On Religious Freedoms and Secularism – Part II
Dear All: I am opening this second thread to continue the discussion over from On Religious Freedoms and Secularism. I am reproducing the last few comments to maintain continuity in the discussion. I believe the comments have been reproduced accurately but if some of them look misplaced, pl. let me know.
Please continue to share your thoughts below.
Thank you.
*** Last few comments carried over from Part I ***
The article by Jakob De Roover having inputs from Balagangadhar is an extremely well researched and well written piece.
Comment # 111 by Rohit
We all know secularism is a failure in India. I didn’t even have an idea about background to secularism when I first said that the FTI piece is crap and Christian theory… Sorry Hon. Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok, repeating the same despite your anguish…. No offence, Patriot, Salil, Vishal and Shantanu. 1947 is the biggest relevant example when we had pillars of secularism leading the show : GANERUZZINS and BRITISHERS resulting in genocide of Sanatan Dharmis
Anyway it proves that if one knows history of Bharat, and has common sense, then he doesn’t need to rely on such well researched paper to decide that secularism is a failure in entire world, especially India and is suitable for Toms, Dicks and Harrys. It is a good source of information for neo seculars, blinded by NCERT text books and history by Congressis and Christians. Development/ unity of nation has nothing to do with secularism but good governance by leaders who are not bigots and are men of common sense and character.
But again, the relevance at this point of time is not an ongoing debate on this religion Secularism which has it’s own exclusivity like US Secularism or French Secularism or Congress Secularism or FTI Secularism because secularism fails to give justified importance to the exclusiveness taught by Islam and Christianity and turns a blind eye to the actions perpetuated by these religions [Refer Salil’s and Vishal’s justification for some things like senseless preaching by Missionaries + denigration of faith of non Christians, Cow massacre] but how to contain and repair the ongoing damage to our nation which is being raped, abused by Christians/ Secularists, Muslims and bigot Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Remember, the secular Pakistan founded by Jinnah and the plight of Sanatan Dharmis over there. Recall the Love Jihad in Kerala and also else where. Recall what Dawood Ibrahims from minorities do and how Dr Zakir Naiks douses the fire on deeds of Muslims. Recall what happens to Sanatan Dharmis n muslim majority state like Kashmir. Recall what Christian missionaries from Australia, USA and else where come to India and do. Why are these missionaries not satisfied in their country where there is money, peace, progress? Why are they so hell bent to convert people? One of the reasons is their pay structure. The missionaries get a huge packet based on the number of conversions they do. You take away their variable pay and within a month missionary will throw the book and look for a better paying job in which he may have to work. Does secularism will answer these problems. Answer is no. Because each and every person is fed Religion since child hood and there is no way that education/ development/ secularism will be able to stop the wheels of mecca and rome like in case of Singapore area 270 sq km in India which has too many complexities to be taken care of.
We are moving towards second instance of genocide since 1947. In future, this may be a triangular genocide with Muslims on one side, Christians + Seculars on other and Sanatan Dharm right in middle. Muslims will find support from Mecca, Christians/ Seculars from Rome + United Nations. Will Sanatan Dharm be able to give the religions a fitting reply?
VHP’s statement with slight modification finds relevance “The world is divided into Sanatan Dharm vs Secularists/Christians & Mohammedans who view Sanatan Dharm as very fine piece of flesh to feast uponâ€
***
Comment # 112 by Salil
@Rohit: (#111)
We all know secularism is a failure in India.
Secularism, like any other ideology, can never be perfect. We call ourselves a Democracy, but we see electoral fraud and politicians treating the land as personal fiefdoms. Has democracy failed? We call ourselves a Republic, but these days only kids of politicians get to win elections. Has our republic failed?
Just like Sovereign Democratic Republic, ‘Secular’ in the Constitution is an ideology to be achieved despite. Every ideology has its faults and we accept it with its faults because the alternatives are not feasible. The only alternative to secularism is its opposite – Theocracy. Anupam already asked you in comment #23 if you supported a Hindu State in India. Your answer was neither yes or no.
1947 is the biggest relevant example when we had pillars of secularism leading the show : GANERUZZINS and BRITISHERS resulting in genocide of Sanatan Dharmis
And why isn’t Jinnah and Muslim League responsible for the genocide? I would consider him as the biggest cause of the genocide.
It is a good source of information for neo seculars, blinded by NCERT text books and history by Congressis and Christians.
Again, you place the blame on the wrong persons. NCERT and history textbooks have been dominated by communist historians who were neither Congressis nor Christians.
…secularism fails to give justified importance to the exclusiveness taught by Islam and Christianity and turns a blind eye to the actions perpetuated by these religions
Refer to my comment #110. If any persons violate others’ right to life or property in the name of Islam or Christianity, they must be certainly punished. But why should any other actions that peacefully propagate and preach be prevented? If members of the above religions forced conversion, punish them by all means.
but how to contain and repair the ongoing damage to our nation which is being raped, abused by Christians/ Secularists, Muslims and bigot Brahmins and Kshatriyas.
This is too sweeping a statement and generalist to accuse all the above mentioned of being guilty of anti-national activities.
Remember, the secular Pakistan founded by Jinnah and the plight of Sanatan Dharmis over there.
Pakistan is not a secular country even if Jinnah intended it to be. Jinnah died within a year of Pakistan’s independence, so his supposed secular ideas are not responsible for the plight of Sanatan Dharmis there. Blame the theocracy of the Islamic State of Pakistan for their plight.
Recall the Love Jihad in Kerala and also else where.
The Love Jihad directly violated individual rights. I see no reason why they should be punished on those grounds irrespective of which religion they were converting people to.
Recall what Dawood Ibrahims from minorities do
Dawood Ibrahim is a terrorist who should be punished like any other criminal irrespective of his religion. Any terrorist, either from minority or majority should be punished.
Recall what happens to Sanatan Dharmis n muslim majority state like Kashmir.
Agreed there was ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir. But dont you think Pakistan sponsored terrorists are responsible?
Why are these missionaries not satisfied in their country where there is money, peace, progress? Why are they so hell bent to convert people?
Many religious people like to propagate their religion. So does ISKCON. All proselytising religions have different methods. As long as there is no coercion or fraud, what is the harm in propagating religion? Do you have a problem with ISKCON propagating their faith in other countries? – I dont.
One of the reasons is their pay structure. The missionaries get a huge packet based on the number of conversions they do. You take away their variable pay and within a month missionary will throw the book and look for a better paying job in which he may have to work. Does secularism will answer these problems. Answer is no.
Honestly, what is wrong with conversion not based on coercion or fraud? If you do not wish that people be converted to these religions, you are free to protect your religion and propagate it. Propagation of faith is based on arguments of ideologies. I’m sure you have the ability to take on an intellectual debate with the missionaries. Why hide behind the protection of the state to disallow them from preaching?
We are moving towards second instance of genocide since 1947.
Really??
“The world is divided into Sanatan Dharm vs Secularists/Christians & Mohammedans who view Sanatan Dharm as very fine piece of flesh to feast uponâ€
VHP has a right to their views. They support the declaration of India as a “Hindu Rashtraâ€. Do you?
***
Comment # 113 by Rohit
Salil #112 No offence, only a suggestion, why don’t you have a debate with entire FTI team and then draft your reply? Your answers are repeatedly theoretic. Not that I can’t answers the post with examples but still, repetition is not much helpful.
***
Comment # 114 by Salil
@Rohit (#113)I dont want to debate with FTI because I agree with them and support their idea. I was only responding to the parts in your comment which I disagreed with. If our argument is repetitive, we can agree to disagree and leave it there.
***
Comment # 115 by Rohit
@ Salil (#114) #113 was suggestion for making your replies, more constructive and not repetitive theoretical approach.
Salil… Most of your attempts to explain are theories or gyaans, on base of ignorance of facts and events, which have direct relevance to your faith secularism. FTI definition of secularism is not a new one albeit an attempt of perfection, which is not possible in this world. It is a slight modification of communist theory, more so, for acceptance. What I am saying is that secularism is failure everywhere in world. Secularism exists primarily in Christian Countries where it is for ease of Toms, Dicks and Harrys. Outside Christian world, it doesn’t exist in Muslim world… Don’t give me singular example of Turkey for ease of senseless arguments. Russia, not a secular country, doesn’t need secularism to prosper or progress, however, I can tell you why it is powerful and what and who indulges in creating roadblocks to it’s progress. But still I will make an attempt to reason you’re your theoretical approach to governance. The next reply, should be output of your consultancy with entire FTI member community.
Secularism, like any other ideology, can never be perfect. We call ourselves a Democracy, but we see electoral fraud and politicians treating the land as personal fiefdoms. Has democracy failed? We call ourselves a Republic, but these days only kids of politicians get to win elections. Has our republic failed?
Secularism has failed. If, 1947 is not a proof then so will not be another Pakistan for seculars or a third Pakistan for seculars. For 1947, no one says failure of secularism breastfed by Her Majesty, everyone says Jinnah and Muslim League. One can keep clinging to secularism theory for another millennia and produce germs of riots/ genocide, and conveniently blame RSS or VHP for the misery. For example, secular people blame RSS/ VHP for misery in country. They fail to come to terms with output of their secular policies. Similarly, the defeat of 1962 war for convenience is heaped on China, no one blames Nehru and his handpicked war in chief, Mr Kaul, a man with zero war experience. If this war would have been with Pakistan, the blame would have been on RSS/ VHP.
