Must we separate religion from politics?
This post was inspired by Hrishi and Dnyanesh’s comments which I am reproducing below. The point raised by Hrishi was (essentially) that democracy and politics (of the modern kind) is incompatible with religion…
***
Comment by Hrishi on 5th May
…There’re are few points I thought worth making, as saw them:
…iii) Viewing religion as a politically relevant practice is more of an imported concept, definitely applcable today to ‘Hinduism’ but I am inclined to believe its more of a ‘me too’ reaction to the activities of the more organised and politically (as against spiritually) ambitious semitic religions operating in India today
Separating religion from politics is essential in any debate that proceeds on the basis of reason and logic which is a democratic process and if you agree with this - would be interested in some more of your views and insights
***
Response by Dnyanesh on 5th May
HRISHI
’seperating religion from politics’…..this comments surprises me many times over. religion is a way of life, our thoughts, ethics, dos donts, our behaviour patterns, our beliefs, culture, way we treat others, logic/thoughts are part of this. therefore in essence it is the foundauion of what we are and stand for. how can we leave that behind. what kind of governance we are likely to give then…
well may be this is not the thread to be followed here…just a few thoughts on an oft repeated comment….
***
Response by Hrishi on 5th May
Dnyanesh - since you bring it up (and the moderator allows it, God Willing) - religion is based on two premises as I understand it
- where one acts out of beliefs based on pre-written / revealed scriptures, many of which cannot be disputed or debated (e.g.Islam in toto, Catholicism, etc)
OR
- where one acts out of insights coming out of direct insights based on oneness with the Absolute.
The latter while possible is extremely rare and the overwhelming majority would rely on the former process i.e. acting based on beliefs (many of which are ‘blind’ or not allowed to be exposed to objective reason and logic)
Given this, politics particularly of the modern kind (democracy/ constitutional guarantees of personal, legal, moral and political freedoms) would be impossible.
So as far as religion giving us do’s & don’ts, moral standards, ways of life, …. this must necessarily be subordinated/superceded by the guarantee of constitutional freedoms (mentioned above) and the democratic process based on reason and logic in free debate. I dont know of any ‘religion’ encouraging the primacy of reason and logic based on facts; mostly beliefs are summarily handed down.
Democracy and universal suffrage developed in the ‘Christian’ world only after the separation of the Church and the State, ushering in the Enlightenment (of the rational kind)..
***
Please share your comments and thoughts.
To further provoke your thinking, I would recommend having a look at:
Of Turkey, Secular States and Religion
Flat World Hindutva - A moral compass to guide contemporary issues and
A “nationalism” rooted in Sanatan Dharma
From Offstumped’s post:
It is an insult to our collective intellect that we have allowed the Left and the media to succesfully label what has come to symbolize governance in India since Independence as “Secular”, for what we have today in India fails even the “minimalist secular state” test.
Why is that so, is there not separation of church and state ?
Not exactly. Today Relgious Institutions across the country are governed and managed by the State.
It fails the second test as well as we have personal laws by religion as well as laws specifically targeting Minority Institutions.
The more serious issue however is that it is the writ of the State that determines how religious shrines are managed and who gets to enjoy the spoils and privileges from the revenues generated by these shrines. In fact State control of religious institutions is such a high stakes game that the Office of Profit Bill ensured that Congress MP’s unquestioned right to be the Chairperson of Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanam, TTD, had Constitutional Sanction. We see a similar row brewing in Kerala over Sabarimala where the supposedly atheist LDF Government has been going out of its way to influence how the Devaswom board is run.
Offstumped had in two earlier posts first on the Sabarimala Tantri issue and then on the Babri Masjid issue had called for freeing religious institutions from state control. There is a very good rationale for doing this which is both secular and right of center. The secular argument is it separates church from state control and intervention. The right of center argument is it gives religious institutions freedom to be run as their stakeholders i.e. the devotees and the local communities deem fit.
As Hindutva looks to define itself for the 21st century it would be appropriate for it to begin with this issue for it offers a path forward to resolve the intractable issues of last century as well as provides a clear contrast and distinction on what it stands for in this century. Freeing religion from state control would also serve National Interest for the State would no longer be seen to be acting in parochial interest by speaking for individual communities but for the people of the nation as whole.
So in closing Hindutva must unambiguously stand for freeing religion from state control irrespective of whether it is the majority faith or a minority faith. Such a Hindutva would be minimalist secularism as well as serving National Interest.
***
See also: http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/12/21/a-generation-fed-on-an-overdose-of-political-correctness/
Comment by B Shantanu | June 7, 2008
Dear Shantanu,
Religion has never been a part of politics and administaration any time in ancient Bharat. The teachers were guides, but the rulers took the final decision.
