The international headlines last week were occupied by Pope Benedict XI (whom most of the western media still prefer to call as Joseph Ratzinger) taking a few pot-shots at Islam. He quoted 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II engaged in a debate with an unnamed Persian on Christianity and Islam. The Byzantine ruler asks the Persian to "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." And went on to state "to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death."

Naturally the Islamic world erupted in fury not unlike in its response to the Danish Cartoons on Prophet Mohammed. There is a striking difference between the two examples. In the cartoon episode the Danish publication sought to, foolishly in my view, its freedom of expression in publishing the cartoon knowing well it would hurt Muslim sentiments.

The cartoon and the response of the western media were akin to a school boy letting the air out of his school teacher's car tyre for rebuking him. But the Pope's description of Islam as a violent religion that spread by the sword amounts to a school principal dubbing an entire section of students being of questionable birth. As head of one of the world's largest religion the Pope should have weighed each of his words while submitting another religion to such scrutiny. Instead he sought to exploit the present western mindset against Islamic terrorism to dub an entire religion as violent by birth and creed.

While Muslims across the world and also in India reacted with anger the silence of Indian secularists was stunning. The secularists cutting across party lines who had something to say suo motto when the cartoon controversy broke out chose the path of absolute silence on the Pope's remarks about Islam. Coming from a religious head the Pope's remarks should have been seen in a graver perspective than the scribbling of a little known cartoonist. It should have attracted at least a studied scrutiny by the secularists and even their disagreement could have been voiced in polite and placating tones.

But our secularist politicians from Lucknow to Thiruvnanathapuram carefully skirted the issue.

Secularism, which was once defined as respect to all religions, has taken the warped form of blatant minorityism. Bashing Hindu religion and its tenets and deriding concerns about conversions as anti-secularism are the fashion of the day. Having used the secularist plank to garner votes from minorities India's secularists suddenly find themselves voiceless when the basic foundation of Islam is being called into question – only because the man asking those questions happens to be the Pope, the religious head of another vocal minority.

This writer does not want to spark a war of words between Christians and Muslims of India but only wants to know whether a minority  religion can be threatened only by the majority religion and not by another minority religion. Between May and July 2000, twelve bomb blasts in different Churches of Karnataka, Goa , Maharsahtra and Andhra Pradesh evoked angry protests from the secularists who without  any evidence called it a Hindu extremist action. But when the police unearthed the real perpetrators – an Islamic extremist group called Deendar Anjuman the same voices stilled into silence. Not even a word of condemnation about the real perpetrators or apology for blaming the Hindus without any proof.

It is the same conspiracy of silence that is at work now when the Pope has been caught on the wrong foot. Whereas secularists in Europe have criticized the Pope for his remarks, even calling him a Papal Bull, the mildest of condemnation is yet to emanate from Indian shores. If only a diluted version of what the Pope had observed has been uttered by Blasaheb Thackeray or Narendra Modi the secularists would have been out with their knives baying for their blood.

Even Indian Christians would have viewed their secular guardians with greater respect for in their hearts they too realize that the Pope crossed an unwritten boundary when he spoke those words against Islam. Instead our secularists stand exposed as the ultimate practitioners of hypocrisy who are choosy in defending minority rights depending on who the aggressor is.