Failure of democracy/ republic… It is a vague term… Ask a Naxalite or a SIMI or a LeT or a JeM or a Mizo National Front or any North East Terror Outfit (Learn demography of North East) or a VHP. The only out of these outfits, I mentioned, who would be still a nationalist is VHP guy. The VHP guy would be the first to be ready to sacrifice himself in case of a war with Pakistan or China. Congressi and secularists will be found creating safe heaven for himself or herself while the rest barring likes of VHP would be busy opening another front.
Just like Sovereign Democratic Republic, ‘Secular’ in the Constitution is an ideology to be achieved despite. Every ideology has its faults and we accept it with its faults because the alternatives are not feasible. The only alternative to secularism is its opposite – Theocracy. Anupam already asked you in comment #23 if you supported a Hindu State in India. Your answer was neither yes or no.
It is wrong that alternates to secularism is/ are not feasible. Secularism as a mechanism to address problem of religion and Sanatan Dharm is failure and will be failure. Prior to 1947, the political parties and political leaders on fore were those who are revered like Jinnah and Gandhi. At present there are multiple Gandhis and multiple Jinnahs. With application of maths or logic, the result will be multiple Pakistans/ multiple India. Like Kashmir or like Love Jihad Bombs or like North East. The only thing that matters is when does pregnant secularism delivers the baby, unfortunately there is no time frame around to predict the delivery date. However, the signs of delivery are becoming stronger and stronger, even as we debate. The Muslim parties which rose to fight elections in India in 2009 are direct output of secularism because secularism failed to answer their aspirations. All India Christian Council forcing AICC and All India Christian Congress obliging is direct output of secularism. A YSR meddling in affairs of temple, creating space for Churches next to Tirupati, thereby deliberately disturbing harmony, implementing all schemes and policies in favor of Christians is result of secularism.
The alternate that you discussed, was in India till Britishers landed. Muslims settled as per Christian history before Mahmud of Ghaznavi arrived to loot and pillage India. Maharaja Ranjit Singh didn’t run government on your principles but was delivered good governance against whose reign, even Britishers couldn’t do anything with their secularism or divide and rule theory. Good governance has nothing to do with secularism how so ever radical it needs to sound. Secularism, howsoever, you may define, has never been respected by Muslims and Christians and Singapore with one of highest development, income and literacy in world with an area of 270 km is a proof. If a person views Sanatan Dharm as threat to existence then that is a figment of imagination. There is no incident in history to prove this.
Answer to Anupam and yourself: I do not mind if good governance proclaims Sanatan Dharm as official word to describe the faith of India or it doesn’t. What I do mind is what governance does for preservance of Sanatan Dharm and how does it control religions who have foundations/ ideologies that directly clash with Sanatan Dharm.
And why isn’t Jinnah and Muslim League responsible for the genocide? I would consider him as the biggest cause of the genocide.
GANERUZZIN = GANdhi, NEhRU, j(ZZ)INnah. Gandhi, if he led like a leader, should have asked army or police or RSS or likes of Subhash Chandra Bose to help him to quell riots. He should have become the prime minister and led the development of nation, if he really was interested in development of nation. Entire life, he forcefully fed his crap theories without bearing responsibilities of results of practicing his theory. For example, after partition, he forced government to cough out some Rs 50 Crores for Pakistan which was used to sponser Talibanis to Kashmir as the then British commander XXX refused to toe to Jinnah dictat to a armed conflict with India on Kashmir. To current date the amount appears as debt to Pakistan in the annual budget of India. You may apply compound interest on the same, apply inflation and value of money theories and determine the worth the loan is at present date. And also remember that Jinnah was groomed in Congress of Gandhi and Nehru.
Doesn’t really matter because I guess you are wise enough to understand what I am saying and the reactions of yourself which are limited to single post do tell me that you don’t have much idea about history of our Nation or find it uncomfortable to debate on issues like Love Jehad, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Raja Bhojadeva, Christian conversion schemes etc. Difference between Communism and Secularism is not much either… Both emanated from land of Christians. One is clinging to it’s last breaths, resorting to violence and the other breeds fertile ground for riots and genocides.
Refer to my comment #110. If any persons violate others’ right to life or property in the name of Islam or Christianity, they must be certainly punished. But why should any other actions that peacefully propagate and preach be prevented? If members of the above religions forced conversion, punish them by all means.
Again, you place the blame on the wrong persons. NCERT and history textbooks have been dominated by communist historians who were neither Congressis nor Christians.
Pro Christian/ Islam statement. No base, no proofs to support that they are peaceful propagators while the entire history of world says that misery of religious genocides, faith based terrorism and separatism in modern word was born with these religions. Whereever these religions went, they wiped out natives. A statement, in line with Mullas and Baptistos of world, who are bigots and propagator of lies to achieve their purpose, elimination of those not belonging to Christianity/ Islam.
This is too sweeping a statement and generalist to accuse all the above mentioned of being guilty of anti-national activities.
Statements are not always drafted as per individuals. My statements are provable on macro basis. For example, it is not wrong to say that Muslims indulge in faith based separatism and terrorism when ever and where ever they are in majority. Similar are Christians with methods, refined with time, thanks to secular veil which allows them to rule the roost at United Nations. United States of America dealt (or made everyone believe so) with macro level problems with great perfection down to the last individual along it’s new found doggy, Great Britain, post WW II. Where ever it went, it ended up in total shame and loss of face and was able to score zero on a macro and a micro level analysis.
Pakistan is not a secular country even if Jinnah intended it to be. Jinnah died within a year of Pakistan’s independence, so his supposed secular ideas are not responsible for the plight of Sanatan Dharmis there. Blame the theocracy of the Islamic State of Pakistan for their plight.
Sorry, I blame GANERUZZINS and secularists… I do not shift principles for convenience.
The Love Jihad directly violated individual rights. I see no reason why they should be punished on those grounds irrespective of which religion they were converting people to.
How do you know? The so called leader of organization behind “Love Jehad†is saying that he is acting under constitutional rights and secularism…Ease of such declaration doesn’t sound right from followers of perfection to the last atom.
Dawood Ibrahim is a terrorist who should be punished like any other criminal irrespective of his religion. Any terrorist, either from minority or majority should be punished.
Repeat Dawood Ibrahims not Dawood Ibrahim… Do you have imperfect statistics around the rate of output of such faith based terrorism/ separatism and the base source?… A peek at list of terror organizations at website of CIA may be useful for scientific view. [Inference: Give realistic weight to the problems and not generalize the problem]
Agreed there was ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir. But dont you think Pakistan sponsored terrorists are responsible?
Yeah, but who was providing Men, Machines, Exploding Human Bombs, Logistical Support. Gaddaffi, the nutty witty terror professor from Libya finds support in Kashmir is direct result of whose efforts? Kashmiris, claiming to be different than Muslims wants world to believe it is Kashmiri problem. Strangely, no Muslim Kashmiri, not even one talks about fight of independence of Pakistan Occupied Kashmiris and what happened to Sanatan Dharmis of POK. Shall I recall entire story of Mehbooba Mufti and her dad, the party and it’s policy which bred them?
Many religious people like to propagate their religion. So does ISKCON. All proselytising religions have different methods. As long as there is no coercion or fraud, what is the harm in propagating religion? Do you have a problem with ISKCON propagating their faith in other countries? – I dont.
Really, I never came across an ISKONITE feeding me the only truth crap like missionaries even though I have interacted with ISKONITES few times. Never heard of a single unlawful case of false propaganda, forced conversion, inciting riots/ genocide getting registered anywhere in world against ISKON… Do these things sound alien when it comes to Christianity or Islam?
Honestly, what is wrong with conversion not based on coercion or fraud? If you do not wish that people be converted to these religions, you are free to protect your religion and propagate it. Propagation of faith is based on arguments of ideologies. I’m sure you have the ability to take on an intellectual debate with the missionaries. Why hide behind the protection of the state to disallow them from preaching?
Contradictory statement… Refer your earlier views on yeshusamaj crap and Graham Staines… Remain secular and stay away from religion or first, clear your head as to what is religion, what is Sanatan Dharm. Sanatan Dharm doesn’t always depend upon state support. It acts when state fails to dispense good governance… Eg Rise of Sikhism, Graham Staines, Gujarat After Effects of Burning Train Massacre, Kandhamal etc. My intellectual capability can take on entire world even though, I never go to any temple nor I celebrate Deepawali… It can take on entire FTI together… It can take on the entire Christian machinery from Missionary to Pope BunnyDidIT… You may go ahead and ask cesspool of bigotry and lies like Cathy Douglass aka ASHA whose first reaction to debate with me was “Are you trying to convert me?†at http://www.agapepartners.org and also her NIRASHA. My problem stems from the fact that these bigots approach poor, uneducated, unaware, vulnerable natives who would hardly be knowing spelling or meaning of word Dharm or Karm but are wise enough to not indulge in riots, genocide and live happily with whatever little they have got from the governance of secularists and bigot Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Let these bigots and bigots like you indulge in talk on Religion vs Sanatan Dharm with learned from Arya Samaj or VHP or Gayatri Samaj… Test your intellectual capacities with the learned… Dr Zakir Naiks and Yeshu Samajis can blabber everywhere else but only stammer when faced with learned. Refer to some of the experiences of MK Gandhi with missionaries. The world wide experience, everywhere, is the same, including Christian countries who coined term secularism to reign in Christians.
