Of Turkey, Secular States and Religion
A few weeks ago, I had asked the question: Why is a “Hindu nation” automatically assumed to be a “fundamentalist, fascist state led by Hindutva fanatics”?
My hypothesis was: A Hindu state can be the ultimate secular state since respect (not just tolerance or indifference) for all beliefs and religions will be enshrined as part of the constitution – officially
Last week, I chanced upon this article by Husain Haqqani in the IHT: “Tolerance and tradition in Turkey”
In the article Husain talked about radical secularism being as dangerous as religious fanaticism….and explored the concept of defining “secularism in the Muslim world as a political system ensuring separation of theology and state rather than as an anti-religious ideology…
Some of his words could apply equally well to Hinduism and India and be relevant to the idea that I proposed in my earlier post.
Excerpts:
***
“Turkey, the first secular republic with a majority Muslim population, is expected to soon have a president who prays in public and whose wife wears a headscarf as a manifestation of her religious convictions.
Anti-religious secularists in the Muslim world see this development as a threat to Turkey’s laicism. But it could also be an opportunity to define secularism in the Muslim world as a political system ensuring separation of theology and state rather than as an anti-religious ideology.
For almost a century, secular elites in Muslim countries have equated secularization with renunciation of Islamic symbols and practices.
…The threat to secularism in the Muslim world comes from religious intolerance, not from individual acts of piety.
Turkey’s election of a conservative Muslim president need not be seen as a deviation from its secular ideals. It is a much-needed embrace of a path different from that of radical Islam as well as radical secularism.
Although the AK Party grew out of a succession of Islamist parties banned by Turkish courts, it describes itself as a moderate conservative party rather than an Islamist one. It does not seek the enforcement of Shariah law, and its performance in office during its first term confirms its claims.
…
For too long, the Muslim world has been polarized between secularists who want all public manifestations of Islamic religion banished from their countries and Islamists who insist on reverting to obscurantist theocracy.
This polarization cannot come to an end without secularists tolerating the practice of religion and Islamists moving away from radical Islam to a middle where individuals can be Islamic even though the state is secular.
As in the West, Muslims need to be able to fuse faith and enlightenment while also accepting the rights of unbelievers.”
***
Read the article in full here.
And now it seems Morocco is “learning” from Turkey’s Islamists too. From “Belief and the Ballot” published in TIME magazine, dt Sept 10 ’07 by Aboubakr Jamai:
“…Long ago, the PJD (Morocco’s Islamist Party of Justice and Development) leadership decided that the Algerian Islamists got it all wrong when they chose an outright confrontation with the army. Instead, they admire the wise persistence and incrementalism of Turkey’s Islamists…”
The article concludes by saying that:
“Nonetheless, its (the Moroccan regime’s) strategy of accommodating, rather than attacking, political Islam should be closely followed throughout the Middle East and the West. ”
Indeed.
Latest News (19th Sept ’07): Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called for the lifting of a ban on women wearing headscarves at state universities.
Related Posts:
Dear Sir,
At the pain of being boring I will have to repeat only one thing. “There is no HINDUISM, it is SANATANA DHARMA”.
In an earlier observation I had said the same, and I would like to state that the concept of Hinduism being discussed and portrayed arises out of the Christian based education that we Indians have been exposed to.
The less said the better about education in Islam, as, Kafirs we would not be able to enter the portals of a Madrasa.
It is the cosmopolitan thoughts of the Indians that has permited the entry of the Parsees, with their Fire God, into India, in Gujarat, along time ago. It was supposed to be the Zamorin of Cochin who permitted Thomas to come in and talk about his religion.
It is the teasing and the abuse and the misuse of our thought and our bigness of our heart that today we are becoming bigoted.
We have had cases where poor and innocent villagers have been fooled by “Missionaries” by using a wooden Jesus against a Iron Hanumanji to show that one God floats in water and the other drowns! Is is the kind of appreciation that we get for encouraging Thomas to preach his thoughts.
Christian schools have banned students from wearing flowers or the Bindi.
The prayer was compulsorily Hail Mary and the Angelus was forced on Hindu students and they were punished for any laxity for the same.
The British Government in all its munificense gave free acres of land to set up Schools and colleges to the missionaries.
The Islamists just killed and grabbed it! so I am not talking about them.
To end this supposed to be “Radical Secularism” and “Fundamentalism” such destructive thoughts that of harvesting and conquering an area for lost souls should stop.
Let the way of life that has been existing for milleniums, before these destructive forces came into existence be “delivered” back to the poor innocents and the “lost souls” and I am sure such “Radical Secularism” and “Fundamentalism” will diappear from the face of THIS EARTH.