Even in the case of the Mahabharat, the teachers advised against the fight but the final call was taken by Duruyodhana under the guidance of Shakuni.
The teachers had a duty to perform and they had to abide by the decision of the rulers to whom they were bound.
The teachers did not recklessely teach the art of war to all and sundry. War was evil for them, but a ruler had to understand the total significance of war before he embarked upon it.
It was this reason all and sundry were not taught the art and techniques of the weapons. It was a closely guarded secret so that the art did not fall into the wrong hands.
That is the reason for which Ekalavya was not taught the art by Drona though he was a Naga prince. The teacher had the right to decide his students, as he was ot concerned about “Selling his art” rather than “Teaching The Art’.
The Propagandists highlighted this point, and created the mumbo jumbo of stating the as Ekalavya was born of lower status that he was denied the art by Drona.
Again Parsurama refused to teach certain techniques to Karna, as he felt that since a person has lied to him to learn the art, he was not reliable sufficient to learn the high quality techniques, however noble he may be otherwise, he cursed him for the same.
This was also misinterpreted by the Probagandists.
This was the beauty of ancient Bharat. It was a very structured way of life and Politics and Religion were totally kept apart.
It was only after the advent of certain religions which wanted to dominate the world that Politics and religion came together. Religious leaders did not bother about the quality of the person who donned the role of a warrior as long he was willing to fight for the “Religion”.
It is therefore very apparent that “Hindutva” will stand the test that in its case religion and politics are totally strangers to each other as there is nver the problem of religion in it as it is only a way of life!
They will definetely come together when a particular force or group tries to destroy the fabric that keeps individuals together, to live their way of life.
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | June 7, 2008
the question is what is religion…I contend that one part of religion is also the way a state should be ruled……and that the concepts of fairness, equality, and all the acts which mean keeping religion and politics separate are also part of that.
So what do we mean by keepign politics and religion seperate? what are such acts which show that the religion and politics to be separate?
Should the concept of correct/incorrect change?
And then do these acts contravene the sanatana teachings or way of life? And therefore what is the exact meaning of seperation?
So are we then saying that a part - clearly defined part of what is normally assumed when we say the word “religion” is to be kept out of politics and what are those actions exactly can one define?
Comment by Dnyanesh Sovani | June 8, 2008
Dear Sir,
Continuing with my comment earlier, let me come tro a current situation.
Recently there was news in the papers that a family has been ostracised for going against the norms and way of life of a particular community in a village near Chennai.
The bone of contention was a loading and unloading contract for a job. All theae years, the members of the community including that of the family who were ostracised had worked together witrhout any ill feeling and for the betterment of the community.
They had worked together, like one family through every calamity or happy act and each one has worked together for the survival of the other.
Suddenly the group noticed that the family who were ostracised, had won a contract to do a particular job and they were wanting to do it independently without sharing in the profits and also not willing to let the members of their community in participating the project. Thay wanted all of the profits for themselves!
Viewing it from the western way of thinking we had the HRC coming down like a pack of bricks on the village head and that of the village leaders.
The viilagers were not cowed down by the threats and the villagers as one stuck to their guns.
From a way of life point of view, it is shameful that a single group which has lived of the community all these years, without batting an eyelid was willing to break a way of life and destroy a pattern of living just for the sake of making a few extra money.
Is it not shameful that a family which has been supported all these years by the group has not thought for a single moment about for all the support the whole community had given itself over the years.
The village headman and its leaders who have led them all these years, in keeping them together and providing both moral and financial support when the need was there for this family!
That is what it means in true spirit. No politics or HRC. it is a way of life. No Religion whatsover involved; it was a way of life.
No room for selfishness and greed. One being played against the other.
Let us work together as a team and religion and politics will definetely not mix,as they need not mix. They can work together, but can be always be mutually exclusive.
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | June 8, 2008
@ vck: Thanks for some thought-provoking comments…and also for clarifying and highlighting some of the supposed “injustices” that the pseudo-secularists never seem to tire of pointing out.
***
@ Dnyanesh: You raise a valid point. To me, “the concepts of fairness, equality” and the broader question of how a state must be ruled should rightfully be part of “Raj Dharma”.
On the other hand, there are clearly areas where the state must not attempt to intervene such as in management of religious institutions (- unless there is evidence to believe that they are acting against the national interest or against the security and sovereignty of the state).
What do you think?
Comment by B Shantanu | June 8, 2008
Hi Dnyanesh, Shantanu,
Is the Raj Dharma quite the same as nationalism? or a mechanism to arouse a nationalistic passion that would motivate the less politically aware Indian (which could mean the huge majority) to do his democratic duties as a law-abiding citizen? If that is so, I am fully in agreement
I see the matter as whether the state runs its people (as in authoratarianism) or whether the people run the state which administers to the people (democracy).