VHP has a right to their views. They support the declaration of India as a “Hindu Rashtraâ€. Do you?
I don’t, some searching on my views on RSS, may do you good. I respect action especially one directed towards good governance/ nation building like that of Shri Narendra Modi, Shri PV Narsimha Rao (his era as Prime Minister), Shri Sanjay Gandhi, Pt Ravi Shankar Shukl, Shri Kalyan Singh (for short period of time), Shri JRD Tata, Lance Nayak Abdul Hamid, Shri Abdul Kalam, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Rana Sanga, Maha Rana Pratap, Guru Gobind Singh, Guru Teg Bahadur, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Raja Bhojadeva, Dr Devi Shetty, Rama Krishna Mission, Swami Dayanand, Swami Vivekanand, Baba Ramdev, Air Chief Marshal Sam Manekshaw, Shri KPS Gill, Shri Manmohan Singh (for short period of time during era of Shri PV Narsimha Rao), Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, entire defense force which daily lays down life on border, so seculars can breed things like Sachar Committee report and feast on their flesh and blood, Shaheed Udham Singh, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Khudiram Bose etc.
My respect for VHP/ RSS / Bajrang Dal would be born the day when they actually do something concrete for Sanatan Dharmis of nation like rendering bigot Brahmins, Kshatriyas to their right place, building magnificent temples where there is no bigotry, building institutions for dispensing teachings of Vedas, Upnshads, Bhagwad Gita etc, building world class health infrastructure for Sanatan Dharmis, creating facilities to build quality Sanatan Dharmi with a strong physique, strong intellectual capacity, creating facilities to beat the graduates from likes of MITs, Harward, LSE; promoting Sanskrit, Science etc. My respect would be the day when they unite Sanatan Dharmis to vote for good governance and not for secularism or bigots or religions. My respect would be the day when they are able to give us leaders like Chhatrapati Shivaji, Guru Teg Bahadur, Raja Bhojadeva.
***
Comment # 116 by Patriot:
Salil -Don’t waste your team debating with Rohit. Someone who argues for the execution of a person whose free speech is protected by the constitution of India can not be debated with sensibly.
“My intellectual capability can take on entire world even though, I never go to any temple nor I celebrate Deepawali… It can take on entire FTI together… It can take on the entire Christian machinery from Missionary to Pope BunnyDidITâ€
While everyone in India seems to consider hinduism/sanatana dharma/vedanta/whatever to be a form of religion, but here we have Rohit constructing a completely spurious base of SD not being religion while islam/christianity are. So, it is like starting a debate by saying that we are going to construct the decimal system, but the base can not be 10. It must be 8. See what a waste of time that would be?
Neither can you debate sensibly with a person who says this:
So, until Rohit can separate out the religious/worship/prayers/sacrifices/deity bits from SD and say this the governance book of SD which should be followed by India, it is a meaningless debate and a waste of time and space.
Also, it is very interesting to me that all these proponents of SD will say we are the most inclusive “lifestyle†in the world, going back centuries …. and then, in the next breath start berating the muslims and christians.
Also, that SD says that there is but one god, but multiple paths to it, but not accept muslims/christians as SDi’s as well.
Kind of like they get a brain freeze when they get to this part of the logic.
Also, Salil, if you are interested in reforming India by contesting elections, then I would urge you to go through the FTI website and apply for membership.
Cheers
***
Comment # 117 by Rohit
To Patriot:What I am saying is that one should apply common sense when dealing with religion how so ever you may define it. Anything by whatever name called Secularism, God, Son of God, Door Keeper to God, Jesus, Allah, Parmatama, Bhagwan is not provable. So there is no point in discussing on these lines and anyone who argues on these lines is beatable… You only have to say, prove it, like I say prove secularism is the only way. People who want to propagate these things should propagate it at a level where a person is capable of understanding the finer nuances of unprovable things. Good governance, needs to dispense quality education, health care system, a better lifestyle, right to better leaders, good strong patriot warriors and not jehadis at the rate secularism produces. Good things do not come from mercy of Secularism, God, Son of God, Door Keeper to God, Jesus, Allah, Sri Ram, Sri Krishna, Bhagwan theory propagators. As long as propagators of such theories are kept confined to religious places, with strictures in place on their unprovable speeches, and self proclaimed right to act and do deeds not inspired by law but by God, Son of God, Doorkeeper of God/ Jesus/ Allah/ Parmatma/ Bhagwan, it is good for society. So it is a must that missionary keeps himself to Church, Mullah to Masjid, Brahmin to Temple and don’t speak unprovable things in public and speaks what he submits to government in writing before he/ she opens his mouth inside Church/ Masjid/ Temple.
***
Comment # 118 by Salil
Patriot (#116)Agree, logic fails with the guy. But instead of responding to all the logical fallacies and ad hominems, I’ll take on the facts.
FTI definition of secularism is not a new one albeit an attempt of perfection, which is not possible in this world. It is a slight modification of communist theory, more so, for acceptance.
I thought the communist theory was that ‘religion is the opiate of masses’. Unlike communism, secularism does not denounce religion but is indifferent to it. It wants religions to coexist, not abolished.
@Rohit:
What I am saying is that secularism is failure everywhere in world.
Barring the Islamic states, almost the entire world has secular states, i.e. no interference of religion in state. Of course, your definition of secularism is different, so please yourself with your beliefs.
Russia, not a secular country, doesn’t need secularism to prosper or progress, however, I can tell you why it is powerful and what and who indulges in creating roadblocks to it’s progress.
Russia is very much secular. Russian Orthodox Christianity (and not your pet peeve, the Roman Catholic Church) is the majority religion, but it is not the official religion. Because there is no official religion, it is secular. Oh wait, your definition of secularism is different, so suit yourself.
Secularism has failed. If, 1947 is not a proof then so will not be another Pakistan for seculars or a third Pakistan for seculars.
We chose secularism _after_ 1947. Our Constitution came in force in 1950, remember? The word ’secular’ in the preamble came in 1976 (42nd amendment) even though secularism was an objective of the Constitution.
For 1947, no one says failure of secularism breastfed by Her Majesty, everyone says Jinnah and Muslim League.
Agreed, the British were as responsible as Jinnah. If one struck the matchstick, the other brought the fuel.
For example, secular people blame RSS/ VHP for misery in country.
I dont blame RSS/VHP for the misery. I blame divisive votebank based politics that sets one community against the other. This includes those who pander to minorities with reservation/subsidies as well as those who believe that Hindus are superior to other religions because they are the majority.
They fail to come to terms with output of their secular policies. Similarly, the defeat of 1962 war for convenience is heaped on China, no one blames Nehru and his handpicked war in chief, Mr Kaul, a man with zero war experience.
We all know Nehru like any other leader made mistakes. But surely there is a difference in blaming for causing a problem and blaming for making a mistake in dealing with the problem. Which one is worse? Gandhi and Congress did not handle the partition well, but are they to be blamed more than Jinnah who caused the idea to partition to come up or the British who sowed the seeds of division?
The only out of these outfits, I mentioned, who would be still a nationalist is VHP guy.
Thats funny actually. I dont find VHP people joining the army but fighting with other religions here.
At present there are multiple Gandhis and multiple Jinnahs.
Sadly, there is no Gandhi at present. Multiple Jinnahs, probably, considering most politicians are being divisive.
A YSR meddling in affairs of temple, creating space for Churches next to Tirupati, thereby deliberately disturbing harmony, implementing all schemes and policies in favor of Christians is result of secularism.
Clearly, YSR wasn’t secular.
Gandhi, if he led like a leader, should have asked army or police or RSS or likes of Subhash Chandra Bose to help him to quell riots.
In 1946-47, the police was controlled by the provincial governments. Bengal and Punjab where the riots occurred both had non-Congress govts – Muslim League in Bengal and Unionist Party in Punjab. The army was under the control of a British commander-in-chief. Clearly, Gandhi neither controlled the police nor the army. He controlled the masses. But if the masses rioted, all he could do was to fast and try to control them.
And also remember that Jinnah was groomed in Congress of Gandhi and Nehru.
Actually, Jinnah was groomed in the Congress of Gokhale and Tilak and left for England when Gandhi & Nehru became the leaders.
@Patriot:
Thanks for the invitation, I’ve gone through the website and support FTI’s ideas.
***
Comment # 119 by Shantanu
@ Madhavan: Thanks for the links. Will have a look.@ Rohit: You are coming tantalisingly close to separating religion from wordly affairs:
As long as propagators of such theories are kept confined to religious places, with strictures in place on their unprovable speeches, and self proclaimed right to act and do deeds not inspired by law but by God, Son of God, Doorkeeper of God/ Jesus/ Allah/ Parmatma/ Bhagwan, it is good for society.