Please forgive me for the Capitals. It is just to lay emphasis and not anger, mor of angst.
Regards,
vck
Dear Shantanu
I read your article and VCK above, and wonder – what possible purpose can be served by officially making India a Hindu nation? Except going backwards in time, not forward.
Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) spread naturally to other places and countries, and will continue to do so, without state backing (eg. in Thailand and the south east Asia, plus now in parts of the West). Buddhism too did not use state power – it simply spread. Religious matters are matters of the heart, soft matters; and should be won in the ‘battlefield’ of ideas: they don’t need state backing. If a thing is good, it will grow and live forever. It may have ups and downs but won’t need state dogma behind it. Today, Mao, for example, is dead and will soon be forgotten, and Confucius is already re-emerging from the dead: his simple messages are spreading once again.
In the end, a religion is a personal thing, like culture, and should not be made political. It should be kept completely separate from government. It should find no mention in any constitution, nor the government support any religion in any way. The risks of such overlap are too many, including that this prevents the natural evolution of religions.
I therefore advocate the government getting out of supporting or manageming religious practices or organisations, such as subsidising the Haaj or managing Tirupati temple. No psuedo secularism for me. I would suggest that the government perform its allotted role, and religions and social reforms perform theirs.
If you are open to suggestions, could I suggest that instead of asking India to be made into a Hindu state, that you focus your attention on identifying the bad things about Hinduism and getting rid of them (the caste system, for example; and untouchability). If that happens, Hinduism will naturally grow afresh and reach a new level of persuasiveness.
For instance, among the things that put me off from my ‘birth’ religion, of Hinduism, were the endless and chronic defects in ‘my’ religion. I refuse to support wrong things, either in government or in religion, or in any other area. Why, for instance, don’t Hindu leader strongly oppose corruption that is prevalent in India, and banish from Hinduism anyone who is found to be corrupt? Why is it that people can be as corrupt as they like, then donate money to Tirupati and get a special audience with God? I don’t accept that kind of religion.
And so (and also for a range of other reasons), I am not a Hindu since I became 12 years old, and will perhaps remain unattached to any religion. Instead, I pick up the good things out of all religions and philosophies and lead my own way of life.
Regards
Sanjeev
Hi Shantanu:
Mr. Sabhlok is against Haj subsidies and the Government managing Tirupati temple. So are many of us.
No Govt. can take away the subsidy. It has something to do with what is generally known as vote bank politics.
The thing about managing Tirupati temple is very simple. Money. Money for the temple, money for the party and money for the politician.
Finally, Mr. Sabhlok declares he is unattached to any religion. But his concern about the ills of Hinduism and his desire to see it reformed tell a different story. I get a feeling that he is deeply attached to it.
The way to find a solution to a problem is not by detachment but by complete involvement.
Regards,
Nandan
Dear VCK: Thanks for your comments…and for insisting on correct terminology. I slipped on this (pl. see this post when you have a moment: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/11/14/excerpts-from-word-as-a-weapon/ )
I agree that we must guard against forced conversions and be ever more vigilant against such efforts (You have probably read this https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/06/cauvery-layout-videos/ and other similar posts on my blog – pl. look up the “Conversions” category: http://wordpress.com/tag/conversions-missionaries-in-india/ )
***
Sanjeev: Thanks as always for your thought-provoking remarks.
I am not advocating a Hindu state – but proposing a discussion on it. Why? Because I believe it offers us a chance to fashion a unique identity which can actually become a template for peaceful and harmonious co-existence. I would be very interested in your views on this article by Prof Lehmann https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/30/excerpts-from-the-dangers-of-monotheism/
You say: “could I suggest that…you focus your attention on identifying the bad things about Hinduism and getting rid of them (the caste system, for example; and untouchability)” – Yes, I agree and I am already trying to do a little bit here (see e.g. https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/02/is-this-too-much-to-ask/ and https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/04/19/shameful-and-inexcusable/ )
I agree with you about the “corruption” that you see in religious places – or the “bribes” that one pays to have a longer /or quicker darshan – I too do not believe in this aspect and that is why inspite of going all the way to Tirupati Balaji’s temple, I decided not to have a “darshan” – that does not put me off “Sanatan Dharma” though because nowhere is it written that I MUST visit Balaji and seek his blessings.
***
Nandan: Thanks for your comment. You put it very well: “The way to find a solution to a problem is not by detachment but by complete involvement”. Could not have said it better.
