Do I get to write derogatory things about someone in the name of freedom of speech, in the name of freedom of expression?

A ‘majority’ in a capitalistic system is a ‘Bottom-Up’ majority while that in a socialistic system is a ‘Top-Down’ version.

“Regarding the unfortunate (or deliberate) instances highlighted above, those were instances of manipulation of the society as a whole by a group of selfish people. It was the effect of group thinking (religion) that led to such incidents.”
Exactly, that is what I mean when I say that fixing responsibility is difficult under a socialistic system because actions are attributed to ’society’ and not to individuals.

“Why a Hindu should detest beef, is a decision that is made for him by the society and not by the person himself.”

Aren’t there a lot of Hindus who don’t detest beef because they ‘choose’ not to? I know at least a few. (Of Course, an extremist can argue they are not hindus!)
The point is, in a democracy, an individual is and should be free to make his own choices as long as he doesn’t encroach upon somebody else’s right to do so. And when that happens, democracy provides a conflict resolution mechanism in the form of judiciary.

“If I understand correctly, you mean to say that democracy secularism and socialism cannot go together.”

Democracy and Secularism are completely coherent. That is exactly my point. What I said was Democracy and
Socialism don’t go together

For once, I completely disagree with this statement. Democracy was created with an aim to give voice to the _majority_ of the people and not to an individual.

Perhaps it is the closest we could get to so called _individual_ choice, but note that decisions (what is right/wrong, good/bad) cannot be _individual_ but are out interpretations of what the society has taught us. In essence, it is the society that is influencing our decisions more than we ourselves are! Why a Hindu should detest beef, is a decision that is made for him by the society and not by the person himself.

Regarding the unfortunate (or deliberate) instances highlighted above, those were instances of manipulation of the society as a whole by a group of selfish people. It was the effect of group thinking (religion) that led to such incidents.

If I understand correctly, you mean to say that democracy secularism and socialism cannot go together. It is not entirely possible to achieve one without the other and that is why these principles were put together in one sentence in the Constitution. How can you have a democracy if you would forego secularism and decide who votes on the basis of religion?

Perhaps you are right about the history of religion but even if religion was devised as a means of bringing people closer, I’d like to think it has largely failed it’s purpose!

For a ‘Secular’ country to remain secular it is important that the society does not don religious inclinations.

Glorifying the role of society is the cornerstone of socialism and I believe socialism as a system does not work well with democracy. Capitalism does.
(I am assuming a broader definition of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’, extrapolating them to non-economic aspects like religion so that in this context, ‘Socialism’ would imply that religion should be a function or attribute of the society while ‘Capitalism’ would dictate that it be a personal matter).

Freedom of ‘individual’ choice, which is so at the heart of democracy philosophically, is in direct conflict with decision making for ‘collective’ or ‘common’ good on which socialism is based. Since socialism does not give individuals the freedom of choice, it also can not make them responsible for their actions.

Culprits (on either side) of Godhra, Babri-Masjid and Mumbai riots were never held accountable for their actions because the responsibility was never upon individuals but upon ‘mobs’ or sections of society and society is faceless.

Now, I’m not saying that socialism is bad. I do not have conclusive data to proclaim that! It may work beautifully under autocratic regimes like oligarchies, dictatorships and communist states (The only place I know of where socialism seems to have succeeded is China, a communist state). But it doesn’t gel with democarcy.

The problem is that the preamble of our constitution declares India as ‘Secular’ ‘Soclialist’ and ‘Democratic’. Therein lies the conflict!

But I would disagree with your statement “Religion is and should be a personal matter and not one of the society or country. ” IMHO this is a Utopian concept and the reality is far from it.

I think of it this way; religion was created as a means to bring people closer together (maybe for a cause or for societal purposes). When people identify themselves with a religion, they identify themselves with a common cause or a set of beliefs. Saying that we are free to pursue our own versions of the religion does not make sense at all! When you are indoctrinated into following a religion, you are expected to rise above your personal beliefs and think as a group (for better or for worse).

I agree with you completely when you say that “Who are I and you to decide if ‘Millions’ of ‘Hindus’ were hurt.”. But I wonder how one would say if something is in accordance with _religious beliefs_? I believe that this is an open question and would be best answered by Sociologists.