So it is a must that missionary keeps himself to Church, Mullah to Masjid, Brahmin to Temple and don’t speak unprovable things in public
***
Comment # 120 by Rohit
To Shantanu:I am saying is that the misery brought by religion is propagated by the torch bearers who usually derive inspiration and then act under influence of unprovable and non existent things. So it is necessary to reign them in with strictures so the unprovable/ non existent source of inspiration of thought, becomes a earthly law of mortals when action needs to be taken. It is identification, profiling, regulation of torch bearers and their activities for which they must be taxed heavily.
Let common man be free to go to mosque, temple, church or where ever he pleases for spiritual needs.
***
Comment # 121 by Rohit:
Dear Salil,
The complex two worded expression that you often use, like Patriot, to summarize my post don’t apply back but I shall stick to simplicity and to the point. As usual, your posts are nothing beyond “Only secularism†which makes you no better than any baptisto who says only Jesus loves, everything else is wrong or Mulla who says Only Mohammedanism, everything else is wrong or a Congressi Only GANERU, everything else is wrong.
All these have one common result. Riots + genocide involving natives of nation who usually were led to believe, if they walk on this path, they will get best result simply because of a faith, whatever be the action or reaction. I urge you to come out of your blind fold secularism and accept it for it’s failures, weaknesses, which are macabre and of gigantic proportions.
First to the usuals, our quest for righteousness, hoping you get the right message that once a while, it is not wrong to think on basis of history and realties of India than on history and geography and realties of France, United States etc and then to the rituals.
===============================================================
I thought the communist theory was that ‘religion is the opiate of masses’. Unlike communism, secularism does not denounce religion but is indifferent to it. It wants religions to coexist, not abolished.
Right, apologies for mixing it with secularism. Communism changed with change in geography and individuals who led it and I got confused by Communism of Communists of India who also claim are secularists. My apologies again.
Barring the Islamic states, almost the entire world has secular states, i.e. no interference of religion in state. Of course, your definition of secularism is different, so please yourself with your beliefs.
No state is aloof from religion. How and in whose favor it interferes, is a different matter and a point of view. For example, Congress has a secularism, Communists of India have a secularism, FTI has a secularism, SP, BSP, LJP, JD etc have a secularism and so on. FTI believes it is secular, you believe you are a secular, Congress believes it is secular, Jinnah believed he was a secular, GANERU, so aptly nick named, Bapu and Chachu, intoxicated with becoming epitome of secularism + bravery, GANERU clan the direct descendants of gods of secularism.
Does varying degree of secularism really matter? When all it can give is Muslim League or SIMI, IM, JeM, LeT, Mizo National Front, Babbar Khalsa or messengers of Rome and Mecca, resulting in Pakistan, and probable new Pakistans from North East or North?
If Gandhi + Nehru are epitome of secular perfection, why were they unable to address problems of Muslims, and forget Muslims, one single, learned, wise and secular Jinnah? What is the guarantee that leaders less effective than Gandhi and Nehru or claiming to be better than Gandhi and Nehru of present times will be able to deal with Jinnahs + Britishers of present time?
All India Christian Council heavily influences All India Congress Committee, headed by Sonia Gandhi… Secularism is refined version of Christianity. Can anyone prove that the act of AICC is not secular? Can anyone prove that Sonia Gandhi is not secular and pro agent of Rome?
Is it a must that given the history, culture, language, identity of our nation is vastly different from west, we need to follow foot steps of US/ France/ Great Britain? What do we really want… Good governance and progress or another US/ France/ Great Britain? If the need is good governance and progress, secularist and secularism needs to be accepted with it’s flaws and rectified appropriately and if second is the answer, democratic colonialism is the best solution. One just needs to be globally democratic and allow Queen of England to fight elections or George Bush/ Clinton to fight elections in India. All political parties may get wiped out by the excitement generated by Queen/ George Bush/ Clinton propaganda.
Can anyone prove that US/ France/ UK are not influenced by blind faith of the nation from where they get inspiration to draft secularism? When US proclaimed secularism, it was post genocide of natives. In effect, there is zero role of secularism in what US is and where it is. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52254 The US Government apologized to Natives of America as far as in 2009. Is this called as secularism?
If one asks who did it, Church of US says, Christians didn’t do it, westerners did it. Can it be proven either ways? If it can be then why doesn’t US punish Church or otherwise why Church indulged in washing sins of westerners? US Slogan is “In God We Trustâ€â€¦ How is a nation secular when governance trusts in God and the Church says God = Jesus = Son of God = Doorkeeper of God? Will it become secular if it removes the slogan “In God We Trustâ€? Was US secular when it wiped out the natives of America? Did it become secular by proclaiming faith in a piece of document? And even if it did become secular, why did it give rise to Talibans and inspired Al Quaedas? Why did it still carried the same acts of genocide where ever it went on some pretext or other?
France still doesn’t know whether to ban burqa or not but knows to ban turbans of Sikhs, Kirpans etc. Whether secular government of France is interfering in religion or religion is interfering in governance is again debatable, but the output is, secularism is for ease of toms dicks and harrys and is a refined version of Christianity because it fails to accord required respect to be given to religions other than Christianity as per those religions.
Letter to Pope John Paul II
We the Indians of the Andes and America, have decided to take the opportunity of this visit by John Paul II to return him his Bible. In five centuries it has bought us neither love, nor peace, nor justice. Please take your Bible, and return it to our oppressors. It is they rather than we who have need of its moral precepts. Since the arrival of Christopher Columbus, a culture, a language, a religion of Europe, have been imposed on America by force.
Here are the words of same shameless Pope John Paul II with regards to India
A great harvest of faith would be witnessed on the subcontinent in the third Christian millennium.
In other words, the natives of Christian nations are still evolving philosophically (Racial attacks in Australia, depiction of faith of non natives on undergarments, ham burgers, banning of turbans and kirpans of Sikhs) as they accord due recognition to their current and past deeds. So they need a secularism or a human rights commission or a minority rights commission because the nations still have the tendency to abuse such things, under influence of Christianity, to do anything after inspiration from unknown/ non provable things and no court cannot punish such source of inspirations.
“In 2003, 21st CENTURY, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN’s Indigenous People’s Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. In neighboring North Kivu province there has been cannibalism by a group known as Les Effaceurs (â€the erasersâ€) who wanted to clear the land of people to open it up for mineral exploitation. Both sides of the war regarded them as “subhuman†and some say their flesh can confer magical powers. Makelo asked the UN Security Council (dominated by Christian Secularists, our Salil’s pride) to recognise cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide. According to Minority Rights Group International there is extensive evidence of mass killings, cannibalism and rape of Pygmies and have urged the International Criminal Court to investigate a campaign of extermination against pygmies. Although they have been targeted by virtually all the armed groups, much of the violence against Pygmies is attributed to the rebel group, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo, which is part of the transitional government and still controls much of the north, and their allies.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies
CONGO is a Christian dominated country. One has still to see a Church like organization coming out voluntarily to stop followers of Church from letting pygmies be happy the way they are. One just needs to measure the speed of action of Secular Christianity dominated United Nations in cases of riots/ genocide against Christians and non Christians else where. Like Killing of Christians in Pakistan vs Killing of Hindus in Pakistan.
What will protect country against excesses propagated by religion which vary from person to person? Who can determine what is the excess of a religion? Some of my interpretations from the posts are that Mr X finds everything till the baptisto actually kills non baptisto as fine and if non baptisto kills the baptisto before baptisto kills him as damning and threat to peaceful existence and right of baptisto to his speak his thoughts. Which basically is tolerance level of Mr X or is this is the tolerance level Mr X wants for baptistos? Another X may be able to take on any such chirper but is tolerance level of X applicable for all in uniformity? Another X has his own views… which I interpret as reading, writing, depicting true heroic events are threat to peaceful existence of sleeping terror moles in country. One more X has views on which which I interpret X is the most probable advocator of cow massacre… Maybe X will advocate opening of slaughter houses infront of Jain Mandir for better co existence of religion in society? Will a piece of crap which every politician carries on his tongue in nation define what is excess and what is not? And what guarantees that FTI will not breed a Jinnah and only Gandhis, piece of paper? And where is accountability of state when religious tolerance levels are not defined? Saying massacre of Sikhs by seculars is unsecular is easy but where is accountability?
Summary: Every religion interferes in state and state has to respond back. Since holiness of religion and measurement of tolerance level are vague things, best action is to identify, profile and nip in bud the activities of propagators of religion and limit religious activities to places like Temple, Church & Masjid. Action of religious torch bearers need to be subjected to strict strictures from governance so source of inspiration of actions is law when inspiration from unknown/ unprovable things makes them excited and fills them with uncontrollable desire to act. And since religion makes job of governance difficult, they should be taxed appropriately for effort required to make them act responsibly and their means of finances and end use of finances should be transparent and traceable.
Russia is very much secular. Russian Orthodox Christianity (and not your pet peeve, the Roman Catholic Church) is the majority religion, but it is not the official religion. Because there is no official religion, it is secular. Oh wait, your definition of secularism is different, so suit yourself.