Dear Mr. Shantanu,
I went through all the websites you have identified in your reply and they all relate to the same thing. “It is a matter of lies, damned lies and further lies”.
As Shri. Frank Morales has clearly stated it is the furtherance of the lie by the policy makers of divide and rule that we still talk about “Hinduism” rather than the way of life described by the concept of Dharma.
Persons who have been brought up on the food of such lies propagated by these persons of evil design to destroy the framework on which this part of the world has sustained still talk on these strains of “Hinduism” and look up to the good things in all “religions”.
As Shri. Nandan has clearly spelt out, it is our involvement into the looking at the truth as it is rather than than detachment will eliminate these evil forces from this ancient land.
Only this involvement will bring back the true concept of what one calls “Secularism”! (I still do not understand it!) and then the hope you have described in your blog can be a reality.
It is involved persons like you who have energised people like me to come forward and take this forward in its true spirit and this form of involvement will enable even detached individuals like Shri. Sablok to have a new look at this way of life.
Kindly note it is not “Hinduism” but the way of life.
Regards,
vck
My understanding is that India is already a de facto Hindu nation—albeit a badly run one. All that remains is naming it so. Let me clarify.
A secular nation is one that usually has the same laws for all its citizens; and these ,while guided by religious ethics and principles, are really derived through a logical thought process. Not so in India, where the majority lives by the Hindu laws and the rest have their religious laws to live by.
A secular nation would have separation of church and state where the government did not interfere in the operations of religious institutions. Not so in India. Here the government runs and manages all the major Hindu temples and appropriates the funds for its own use.
A secular nation would not interfere in the religious practices of a religion. Not so in India. Here the government and various political leaders routinely pass judgment on theological matters (e.g. Did Rama exist?). Furthermore, they legislate on theological and religious practices as Karunanidhi did when he created laws to allow all people of Hindu birth and practice to be able to become priests. Only in a religious state, does the state try to reform a religion. Usually reform comes from within the religious tradition itself.
So India needs to decide if it should go by what it calls itself (a secular state), or what is actually is. If it is a secular state, then it is necessary that it has a uniform civil code and gets out of the running and management of Hindu religious institutions and stops from making any theological judgments.
I was amused to see Mr. Sabhlok criticism of Tirupathi, since he is such a staunch believer of free-market capitalism. What could be more capitalistic than a system which ensures that people who have the money get quicker access to the inner shrines.
There is nothing inherently wrong with running a major religious place efficiently to make more money. Plus, if richer people are prepared to pay more, that is better for the temple and all the charitable work the temple does.
Dear Subadra,
Thanks for your comments. But I said something slightly different. I said: “Why is it that people can be as corrupt as they like, then donate money to Tirupati and get a special audience with God?”
In my view a religion (unlike common products such as a chair) is not a religion if it not founded entirely on ethics. After all, people tell me that a religion is the very foundation of ethics in a society. Its only product is ethics. My issue relates to areas of reform of Hinduism, as currently practiced. Why do pujaris not discriminate on the basis of ethics? In principle, I am not against special treatment of those who donate to a particular religion or association. I can’t understand how a religious body (which is supposed to underpin the entire society’s ethics) can accept donations from the corrupt. That only gives the corrupt license to do further wrong.
Second, and this is implicit, I cannot agree that any religious body has the power to wash off people’s sins (crimes/ corruption) merely by paying off a pujari/ priest. The same thing happened to Christianity before Martin Luther protested and founded a completely different branch of Christianity, based on simplicity of ideas and equality of all.
Maybe those of you who agree with my understanding of what a religion is supposed to mean, and are firmly rooted in Hinduism (which I am not; but I am remain happy to accept good ideas from everywhere), can split off into a different branch of Hinduism where everyone is equal, and no special queues are required in your temples. Sometimes that’s all it takes to reform: one man (woman) standing up. Are you the one?
Hope we are on the same page!
Regards
Sanjeev
Mr. Sabhlok needs to make a distinction between religion and religious practices. Though religious practices tend to define religion to a certain extent, they are not to be confused with religion. These are only procedures created by the follower.
Sanatana Dharma gives ample freedom for each follower to set his own rules and pursue his philosophy without imposing it on others. If Mr. Sabhlok does not want to visit Tiruppati, it is his decision. Such decision does not make him a lesser Hindu even if he repeatedly says so.
The quest for perfection and ability to empathize with others are signs of a true seeker. Mr. Sabhlok is blessed with both these qualities. What he must now do is to lead the flock in the right direction. To be able to lead the flock, he must be one of the flock. At least he must feel so.