Most definitely in matters of religion and spirituality which would be an individual or a small group affair the state has no place in principle. However, if the State, taking its role from a more activist/reformist constitution (like the Indian one) given the historical malaises we have inherited, its vital that it approaches every step out of a reasoning/logical based-on-facts approach consistent with other essential parts of the Constitution viz. Fundamental Rights, et al
If religion fits in with the above, in regards ideas of right/wrong, fairness/equality (which by the way can be reached independent of any religion) its well and good or else gets subordinated and gives way.
If one gives primacy to a secular (understood as a problem-solivng approach based on reasoning/logic based-on-facts) constitution-led democracy guaranteeing Fundamental Rights arrived at by the same secular values, religious fundamentalism of any kind - imported or home-grown will be subordinated and kept under check. That, I would see, as the State’s primary duty i.e. acting to protect its constitutional democratic values and practices.
This may sound idealistic but would be interested to know (if you generally agree in principle) why this cannot happen, and is not happening
Regards
Comment by Hrishi | June 9, 2008
Dharma is the life-force of the Constitution of India, that is Bharat.
The Preamble may call it with appellations such as socialist, secular but the Union of India, the very national identity and purushartha (goals of life) is driven by the life-force of Dharma. Without dharma, the nation, the rashtram ceases.
Dharma has two facets according to Kapila Muni of Vais’eshika, the earliest scientist known to humanity: 1. abhyudayam and 2. nihs’reyas (translated as: 1. social welfare; 2. quest of aatman to unite with paramaatman). It is the holding, sustaining force, the global, eternal ethic of every organization in the cosmos including the samajam.
Secular has been translated in the official Hindi version of the Constitution as ‘pantha nirapekshataa’, that is neutrality as to path orientations for uniting with the Supreme divine.
Smt. Indira Gandhi accepted this Hindi translation in the official Hindi version of the Constitution. I entirely agree with Rajnath Singh ji in what he said to the BJP National Executive on 1 June 2008.
If the word dharma nirapekshataa is used mischievously by some p-secs, they should be opposed relentlessly for what they are: hoaxes.
The Bharata des’am, Hindusthanam can NEVER be dharma neutral. How can a nation be dharma neutral when the very life-force of the national identity is dharma?
Sure, let the opponents come and use the word nirapekshataa to their hearts’ content. But, they should not be allowed to get away with a fraudulent translation of the word, ’secular’ as anything but ‘pantha nirapekshataa’. Simply because, this phrase, pantha nirapekshataa is used in the official constitutional document. The Courts of law in the country should also so understand the word, ’secular’ in the Constitution as pantha nirapekshataa.
The nation lives only because the nation’s life force is dharma; yes, Rajnath ji, dharma praan is what identifies the nation, the rashtram. There should be no compromise on this basic, ethical, sanatana foundation, the eternal, universal ethic, called dharma.
Kalyanaraman
Extracts from Shri Rajnath’s statement:
The BJP national president explaining the issue in detail said that there is a big difference in being dharmanirpeksh and panthnirpeksh.
Panth or sect symbolises devotion towards any specific belief, specific way of prayer and specific form of God but dharma symbolises absolute and eternal values, which can never change like laws of nature.
For example, one can say dharma is like the earth or land while panth is like different paths built over it. Our mind can chose any path, change from one path to another, we can hold different views about the various paths but how can we ever get separated from the earth?
“India’s national emblem has three lions and carries the eternal message of Satyamev Jayate (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundakopanishad. Truth signifies dharma and not a sect.
India’s National Flag has the Ashoka Chakra in it. This Chakra found in Sarnath is dharmachakra and basically symbolises the cycle of dharma. In India’s Parliament behind the seat of the Speaker of
the Lok Sabha Dharmachakra Pravartanay (For the propagation of the eternal cycle of dharma) is inscribed. Therefore, if dharma is present in the National Emblem, National Flag, and in the supreme seat of Parliament then how can the entire establishment of India be neutral to dharma or be dharmanirpeksh?
The confusion created by dharmanirpeksh and panthnirpeksh cannot be removed only through an explanation. The only solution is to stop the use of the word dharmanirpeksh. That is why I am announcing that in future we will never use the word dharmanirpeksh and the Government of India should also issue a directive prohibiting the constitutional use of the word dharmanirpeksh so that from the Prime Minister to the common public no one constitutionally uses this term and this will prevent confusion and damage from taking place through its usage,”
Source:
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=241&page=41
Comment by S Kalyanaraman | June 12, 2008
““India’s national emblem has three lions and carries the eternal message of Satyamev Jayate (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundakopanishad. Truth signifies dharma and not a sect.”