Russia guarantees that every citizen has equal rights. It doesn’t even talk about religion. And Russia holds doubtable human rights record… A Christian secularist version of human rights… which exempts US from all acts of genocides?
We chose secularism _after_ 1947. Our Constitution came in force in 1950… Agreed, the British were as responsible as Jinnah. If one struck the matchstick, the other brought the fuel… I dont blame RSS/VHP for the misery… as those who believe that Hindus are superior to other religions because they are the majority… We all know Nehru like any other leader made mistakes… Gandhi and Congress did not handle the partition well, but are they to be blamed more than Jinnah who caused the idea to partition to come up or the British who sowed the seeds of division… But if the masses rioted, all he could do was to fast and try to control them.
Secularism answered above… Coming down to superiority feeling… Where in world is this absent? Superiority disappears only when you accept superiority of a person and his leadership. For example, criticism of Nehru and Gandhi of Shaheed Udam Singh is superiority. Your criticism of my post is superiority and vice versa.
If common thought is applied, or one studies history in detail, there is nothing to prove that GANERU were unaware of the progress of outcome of their actions. I do not subscribe to your view that nationality which sometimes calls for display of ability to die fighting for country can be replaced by spinning, fasting and walking.
My take: If someone thinks/ advocates dispensing good governance & power comes by walking, spinning and fasting then I, as an individual would stay away from him because it can be predicted how will that person react for justified demands of Army + police for meeting demands of internal and external. If someone advocates for better governance by walking, spinning and fasting from a government to provide good governance, I would join that person as a common man because common man needs good governance and not violence, disruptions.
With that I would leave your comment on Gandhi fasting or spinning or walking for quelling riots, securing Rs ?? Crore for Pakistan at the wrong time as unanswered, but would urge you to apply some thoughts on what to call a politician who is not aware of the outcome of his politics and all this politician can offer is fast to dispense power and good governance when in past the politician is known to have appealed to Britishers to make MK Gandhi the Recruit in Chief because he could extort millions of Sanatan Dharmis to lay down their lives for Britihsers and had every desire to participate in genocide of natives of Africa, for which he got himself appointed as Sargent Major and earned a medallion. I think possibility of becoming Army in Chief in 1947 was also there and a concentrated+ joint effort towards it was more justified than singular effort of participating in war against Africans fighting for their native land and freedom from slavery, bigotry.
Here is ode from JFK for Operation Vijay for those who govern on MKG principles
“You spend the last fifteen years preaching morality to us, and then you go ahead and act the way any normal country would behave…. People are saying, the preacher has been caught coming out of the brothel.â€
These days, seculars don’t even fast after incidents like Sikh genocide… Maybe they raise a toast… And a secular Man Mohan Singh blames RSS/ BJP for riots/ genocide of Sikhs and not descendants of GANERU clan.
Now from Bapu who was a great responsible father of an adapted son to Chachu who made a mockery of dignity of politics, nationalism and relationships to create new lineage of gods…A Gandhian who kept soldiers in bad state and shape, like without proper clothes and shoes, evident since the days of Portuguese ouster from Goa, got intoxicated with the victory of army as feat of his personal bravery, valor and military geniuses? (Contrast this with Bapu and Chachu lambasting Shaheed Udham Singh…Intoxicated with Bravey…Our political career shouldn’t be jeopardized) and ignored requisition from the defense forces of modern weaponry, ammunition, clothes, shoes to better protect and serve nation but he found time, energy, government machinery to support forcible occupation of Tibet by China, surrendered India’s right to permanent seat in United Nations Security Council in favor of China, Created enmity with China, implemented non alignment theory with muslim nations like Egypt, so nation was alone in world in 1962, but still intoxicated with his feat over Portugals in Goa, whipped up a war frenzy in media and nation, and forced army to fight under a hand picked and self appointed caste brother from Kashmir, zero combat experience general BK Kaul (Maybe his uncanny military genius said that he will crush Chinese).
Brij Mohan Kaul was the controversial general who resigned in the aftermath of the Indian military debacle against the Chinese in the 1962 Sino-Indian War. He was a distant kinsman of Jawaharlal Nehru. He was a Kings Commissioned Indian Officer from Sandhurst (1933), who was an infantry officer with the East Surrey Regiment, who later switched to the Army Supply Corps during the end of Second World War, because ASC was a higher paying job and he needed the money for treatment of his ailing stepmother. He served as the divisional commander of 4th Infantry Division, Chief of General Staff and finally as the commander of IV Corps during the 1962 War. He was also the first ever recipient of the Param Vishisht Seva Medal instituted by the Government in 1960. His citation reads : “For successfully completing the project ‘Amar’ which entailed the construction of 1,450 quarters for troops in Ambala. This was the first project of its kind and was completed through hot weather and the monsoons in the face of numerous problems. Lt.-Gen. Kaul overcame these difficulties by dint of hard work and initiative of the highest order. He displayed organising ability, drive, and resourcefulness. It was by his determination, leadership and personal example that the task was completed by due date.â€
The general goes down with flu in crucial times and still decides combat strategy, after continuously seeking his genius master’s advise on how to fight a battle till military genius master gives up and says that he doesn’t know how to fight so Kaul may decide as per his wish. Do you know how many soldiers died fighting weather and how many died fighting Chinese? Do you know that the army that was fighting Chinese army without proper arms, clothes, shoes had experience of fighting in most of the world and was respected as one of the best Armies of the world (At least by Chinese PLA)? Do you know that Indian army didn’t have even a single Chinese Soldier as Prisoner of war? Do you know who saved India when China would have swept not only north east but entire length and breadth of country and Pakistan was also eager to open up borders? And do you know what does this politician indulges in in order to make a career for his good for nothing daughter as he realizes he is sleeping on bed of slow death after the fiasco and criticisms? First is upholding Shaheed Udham Singh as the man who got us freedom, an about turn. The remaining are more sickening
Actually, Jinnah was groomed in the Congress of Gokhale and Tilak and left for England when Gandhi & Nehru became the leaders.
Sincere apologies for the mistake… I hope you get the message that secularism has faults
Why my attack is usually acidic is that people have zero respect for history and tradition of nation which, however flawed, howsoever loathable, howsoever inferior to Christianity and Islam, has some things which, if not loathable, can be looked into. Human beings like Chandragupt, Vikramadity, Raja Bhojadev, Chhatrapati Shivajee, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Rana Pratap, Rana Sanga, never advocated genocide of common man nor led them to walk on path which would knowingly or unknowingly result in genocide. They were good leaders, with great common sense and capacity to recognize, respect and exploit talent for good governance. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was illiterate, had one eye, and his messenger was a Moslem who when asked by Britisher to describe ugliness and blindness of his King said that the brilliance of one eye of Maharaja Ranjit Singh is brighter than thousand suns (There is a poetic touch inspired by JP to the story, but I shall let it stay).
I am making sincere effort to add humor (Like Dirt Digger, who I guess has a great quiver full of short, snappy, simple stories filled with wit, fun and humor) to my posts which, I guess, turn out to be more acidic as I, argue against new faith Secularism which is new epitome of perfection.
Now, some good news… I came to know on newsX that there is a temple in South India where Gandhi is worshipped as God with complete holy rituals like cleansing of his idol with milk etc, pooja, aarti and finally distribution of prasad by the pujari. This reminded me, sometimes back, doordarshan news, the best news channel in contents and variety followed by newsX, aired about a village in Orissa where Sanatan Dharmis worship Gandhi and have temple constructed for the man who fought for their entitlement to good governance. I hope all Indians across the country construct temples of Gandhi and start worshipping him with entire rituals. I wonder, what will baptistos of world resort to, to propagate the only truth among people who worship Gandhi as God and these people will refer to Gandhi’s view on baptistos.
And as we waste so much of effort and dear Shantanu who bears bottomless pit of acids like me, I hope we apply some common sense towards dispensing good governance and learn that Gandhi principles were relevant for limited fields.
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
@ Rohit: Pl. try and keep your comments short and to the point. Also the usual convention is to have the quote in italics and your own response in regular font. I have made these changes to your response above.***
Pl. continue the discussion below
Related Posts:
On Religious Freedoms and Secularism
Testing the limits of minority appeasement
Pseudo-secularism at its best?
Am reproducing a comment that I made on another post to kickstart the discussion on this thread.
***
Some excerpts from Why we must lose sleep over Hindu terror by M R Venkatesh which reinforce the point I made in the post re. “secularism” (emphasis mine)
My last comment got all mixed up as you opened a part II
@Rohit:
Your ramblings on Gandhi and Nehru are nothing but straw man arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Did I or any of those who commented here said Gandhi and Nehru were flawless or the ‘epitome of secular perfection’? I dont deny that they both made costly mistakes (including the 55 crores to Pakistan), but that has nothing to do with the topic of ‘separation of religion and state’ (since you hate the word secularism so much, I’ll use this term instead).
Secondly, you hold ‘separation of religion and state’ and good governance to be mutually exclusive and contradicting. Where in this post or comments has anyone written that good governance is not desirable? If you think the policy of ‘separation of religion and state’ is contradictory to good governance, do you wish that the Govt of India declares Sanatan Dharm as the official religion, interprets Sanatan Dharm and decides what goes against it?