He says, ” Sometimes that’s all it takes to reform: one man (woman) standing up. Are you the one?”
I would like to know why he can’t be the one to stand up and question.
Regards
Dear Nandan. Thanks for your kind words. And no, I did not say I do not wish to visit Tirupati.
I have absolutely no hangups about visiting any religous or non-religious place or being part of anybody’s religious practices. I have visited – and will continue to visit – a vast many Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Islamic, and Christian places of worship (among others). But I don’t go to these places out of a commitment to the religions that underpin them. I admire Buddhist thought, in many ways, but so also I admire the Gita’s teachings, and many Christian thoughts. I have my own tool set of beliefs (not necessary borrowed from any religion) which are independent of any religion.
I believe my commitment is only to two things: to humanity, and to the truth. And to the process of thinking independently and freely. On that account, after my ‘mundan’ there has been no religious ceremony performed on me. I surely can’t be held to account for (as a small kid) being taken to Haridwar for my mundan! So that doesn’t count.
But everything after 12 was on my own volition. My marriage was without any religious ceremony or involvement. Similarly, my body and organs have been donated for use by others and by science, when I die. That way I won’t need to face someone else’s religious ceremony upon my death (not that it will matter, for these things give people relief, and I have no objection in people getting relief in any way that suits them). Fortunately, my son and daughter are growing up as free thinkers too. Critical thinkers.
In other words, you’ll note that I am not religious, so unfortunately I can’t belong to any ‘flock’. I don’t practice any religion. I can though, and do, from time to time, as a well-wisher of everyone (excluding those who indulge in violence), suggest that religions reform if they wish to remain relevant in the future and continue to attract followers. But I am not a religious reformer.
I do seek a Heaven, though. I seek is Tagore’s Heaven of Freedom (Gitanjali 1912). On this earth. I am committed to building that Heaven here, today, in my life. And in India, to the extent I can assist. That then is my ‘religion’. I see visions of The India Heaven. The World Heaven. But not of the “Heaven” Heaven. And that is why I am writing my book (in fact two books).
I leave it to you to mull about what Tagore actually said, and to marvel at the implications each of his words:
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
I simply can’t think of a better expression of what I am seeking than this poem.
Regards
Sanjeev
vck, Subadra, Sanjeev and Nandan: Thanks for your follow-up comments and thoughts…
This is becoming a lively and enriching debate. Please do continue the discussion.
The problem as I see is confusing the basic principles of Sanatana Dharma with what is practiced. The goal of sanatana dharma is for every human to reach the pinnacle of perfection and realize his true self. One who realizes that realizes there are no differences and sees everyone as part of a whole. Vasudaiva kudumbagam (one big family with no distinctions, not just a family of Vasudeva, but the family which includes every life under the universe), Lokah Samastah Sukhinoh Bavantu, are some leading principles of Sanatana Dharma.
Paths and practices have been laid out for people with different levels of understanding. One can meditate, be devotional, or just be the ritualistic person or enquire either as a rationalistic pursue or spiritual pursue. All these are allowed under the big umberella of Sanatana Dharma. Now some practices tend to get distorted changed over time, made rigid, or misunderstood due to loss of understanding the original reason behind it. This is what has happened to many rituals, caste system and so on. While we keep harping caste system is hinduism, why dont we keep harping on the fact Sanatana Dharma actually stresses on equality “Vasudaiva kudumbagam”, stories of rishis and saints from lower castes are umpteen.
Reduction in morality of a soceity, increase in discrimination is a product of reducing value system. Everytime such things happen, there are people who arise from Adi Shankara, Vivekananda, Narayana Guru and so on and cleanse the system. Unfortunately in this period we are so intent on harping on evil, we dont give it time to evolve and people to correct it. Vivekananda talks of the need for evolution, not sudden revolution. And in a soceity of ours which is guided by thousands of years of wisdom, it has evolved over time. Problems will creep up, and it will be rid. But blaming it all on Sanatana Dharma, without us taking moral responsibility to practice the true teachings of Sanatana dharma is not right.
Dear Mr. Sabhlok,
Thanks for your detailed response to my comment.
I feel if you could shift the emphasis from ‘Sabhlok’ to ‘Sab Log’ ( ?? ???) you could play a more vital role in bringing about positive changes in the Indian society.
I wish you success in all your endeavours.
Regards,
Nandan
Thanks Nandan
I do apologise if I went off in a tangent about myself in the previous post. My emphasis certainly is on Sab Log, and will remain so. We are one country, and in the end, one planet. By supporting an ethical ideal for mankind where there is no poverty but great innovation and regard for justice (even for plants and animals), I hope my work will be found to be of some value.
