overwhelming number of non-Hindus have died is a big question mark on the veracity of the claim of non-religious face of multicultural society of India where the governments of the time have been condemned by rights organisations, Indian & international, for surreptitious support of the pograms. (2002 Gujarat Riots, Justice Banerjee Commission Report & Mumbai Riots post-Babri Demolition, Sri Krishna Commission Report, also support the point).
The freedom to religion under the Constitutional provisions (Articles 15, 25 & 26) includes not only the liberty to practice & profess a faith but also to choose it according to one's own free will without interference from the State or others. The right to practice one's religion does not include the right to convert by "force, fraud, or allurement". However, this right includes the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. (Refer to Stanislaus v. Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 2 SCR 611. The court upheld some State legislations that prohibited conversion by "force, fraud, or allurement"). So, forcible conversions or propagation with proselytisation leading to conversion is prohibited. Now, the question is if one is influenced & impressed by the exposition of tenets of a religion (about which he had previously a lot of doubt) through its preacher's descent way of spreading & transmitting it, effective & gentle way of expounding it, comparing it with the other religions, in broad day light in presence of tens of thousands of people, and live media reporting, does it fall within the prohibited category? Apparently not. But what about State managed conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism in a clandestine manner under the Ghar Wapsi programme by distorting the history & reversing its self-written pages of miscampaign against the Muslims & their rulers who loved & ruled India nearly for one thousand years? It is obviously forcible conversions with active support of State apparatus. (Ref to direct & indirect comments of Indian Hindu leaders on Ghar Wapsi).
If conversion of 12 Hindus influenced by Zakir Naik's speeches is anti-national as claimed by ex-Mumbai Chief, what about the Ghar Wapsi of RSS? Is it national? If he is spreading hate, what is the proof? But the venom that is being spread against ethnic & religious minorities of India by Sangh Parivar & chauvinistic Hindu organisations in Secular India under broad daylight is hardly hidden from the eyes of people. Their speeches are filled with poison of hate & historical revenge that has killed the spirit of free secular democratic India. Factually, the Indian minorities live under the constant specter of Hindu communalism & fascism. (Ref to Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee report).