Yeh “Secularism†kya cheez hai?
Did you know that the term “Secularism” – forced into the Preamble of the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the dark days of Emergency – has not been defined in the Constitution?
The reason?
…presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined.
These are the words of Justice P Sathasivan quoted in a recent HT news-report. Lack of definition does not prevent anyone from “interpreting” what it means…and so we have Justice Sathasivan saying:
…in Indian context secularism meant “Sarva Dharma Sambhav†ie tolerance for all religions, which springs from due deliberation for one’s own happiness and also for welfare of all beings.
Above: One of the banners seen during protests in UK against the French ban on “Hijabâ€
In the meantime, commentators like Sh Ram Puniyani find even “Bhoomi Puja” as an act that violates this “basic principle of Indian Constitution“.  Can someone please ask Sh Puniyani where exactly does he find a definition of “Secularism” in the Constitution that would outlaw Bhumi Pujan?
Related Posts: Time to dump some anachronisms? Secularism or Politics of Appeasement?
Must we separate religion from politics? On Religious Freedoms and Secularism – Part I and Part II.
Shantanu, you seem to have lately discovered two hoary anti-Hindu warhorses – Yogindar Sikand and Ram Puniyani. In my opinion, and after having come across their bigoted rants 4-5 years ago, I think it is useless to have some kind of discussion with these two idiots. The irony is that despite their very Hindu-sounding names (Yogi & Ram), these two will not find anything good in Hinduism.
And it goes without saying that “secularism” in India is just another religious dogma, swallowed by the so-called liberals with no critical analysis.
This is not the only problem with secularism. When secularists say that all religions are same, everybody must have full permission to practice whatever religions they want and state must be independent of the religion they leave the definition of religion simply omitted. What happens then is that everybody comes up with his/her own definition of religion and secularists, without seeing how individual demands contradict their fundamental principles, goes on to support the individual claim. Soon it degrades into what we call minority appeasement.
@Kaffir,
Yoginder Sikand is a muslim while Ram Puniyani is a zoroastrian. Why do you think it is ironical that they do not find anything good in Hinduism?
Just a correction:
“Sarva Dharma Sambhaav” does not mean tolerance for every religion, it means “all religions are equal”, and yes, there is huge difference between the two statements. “Sambhaav” means “samaan bhaav/feeling”. To give you an example, tolerance would mean allowing forcible conversion in a society, if allowed in a religion, or for that matter killing a human being if he chooses to leave his current religion just because that is prohibited in his current religion. Sambhaav is treating everyone equally with probably a common civil code which would over ride religious edicts, whenever in conflict.
Jayant, I wasn’t aware of Ram Puniyani’s religion and it’s good to know that many such people with Hindu names and anti-Hindu views are actually not Hindus.
Furthering freedom of expression ….by covering the face 😛
Sam Harris Appears In – Should The Burqa Be Banned
Watch the points presented by Egyptian Journalist. The Right in Islam doesn’t allow Left in Islam to speak.
Ram Puniyani and Yoginder Sikand are both fiercely anti-Hindu.Their writings and numerous articles prove they belong to the “axis of evil” anti-Bharat/Hindu lobby of ‘Muslims,Christians and Communists’.They are actually funded by The Congress party which gives oxygen,water,beef biryani, 5star jail facilities to jihadis like Ajmal Kasab.Don’t go by their Hindu names, they are active assistants of publishing ‘jihadi’ propaganda.Their writings are not based on facts,but are purely anti-Hindu propaganda.They write all this to simply boost the Muslim jihadi behaviour and suppress legitimate Hindu aspirations.
REMEMBER IF LOOKS CAN BE DECEPTIVE, SO NAMES TOO CAN BE DECEPTIVE.
An excerpt from a 13-year old talk by Michel Danino, titled “Kali Yuga or the Age of Confusion” from which this bit on “Secularism”:
“…I have noticed that the noisiest proponents of secularism in India are always careful not to evoke its historical origin.
Secularism was born to challenge theocracy in the Christian and Islamic worlds. In medieval Europe, political power was in almost every country held or at least controlled by one Church or another. It took nearly two centuries, the eighteenth and nineteenth, to curtail that power and establish a complete separation between Church and State—which is what secularism has meant in the West, as any good dictionary will tell us.
…
Secularism meant keeping the Church away from political power and from education, it meant a polity free from Christian affiliation. Likewise, when Mustapha Kemal threw out the Sultan in Turkey and established a “secular republic†in 1923, it was because he had abolished the office of the Caliph of the Islamic world ; “secularism†to him meant keeping Islam away from political power.
This notion of secularism has no application in India, where theocracy never existed ; how could it, in the absence of an organized Church or clergy ?
Even so conformist a historian as Vincent Smith noted that “Hindooism has never produced an exclusive, dominant, orthodox sect, with a formula of faith to be professed or rejected under pain of damnation.â€
Political rule was the business of the Kshatriya, not of the priestly class, and although kings often took the advice of a sage or a guru, it was usually in matters of governance.
The very notion of a “State religion†is entirely alien to India. We almost never hear of a Vaishnavite or a Saivite raja imposing his creed on his population in the way Catholic or Protestant kings kept doing, and wars between neighbouring kingdoms were never caused by clashes of belief or cult…”
Courtesy Freedom First, here’s Saratchandra Panda neatly demolishing Dr Amrtya Sen’s ideas “On Secularism” http://j.mp/16I3DOb
A short relevant excerpt from Sack of the Hindu caravan, and future of Indian secularism:
As Ambedkar so presciently said in his intervention to reject the demand to add “secular and socialist” to the preamble in the Constituent Assembly debate, who are we (the founders’ generation) to ordain what social system will a republic follow in the future? The majority Indians today have voted to remould India in their own idea.