As far as your suggested Sandhi, it is actually Sabhya + Lok (civilised folk), a title reportedly given to one of my ancestors. But that is an irrelevant detail!
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
I am glad you have taken my comments in the right spirit. Please rest assured, the comment was made in lighter vein and no offence intended.
Let us all join hands and work towards a Sabhya Samaj (???? ????) to which all of us must be able to proudly declare ” I belong to you.” (This expression is not mine and is borrowed from the Art of Living Organization.)
With best wishes,
Nandan
I would like to add a couple of points to this whole debate, if I may.
Whenever we talk of a state religion, or religion in any collective manner, we are talking of organised religion. Unfortunately, organised religion takes on the character of “organisation” rather than spirituality as is supposed to be the character of religion.
Now, the character of any organisation is about power, creation of money, and perpetuation of oneself. And, this is what happens to religion, the moment you move it into a “collective matrix”. Suddenly, there are people who establish a hierarchy, there are others looking to create a stable and self-perpetuation organisation and creating a revenue stream and finally, there are the takeover moves, in the form of conversions or wars.
In the last 2000 years, if you tabulate the number of wars that have been fought because of or been instigated by organised religious powers, you will be shocked. This is true of organised christianity or hinduism sub-sects (or whatever you want to call it) or islam or even the peace loving buddhists.
Because the call of the organised religious types is so seductive (after all, people want to belong to groups, and want to be part of groupings that will protect them) that it is necessary to separate the state from religious organisations. Religious organisations derive and try to sustain power on the basis of interpretations of a few – that is what makes them so dangerous. Modern states on the other hand are based on public documents (constitution), which is open to interpretation and implementation by everyone in the state. It is a “rules based” regime.
As free people, we need to ensure that organised religion never gets back to power (to rule us) in any form or shape. And, that is why Turkey tries so hard to maintain a secular state ….. they know they are up against the worst of the interpretationists.
Personally, I think France should be our role model. That is a really equal, secular state for every denomination.
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** COMMENT MOVED ***
Click here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
*** NOTE ***
Please continue to comment here if you wish to talk about Secularism, Turkey or the topic of India as a “Hindu” state.
For matters related to caste system and discrimination within Hinduism, please continue the debate here: Hinduism, “Caste System” and discrimination – Join the debate
Latest on Morocco by Olivier Guitta (emphasis mine):
June 12 was election day in Iran. But in another Muslim country, local elections were also conducted that very day. It was in Morocco and the outcome was very little commented and when it was, the analysis was most of the time flawed.
Indeed the Western media and various experts declared that the Islamists were decimated and that they were now history. Think again! In fact, the main official Islamist party, the PJD (Parti de la Justice et du Développement), a loose offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is far from dead and one could make the case that it got its best results ever. Abdelillah Benkirane, the PJD’s General Secretary, succinctly summed up the outcome of the elections, “We’ve won†and in a way he is right.
At first sight, it is easy to see why some pundits called the PJD’s defeat: in absolute terms the party garnered only about 6% of the votes. But to put things in perspective it ran only for 8,000 seats out of the about 27,000 in play- i.e. about 29%-. The PJD smartly targeted the cities where it is quite popular and was quite successful because it finished actually first in towns with over 35,000 inhabitants. And more importantly the PJD finished first in Rabat, the kingdom’s capital and Casablanca, the economic capital. With political alliances the PJD is one way or another in the driver’s seat in Rabat, Casablanca and Kenitra. Will it be able to enforce its very strict conservative religious agenda that runs counter to what Morocco stands for? This remains to be seen. In the meantime, the PJD has joined forces with the Socialist Party, the USFP, and has defacto lost its “pariah†label.
The PJD has now become a party like all the others and is likely pretty content with this newly acquired status. In fact, two years ago the West was afraid of an Islamist tsunami in Morocco and is now clearly relieved that it did not occur. But with a flawed analysis, the West is missing the big picture that little by little the Islamists are gaining ground, controlling cities and penetrating the core of Moroccan society. Like in most countries, the Islamists are not really in a rush to seize power: the tortoise always beats the hare in the end…
It is politically incorrect in “secular†India to raise such issues – which in a truly secular country shouldn’t exist.
Below is a quote from an analysis by Prof. Issac:
Article 30 of the constitution needs serious review!
Source: http://www.saveindia.com/for_hindus_in_kerala_it.htm
Placing this here for the record: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2668835.ece