How stupid …….. he does not know that the national emblem actually has FOUR lions (only three are visible) and he is pontificating on the constitution?
So much for Rajnath Singh ………
Comment by Patriot | June 12, 2008
1. Dharma is the fundamental law of the Universe, and the guiding principle of mankind. Dharma means (literally ) ‘that which upholds or supports’ (from the root, Dhr, - to hold), and is generally translated into English as ‘law’.
Dharma govern all ideas about the proper conduct of living. It means righteousness, honesty, truthfulness, morality, ethics, and all good virtues. The symbol of the dharma, the wheel, is the central motif in the national flag of Bharat, that is India.
2. You may wish to read this beautiful book on Dharma by Shri Rama Jois (free online book). Its simply beautiful, I have read it and benefited enormously.
Dharma-The Global Ethic, by Justice M. Rama Jois
http://www.vhp-america.org/ebooks/
3. About National Emblem, Excerpt from:
http://india.gov.in/knowindia/state_emblem.php
http://www.meaindia.nic.in/onmouse/symbol.htm
The National Emblem of India is a replica of the Lion of Sarnath, near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The Lion Capital was erected in the third century BC by Emperor Ashoka to mark the spot where Buddha first proclaimed his gospel of peace and emancipation to the four quarters of the universe.The National emblem is thus symbolic of contemporary India’s reaffirmation of its ancient commitment to world peace and goodwill.
The four lions (one hidden from view) - symbolising power, courage and confidence - rest on a circular abacus. The abacus is girded by four smaller animals - guardians of the four directions: the lion of the north, the elephant of the east, the horse of the south and the bull of the west.The abacus rests on a lotus in full bloom, exemplifying the fountainhead of life and creative inspiration. The motto ‘SATYAMEVA JAYATE’ inscribed below the emblem in Devanagari script means ‘Truth alone Triumphs’.
4. Most political leaders are either ignorants or educated illiterate, Shri Rajnath Singh is no exception. Sometime back (at time Govt filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denouncing Sri Ram’s existence and declaring Ramayan as a fiction) he said, our nation was named after Bharat, brother of Sri Ram. Is it correct? A leader of a national party needs to apply common sense, before putting words in public.
5. Practicing Dharmanirpekshata is akin to practicing Adharma.
Bharat
=====
Comment by Bharat | June 13, 2008
Dear Shantanu,
Linking temples to politics is like trying to mix oil with water. Both of them will like to mix as they are both liquids, but their inherent qualities will not permit them to do so.
May be as research continues, one day scientists of the current age may come across a method of doing that also!
In the same manner if you look at temples and politics, they come from the same format, structures that hold society together, but they are totally different.
I am sure you would have followed the write up in a leading newspaper that an Indian King of yester years, a scion of the old Nayakkar had gone to Srilanka and renovated the Buddhist temples there.
He had even recovered certain items from a group of Hindu priests items which were important for the Buddhists and returned it to them.
He even structured the Rath festival for Buddhists.
He also renovated other temples which were not Buddhist and brought them back to their former glory.
In spite of all this he did not exert his right over these the temples nor the items which were important for the Buddhists.
This only brings out to the fore that the ruler , the political class, were involved in temple structures, but did not try to benefit it, by bringing religion into it.
It was a way of life for them. Wars also had to be fought by the Kings, that does not mean that they did not take care of the interests of the people.
The King had a Kshatriyan way of life.
The temples were built by the Politcal class for maintaining the way of life of the people, while maintaining the role of a political class, which was also a way of life, not on the same lines of temple building.
They went hand in hand.
They were like oil and water. Both liquids, but did not mix! Temple building and wars and administartion went together, both political activities but did not mix.
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | June 13, 2008
@ Hrishi:Good points. I will respond in a day or two.
***
@ Kalyanaraman-ji: Thanks for a great comment…
***
@ Patriot: To err is human!
***
@ Bharat: Thanks for the links and the book recommendation. I will certainly have a look.
Re. point 4, it is a common misconception, sadly.
For those of you who are curious, please read “Hindu”, India and “Bharat” - The Story behind Word Origins and also Bharat’s comment dated 7th Dec here.
***
@ vck: I loved your example!
Comment by B Shantanu | June 13, 2008
FYI.
The dharmayudh over the “secular” word
Arvind Lavakare
…Dharma, the fundamental duty, the foundation ethic of the nation and every walk of life, is, he argued, the very foundation for the Fundamental Duties section being introduced. Smt.G agreed, handed the pen from her PM’s office desk and requested Singhvi to make the correction on the Hindi draft version. He wrote down panthnirpeksh.
And that’s exactly how it appears in the official Hindi version of our Constitution.
http://sify.com/news/columns/fullstory.php?id=14696519
Comment by Bharat | June 22, 2008