Thirdly, I repeat a point I made before, that ‘secular’ is a quality of a state, not a person. A person can be religious or non-religious or atheist. I agree with you that political parties call themselves secular and interpret it as minority appeasing in a way which is clearly not separation of religion and state. Now if someone misinterprets ‘separation of state and religion’ as ‘playing one religion against another’, blame the misinterpreter. Why blame what the ideology actually stands for?
Fourthly, ‘separation of religion and state’ does not mean that the state is neutral from any illegal activities done in the name of religion. If the law of the land is breached, it deserves to be punished. If practitioners of one religion are causing tensions in society, check these activities and prevent them. Your main problem is with Islam and Christianity. FTI does mention on their website that they support a policy which “would ask religious bodies to come up with self-regulatory (and binding) Code of Practice by which all religions will ensure that misleading conduct is eliminated.”
Finally, advocating Sanatan Dharm as state policy is also vague because there is no definition of Sanatan Dharm cast in stone. It is commonly understood to be Hinduism and does not include Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as you claim. Perhaps you meant indigenous religions?
Anybody noticed this news in any of the so called secular print or visual media ? If it is the other way they surely would have made a hue and cry. The ways of Indian Secularism are really amazing !!!
http://www.ptinews.com/news/313655_Two-arrested-for-throwing-beef-at-idol
Rohit: Apologies…Now fixed… Pl try and keep your posts short and to the point.
***
All: Thanks for continuing the debate..will respond later…
***
@KSV: Thanks for the link
@secular
At the risk of labouring the point, what you and writers on these columns mean by secularism is actually multiculturalism. That is also what the constitution means by secularism but India’s constitution writers adopted the term only half understanding its meaning. So, I agree with your analysis. Left to themselves, India’s Muslims and Christians would get on with their lives with the Hindu majority but as you know, the world is aflame every way how. To return to a tolerable level of harmony requires the Hindus to establish a new order but to be frank the last 5 thousand years of Hindu history has seen Hindus only manage to maintain a status quo in which one Hindu group was not get ahead of any other, never mind that any Tom, Dick and Harry Lorded it over India’s fractious polity as it fell to one conqueror after another. This is the state to which India appears to be headed. Of course through our discussion s, it is our intention to devise a course correction if that is indeed possible. The magnitude of the challenge is clear and there should be doubt about that.
@Rohit
Rohit has a fertile mind which has turned over almost every stone it is possible to turnover. This is an admirable quality. The schism that divides the Hindu religion are not going to reconciled easily if at all. It is to Hindu society and to politics then that appeal needs to be made. As Gandhi himself out, it was to the Hindus religious sentiment that he had to appeal to mobilise them, and that has also been the same with the BJP. None of these tactics have provided any lasting solutions.
So for the moment we have to adopt an incremental approach, and push things forward where we can.
@KSV SUBRAMANIAN
Law was broken and prosecution was completed. What is the fault of secularism here? Your problem is that private media channels/newspapers did not pick it up from PTI. That is a matter of media accountability, not secularism.
@Salil: I am not at all against secularism, but the “Indian Secularism” which is simply pampering of the minorities and hurling abuses, hurting hindu sentiments, even questioning the very existence of their revered Gods and Goddesses. As far as I understand seculrism demands keeping of the affairs of the state and the peoples belief separate. The government should neither act for or against any religious denomination. Let the people manage their own religious affairs. Only when law and order problem arises the government should step in. But in India on the one hand government takes over the temples and other religious institutions of the hindus and appoints their minions to manager, rather mismanage, the affairs of the temples and siphon of the funds to purposes other than religious. Even funds are diverted to religions other than hinduism. Have you seen anything about the Love Jihad about which even the Hon. High Court of Kerala has taken note of but the so called Oracles of Secularism have conveniently ignored.
Finally, it is not necessary for the channels to pick it up from PTI as the reporters of channels must be there around, as is the case with the Mangalore pub incident, but deliberately ignored as it is against their kind of secularism. By the way I would like to know whether “Secularism” is practiced in India and whether the skullduggery going on in the name of Secularism will help the country in any way ?
@KSV SUBRAMANIAN:
Agree. This has already been discussed in the original post that in the name of secularism, all the wrong practices are carried out in India. Which is why FTI is calling for true separation of state and religion and taking action against those who disturb peaceful coexistence in the name of religion.
And if we’ve agreed that secularism applies only to the state, why associate it with the media? Maybe you actually mean to say that the media is simply anti-Hindu by not reporting attacks on temples? As I said it is a question of media accountability.
Dear Salil,
Thanks for the straw men link which you went through so painfully and I would leave it for straw men.
Separation of religion and governance by reference to a vague, loosely defined document, doesn’t work. So does self regulatory schemes.. Take example of a river… River doesn’t always flow peacefully… It can dry up or flood and there are two ways to deal with the acts of river inspired by unknown/ unprovable sources. One is to have options of rivers where to move in in case of flood or draught and second is to construct dams, canals, water harvestig etc and regulate the unknown stuff that causes the river to get excited and behave in a strange unpredictable way. Writing a policy and implimenting the policy are different matters. If government proclaims Sanatan Dharm, which includes all walk to improvable thing is fine doesn’t mean good governance is guaranteed. Otherwise the history and my post would have been flooded with the likes of Scindias, Singhs, Ranas and other tid bits all Sanatan Dharmis. This was my earlier view and it is now too.
There needs to be a simple, responsible and effective legal mechanism in order to check the absuses and fix the responsibility and punish the guilty whether the person is a Mulla or a Baptisto or a Brahmin or a Politician or a would be Politician.
Politics also needs to be developed as activities of professional organization than a mechanism to earn money after coming to power… Financial Statements, Salary Sheets and Cash Flow, all auditable and traceable.
Ever seen a single political organization coming out and asking people how can we improve to dispense good governance? How many times you have seen politicians seeking Brahmins, Baptistos, Mullas etc with most likely “Kaise Hoga Mera Kalyan?”
Dhanyawad!
Separation of religion and governance by reference to a vague, loosely defined document, doesn’t work.
“doesn’t work” is also a vague and loose term. It is correct that true separation of religion and politics has not been practised. That is not the same as saying that separation of religion and politics has not worked.
In any case, I know your response to this and so we can agree to disagree.
If government proclaims Sanatan Dharm, which includes all walk to improvable thing is fine doesn’t mean good governance is guaranteed.
Could you please explain what is “includes all walk to improvable thing”?
There needs to be a simple, responsible and effective legal mechanism in order to check the absuses and fix the responsibility and punish the guilty whether the person is a Mulla or a Baptisto or a Brahmin or a Politician or a would be Politician.
Yes, totally agree with you here. The law should be equal to all religions, castes and communities. Similarly, no religion, caste or community should be above the law.
Politics also needs to be developed as activities of professional organization than a mechanism to earn money after coming to power… Financial Statements, Salary Sheets and Cash Flow, all auditable and traceable.
Agreed.
Ever seen a single political organization coming out and asking people how can we improve to dispense good governance? How many times you have seen politicians seeking Brahmins, Baptistos, Mullas etc with most likely “Kaise Hoga Mera Kalyan?â€
Which is the same point many of us have made before, that divisive politics is to blame here.
In my earlier comments I have mentioned unprovable things like Bhagwan, Parmatam, Jesus, Allah.
There can be a legal framework to separate governance and religion. Saying that it is not possible means advocator wants loop hole for his hidden agendas. For example Penal Laws for prosecution for terrorism evolved over a period of time and not overnight and are still evolving as ineffectiveness is gauged by experience.
There can be a legal framework to separate governance and religion.
Good. Finally we agree on something.
Great that we agree!
Great that we agree!
What? I opened this thread only for the two of you!
Jokes apart, good to finally discover some commonality.
@Rohit & Salil
I think you may perhaps taken a wrong turn in thinking of the separation of state and religion as having been a meaningful experience for the country.
The law exists as a dispensation from the state and at an individual level from the sanction of religion and they are intertwined. The secularism you talk about as was understand in the West concerned the state not preoccupying itself the disputes of the religions which had official state sanction. The state was very clear about its religious identity and not blind to it. Roman Catholicism and Islam was not admitted to the membership of such secularism. The authority of the rule of law to dispense impartial justice depended on the moral sanction that governed the religion.
The problems we have with the rule of law in India comes from the fact that the multi-cultural (or secularism to use a wholly inappropriate word which everybody else seems to using) is not blind and cannot be blind to realities of political calculations of the state. Any wish for the rule of law to be dispensed with this reality is only wishful thinking. It has also not been in the nature of orthodox Hinduism to share the ideal of rule of law. As I have mentioned before, Hinduism should dispense with orthodoxy and embrace a revolutionary fervour for the advancement of Hindus. The rule of law and justice system would follow.
I am for separation of governance and religion.
Today the most relevant system of governance is the democracy and other system have a short span of life.
Good governance is not guaranteed with democracy nor it is guaranteed with rule of king nor with Communism etc but democracy has a life span longer than the other types of methods of dispensing good governance.
Good Governance has some principles like providing good quality education for all, creating good healthcare infrastructure, creating opportunity for the common to live a decent life, protecting freedom of thought directed towards development, peace and progress.
Salil views good governance = secularism. I say governance has nothing to do with secularism. It has to do with dispensing of good governance which is protecting country from external and internal threat and creating a level playing field for everyone so they can prosper with peace and happiness on basis of efforts (purusharth).
I view that good governance will flourish in India under law because religious people have tendency to derive inspiration from unknown things which results in riots and genocide. Religion will always interfere in governance and governance will have to respond back. It is important for the governance to be controlling religion and activities of religious torch bearers and keep them and their activity limited to places of worship and under active monitoring.
It is important that the governance via democracy creates a system which doesn’t allow political parties to indulge in religion or religion in politics as it often is blindness, illogical, irrationality. A system which is founded on principles of self regulation filled with maximum chances of failure. So there should be a system to get redressal for abuses by governance for favor on basis of caste, religion and other divisionary forces which do not respect talent.
@Khandu Patel:
I think you may perhaps taken a wrong turn in thinking of the separation of state and religion as having been a meaningful experience for the country.
Simple question: do you want India to have an official religion, say Hinduism? Yes/No?
The secularism you talk about as was understand in the West concerned the state not preoccupying itself the disputes of the religions which had official state sanction.
No, I was talking about the secularism adapted for the Indian Constitution. Am aware of the history and forms of secularism and was not talking about the Western version, if any.
The problems we have with the rule of law in India comes from the fact that the multi-cultural (or secularism to use a wholly inappropriate word which everybody else seems to using) is not blind and cannot be blind to realities of political calculations of the state.
We have agreed before that the term secularism is misused. The original post does talk about rule of law preceding a religion.
@Rohit:
Salil views good governance = secularism.
When did I say that? Comment number?
I say governance has nothing to do with secularism.
Your comments sounded as if secularism (the separation of religion and state, not what it is misinterpreted as) was contradictory or opposite to good governance. I guess you didn’t mean that.
It may be interpretation like the way you sound when talking about secularism/ religious freedom and I about control of religion.
But my firm belief is Governance = Good Governance. Job of state/ government to protect country from internal and external threats and creating level playing field for the common man so he can progress on basis of real work and live a happy peaceful and contended life and in order to live that life he should be dependent on good governance and learn how to peacefully fight for right of good governance. For his spiritual needs, he may go to any place where he wishes and not where the religious torch bearer wishes.
There should be redressal for the abuse in system and so legal framework for good governance.
@Salil
I am more concerned to have India for Hindus. As for Hinduism to be official religion of India, it could hardly be achieved simply by any official decree. The state would have to establish the institutions necessary for the regulation of the Hindu religion. Ashoka was the sole person who recognised in Bharat an official religion in Buddhism. An easy answer would be have a Hindu king as the constitutional head of India to provide the symbolic head of the Hindus. Hindu orthodoxy has not recognised the place of Hindu kings to be leaders of their nation such King David was of Israel. Nearest that comes to this is King Rama, but we should remember that Raj Dharma associated with his rule still did not give the sort of authority we need of religious and political leaders of Hindus.
@Khandu Patel
I am more concerned to have India for Hindus.
Why?
Am not commenting on your opinions, but just for clarification, are you recommending that our Constitution based on a Democratic Republic be dumped for a Hindu monarchy?
But just a few nitpicks:
Ashoka was the sole person who recognised in Bharat an official religion in Buddhism.
This is slightly historically controversial. Buddhism wasn’t so much a ‘religion’ in Ashoka’s time where one “converted” to Buddhism or even worshipped Buddha. It was still an atheistic philosophy back then. Ashoka did “take refuge” in Buddha-Dharma-Sangha and actively promoted it, but his edicts indicate that he called for equal treatment of all faiths. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism developed into modern religions much after Ashoka when respective deities/heroes started being worshipped in temples. So it is moot to say that he made Buddhism the “official religion”.
Hindu orthodoxy has not recognised the place of Hindu kings to be leaders of their nation such King David was of Israel.
Probably because Hinduism is not a single integrated faith like Judaism?
Nearest that comes to this is King Rama, but we should remember that Raj Dharma associated with his rule still did not give the sort of authority we need of religious and political leaders of Hindus.
Just for academic interest without implying anything, was King Rama a Hindu?
I guess the broad concept on which Khandu Patel is thinking is preservation of the faith of natives of Bharat. The broad concept on which Salil is thinking is preservation of peaceful existence of all those in Bharat whether having faith native to this land or not.
There is no way that the faith of natives of this land will get vanished unless governance indulges in promotion of religion like in case of America and Australia where natives were wiped out and then their faith destroyed by agents of rome under active protection by governance of gun culture.
Governance reigning in activities of religion propagator with strictures will at some point of time wipe off slavery to mololithic religions like in case of present US where religious torch bearers do not find much role in any field and come to India with their agenda of changing demographics of this nation. Temples in India also developed at a later stage and are still evolving in India like temple of Gandhi in South India and Orissa. All such monolithic religious foundations will crumble under might of good governance = reigning in religion and providing freedom of thought to common man whose basic needs (like right to peaceful existence without fear of external/ internal security, right to indulge in an activity which come natural to him and are directed towards self + development of nation) are fulfilled by good governance and we will see era of great relevant leadership capable to handle dynamics of time and circumstances which never are constant.
Only good governance can lead to demise of thought process of nation whose leaders, time and again cling to bapu and chachu and refuse to acknowledge that development of nation and the inhabitants of nation comes from good governance, respect and promotion of talent and not by bigotry and clinging to thought processes, relevancy of which died with time.
@Rohit:
There is no way that the faith of natives of this land will get vanished unless governance indulges in promotion of religion like in case of America and Australia where natives were wiped out and then their faith destroyed by agents of rome under active protection by governance of gun culture.
Despite, thousands of years of invasions and destruction of temples, has faith vanished? India had Islamic states for centuries where non-Muslim policies were implemented, but yet the indigenous faiths still remain alive and strong without active govt support. It is improper to compare 16th century native tribes of America and Australia with 21st century Indians (or even 16th century Indians). Indian civilisation has survived, flourished, reformed (even in the 20th century) despite foreign invasions and internal cultural revolutions. So why all the paranoia of “Hinduism in danger”?
@ Salil
The boundaries of India as it existed in times of Ashoka spanned to Afghanistan. What is the demography of Afghanistan? What is the demography of Pakistan? What is the demography of Kashmir? What is the demography of North East? Sikhism, Chhatrapati Shivajee etc ensured that faith of natives is protected.
@Rohit
Agreed that most of the Muslim populations of Afghanistan/Pakistan are because of forced conversions. Are forced conversions to Islam taking place in India today? Or forced conversions to any religion for that matter.
Christianity spread in north-east (only Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland) because of missionaries who brought welfare measures to largely ignored tribals of the region. Are these regions ignored/secluded from other parts of India?
The Sikh state of Ranjit Singh and the state of Shivaji protected all individuals irrespective of faith.
Dear Salil,
Does your fear stem from the fact that good governance can strongly dent prospects of monolithic religions like Islam, Christianity, followers of Sri Ram, Sri Krishna etc with more sympathy for Christianity?
1) Do you want to debate on Christianity vs faith native to this land
OR
2) You want to debate on good governance
Does your fear stem from the fact that good governance can strongly dent prospects of monolithic religions like Islam, Christianity, followers of Sri Ram, Sri Krishna etc with more sympathy for Christianity?
I dont really understand your question.
My idea of good governance, as I have already mentioned before, is to protect people from coercion and apply the law equally to all. I neither care for religion and nor do I sympathise with any. Followers of any religion should be free to promote their faith without coercion or fraud.
Among the 2 debate topics you mention, no thanks, I’m not interested in debating on topics unrelated to this blogpost. I’ve been commenting only in response to parts which I thought were factually incorrect or did not follow logically.
Salil,
You come out sympathetic on Christianity when you talk on religion which should explain my question related to sympathy for Christianity.
If religious freedom needs to be talked about then Governance need to reign in religion and religious propagators with strictures so that their activities are limited to the place of worship only.
Good governance, you have already omitted so I guess this post becomes more on religion.
@Rohit (#28)
You come out sympathetic on Christianity when you talk on religion which should explain my question related to sympathy for Christianity.
I’m not sympathetic to Christianity. I care about the facts. Christianity was spread by force by Portugese in Goa. The missionaries in the tribal areas (northeast, Jharkhand), however, brought about conversion on the basis of welfare (education, health) in places where no government had gone before. These 2 facts no one can dispute. If missionaries used force/deceit to convert, it is condemnable, no doubt. But for a tribal, health & education matters more than faith. What governments and indigenous religions could not provide, missionaries gave.
If religious freedom needs to be talked about then Governance need to reign in religion and religious propagators with strictures so that their activities are limited to the place of worship only.
I do agree that religion should be a personal affair. I dont have a problem with preaching/propagating as long as it doesn’t affect the rights of others. And affecting others’ rights includes blocking traffic by religious processions and infringing right to privacy by door-to-door preachers. I do have a problem with state controlling free speech & expression that does not affect others. You may of course disagree.
NGOs in the guise of conversion agents ?
http://www.ptinews.com/home.aspx
It is time government banned these kinds of NGOs.
I’m not sympathetic to Christianity… Force by Portugese in Goa. The missionaries in the tribal areas (northeast, Jharkhand), however, brought about conversion on the basis of welfare (education, health) in places where no government had gone before. These 2 facts no one can dispute. If missionaries used force/deceit to convert, it is condemnable, no doubt. But for a tribal, health & education matters more than faith. What governments and indigenous religions could not provide, missionaries gave.
For me, both the approaches are loath able. Violence and mercy on religious torch bearers like Missionary/ Sri Sathya Sai Baba, because, in this world, nothing comes for free.
These jokers even appropriate to themselves hindu festivals like Vijaya Dasami (Dassehra), Maha Shivratri with the hope that some more souls can be added to their kitty. See what these jerks say :http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=9355&SKIN=C
And then there are characters like P.N. Oak who claim that Christianity is “Krishna-niti” and the Kaaba was a Hindu temple.
There are jokers on both sides, just saying 🙂
Christian mentality is that of monolithic barbarians of desert who are still evolving mentally. There is a tendency in them to copy… Like from Judaism… As they experimented around with secularism in their countries and people of India imitate them… Secularism’s fundamental principle of propagating religion is the principle of Rome emanates from Bible… Secular morons think that they can deal with illogical and acts inspired unknown factors with equal faith in similar craps… As Church opens mouth, all it can say is crap, so secular is likely to do the same. If one will list the acts of genocide of Church/ Christians, secular & Islam, the result would be an ongoing, never ending effort ever since these religions were born.
One more instance of selective secularism:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/65662/LATEST%20NEWS/Jammu+mob+thrashes+cop+over+custodial+death.html
If it is a Muslim boy and a hindu girl the MSM would have aired the story 24 hours a day for weeks together. But here the boy is a Hindu. Indian secularism at its best. Nobody is bothered about the custodial death. No human right or any other kind of rights or secularists crying foul.
Omar Abdulla married a hindu girl without any family fuss on both sides but when his sister wanted to marry Sachin Pilot, the abdulla family was the first to create a ruckus… One can imagine what would have happened if the person who she wanted to marry was not a powerful person. http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/39843/
But I think Subramanian, your broader concept of good governance, which you share with Sridhar can be answered by an organization like RSS which has roots across country and needs a questioning, more awakened spirit of the young blood of India who wants to break free from the shackles of past.
*** COMMENT DELETED ***
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
Off-topic. Pl. make the effort to find the relevant thread to post your comments. Random and/or unrelated comments (or those with tenuous links to the post) are distracting and do not help the discussion at all.
Use the “Search” box on the right-hand side or use the “Categories” drop down menu.
Repeated violation of this may lead to a temporary ban.
A candidate openly asks for votes on religious grounds…No idea whether the EC took any action or not:
http://www.sanatan.org/marathi/dainik/news.php?dt=2009-10-12&action=fullnews&catid=1&id=24858
Courtesy: Atanu Dey and his post on eliminating the infidels: http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/10/15/eliminating-the-infidels/
Dear Shantanu,
I don’t know why you took away my Orissa link… I thought that it was a direct result of secularism which gave certain persons of a secular nation to question law and order in India, a secular nation, on lines of religion… I fail to understand why you do not consider it as failure of secularism.
Now one more example of failure of secularism.
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/09/30/should-berlin-let-muslim-pupils-pray-at-school/
So I say, religion needs to be reigned in order to let freedom of common thought process flourish which take a person closer to respect fellow human being and is the most divine revelation to human kind. Secularism concept fails to provide security of independency of thought process and makes a religious torch bearer more afraid in general as to what will happen to his her monolitihic teachings and then produces macabre results.
@Rohit:
So do in this case do you support the secular concept of religion-neutrality or the boy’s choice of wanting to pray?
I support reigning of religious torch bearers with strictures that make them derive inspiration and act under laws of mortals.
Why only five times, the boy can devote 24 hours in prayers at Masjid or at Home. School is not a masjid or a temple or a church. So if a school is not giving him freedom to pray five times in a day, the kid and his pop mom should get him private education and educate him via independent tests… But the question will that help too… What if the boy gets inspiration and starts to pray facing mecca than pen his mind on paper which requires to write something on lines of school curriculum which again may be a great challenge if the boy reads only shariya and hadith… Infact he may find it difficult to pen it from left to right and to begin answer sheet from page 1.
I support reigning of religious torch bearers with strictures that make them derive inspiration and act under laws of mortals.
The boy need not have been a “torch bearer”. Say a person wants to do 5 somersaults because he believes in a religion that requires him to do so, he might be doing it on the basis of individual faith and not under pressure from any “torch bearer”. So by “reining with strictures”, are you implying that the govt should decide whom to pray, how to pray, when to pray, or even say ban praying altogether?
@ Rohit: That link should be more appropriately put on the Kandhamal post and besides, I do not consider it a failure of secularism.
When you say religion needs to be “reigned in” (#39 above), I am assuming that you are implying it should stay as a personal affair..in which case, I think you are supporting separation of religion and governance..
Is that correct?
***
All: Pl. note that there have been an unusually large number of off topic or irrelevant comments lately which I have deleted.
Pl. stay focused on the discussion…and remember, sometimes silence is golden.
The government should decide where to pray with a simple written law… Inside your home or in Masjid/ Church/ Temple. When is your convenience 24 hrs, 5 times or once a week.
I am for separation of governance and religion but under framework of a legal process which checks or addresses the abuses effectively. Secondly religion interferes in governance so religious torch bearers should be reigned in with strictures, again a legal framework which makes them accountable and punishable.
Thirdly, religion doesn’t help, so religious bodies and persons should be taxed heavily so that they earn according to their needs which is spirituality.
I am for separation of governance and religion but under framework of a legal process which checks or addresses the abuses effectively.
Which is what this blogpost (the FTI article) started off saying and you started opposing.
Thirdly, religion doesn’t help, so religious bodies and persons should be taxed heavily so that they earn according to their needs which is spirituality.
Suppression & excessive taxation always causes resentment and ends up counter-productive. Taxation of gold and prohibition of alcohol around the world led to smuggling and increase crime. One might end up with even more illegal activities in the name of religion if you start taxing religion.
There is a difference in separation of governance and religion and separation of governance and religion under a legal system which assures religion get eliminated as one takes the role of governance and also ensures that religious torch bearer activities are limited to their premises and under check… The basis secularism carries “right of propaganda” is a religious term and anyone can tell from where it emanates.
I agree with second point, make the finances transparent, tax appropriately… Government should know who finances who of religions.
Ok, I dont know if this discussion is going anywhere and we seem to be going around the same points all over again. But if I try to narrow down to your point Rohit, secularism according to you allows right of propaganda (though according to the Constitutional definition, it allows right of propaganda with reasonable restrictions). Whereas, you are against “right of propaganda” altogether, irrespective of content, form or the actors involved, right? And Am I correct in understanding you?
See the height of religious discrimination, of course, against the majority community. Why this discrimination even in payment of compensation. Rs.5,00,000/- for minority communities and Rs.1,00,000/- for hindus.
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=9579&SKIN=K
***
Note by Moderator: Pl also see this comment by Shantanu
Dear Subramanian
Why is Communism partial towards monolithic religion? I thought Communism means no religion.
@Rohit (49): Communism is totalitarian. Just like any (or should I say any other?) monotheist religion, it demands complete faith and submission.
[I believe you meant monotheism when you said monolithic.]
Monotheistic religions and communism follow essentially the same model of organization, i.e. a hierarchy aka the “I lead, you follow” model. Without that, total control is not possible. Totalitarians like a controllable populace, and liberty is the ultimate blasphemy in their book/lexicon.
Communism/nazism/fascism, all evolved out of an monotheist environment so its not suprising that they have alot of similarities
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
All this abuses/ terrorism…will go on ceaselessly… Terrorism are of more than one kind:
A) Terror of money/ propaganda which is carried out ..to change demography of the nation and install puppet government.
B) Violent Terror ..
C) Terrorism of fear, inaction for righteousness ..
One needs to join RSS, Arya Samaj, Sikh
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
Rohit: No sweeping statements please. If you are making broad statements or levelling allegations, references will help.
The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines:
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…â€
The answer from Swiss Govt.
जय हिंद!
कृषीदेश
Dear Friends
The Tamil Nadu government is contemplating a ban on coconuts inside the world famous Meenakshi Amman Temple, Madurai, citing security reasons. This is simply outrageous and a huge assault on the religious tradition and culture of Hinduism. The government had sought public opinion before 15 December.
I have floated an online petition addressed to the Deputy Chief Minister M.K.Stalin, with a copy to the Commissioner, HR & CE, requesting him to withdraw the proposal immediately. The URL for the petition is
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mmat8129/petition.html
I request you all to kindly sign the petition and spread it to your contacts, so that, we get as much signatures as possible before 15th of this month. I will close it on 15th morning and send it to the Deputy CM.
Thanking You All,
With Warm Regards
B.R.Haran.