India is Gr8 indeed....but before that have a look at this...

[mbamal]

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Ind-summary-eng

[parul]

Secularists on the Firing Line

Ram Puniyani

The secularist bashing is the order of the day. Along with popularizing
Pseudo Secularism as the most popular abuse, secularists have been
targeted in various ways. They are one sided, are pro Muslim, are western
oriented, they do not respect Indian traditions etc. have been the
commonplace criticism against the secularists. Times and over again they
are supposed to be the criticizing Hindus only and siding with Muslims.
Lately in the gush of success of Gujarat model, the secularists are being
projected as the major threat to the Nationalism and starting from Togadia
to the spokesperson of RSS, Mr. Vaidya, threats and advises are aplenty
for them. While one cannot ignore the Togadia prescription (and threat)
that the people will deal with these guilty men (secularists) on the
streets, at the same time one has to take the advice of the RSS
spokesperson a bit more seriously. One does realize that in a way Togadia
and Vaidya are two poles of the same thinking process, same attitude but
the way of putting the things is different while the kernel remains the
same.

Mr. Vaidya, RSS spokesperson in a signed piece recently argues that
secularists' juxtaposing of Hindutva and secularism is wrong, secularism
can not be the life philosophy of any individual unless he is an atheist,
Hinduism is inherently secular, secularists credentials are in doubt as
they oppose Uniform civil code, abrogation of article 370. Also they
support the concessions to Muslim minority institutions, and so the
credentials of secularist are suspect and they are on trial.

Long charge sheet. It does incorporate charges of different hues. It must
be made clear that the practice of secularism by most of the political
parties, groups and individuals has not been uniform. There are many
parties wedded to secularism but under pressure from growing
communalization of society, have been compromising in various ways. One
also will not like to take up the secular practices of parties like the
ones of George Fernandes, Sharad Yadav et. al. There are many a groups,
writers and individuals who have stood like rock as far as the practice of
secularism and its exposition is concerned. While one is not in a position
to defend the opportunistic practices of many a parties posing to be
secular, one is talking of the concept and practice of secularism. At the
same time one is aware that the post-Nehruvian practice of secularism by
Congress did give the ground to communalists to coin the word pseudo
secular.

The first argument of Mr. Vaidya is that the juxtaposition of Secularism
and Hindutva is faulty and has no substance in it. As we are aware the
concept of Secularism in Indian context was the underlying theme of
movements as diverse as the one represented by Bhagat Singh, Communists,
Ambedkar and Indian National Congress. Though these may sound a diverse
group, what brings them together is their concept and practice of
secularism. One must say that even within Congress we will restrict our
attention to Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad. These streams were focusing
on the concept of India as a modern democracy with all its plurality, with
religion as the private matter. The major focus was on the issues of
'this' world. In contrast the stream of Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha-RSS were talking in terms of Religion based Nationalism. The
latter stream came up with Hindutva as the signature of its politics. And
Hindutva is based on the Brahminical stream of Hinduism and incorporates
the concept of race (Aryan), language (Sanskrit) culture (Brahminical) and
the land spread from Sindhu to seas. Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Nation and Hindu
state is the goal of this politics. What is the similarity between these
two notions, Hindutva and Secularism? They are as different as chalk and
cheese. While secularism is the base of democracy, the concepts of
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in contrast Hindutva bases itself on the
concept of religious identity being the prime determinant of nationhood.
Here Secularism puts forward the concept of India as the primary identity,
the National identity and regards Hinduism and all other religions as the
private matter of the individual. In Hindutva, which is a political
construct, Indian identity is a marginal concept. The values of our Indian
nation, the principles, which emerged during the freedom struggle are the
one's which are enshrined in our constitution. Nothing can be farther from
each other.

Mr. Vaidya goes on to rubbish the point by saying that it cannot be the
life philosophy of anyone unless one is an atheist. To begin with
secularism is the policy of the state and not the life philosophy of an
individual in the sense in which Mr. Vaidya is using it. Secularism is the
principle, which keeps the state policies away from the interference of
Mullahs or Priests or the Dharnmgurus of various hues. It is not
anti-religious in any sense but just goes on to say that state will
formulate its policies based on the issues of this world only. None other
than Gandhi answered this question, "Religion and state will be separate.
I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair.
The state has nothing to with it. The state will look after your secular
welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on,
but not your or my religion. That is everybodys personal concern. (Gandhi
quoted in Madan, Indian Journal of Secularism1997, 4).

Here the projected dichotomy between secularism and religion is negated in
an apt manner and Gandhi's whole life is there for us to see this profound
truth. One can be deeply religious and believe in secular state, like
Gandhi and Maulana Azad. One can also be not so religious but believe in
state based on Religion like Jinnah and Savarkar. So the thought that we
can have a secular state only if majority is atheist has no relevance in
this debate.

It is nobody's argument that Hindu is anti secular. Most of the Hindus,
rather huge majority of Hindus, who participated in the freedom struggle,
in the movement led by Mahatma and also movements running parallel to it,
were having the vision of secular state. Most of the Muslims also who were
part of this movement had the same belief and vision. While the one's
claiming to be the representatives of Hindus like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS
did not share this belief so they kept aloof from this movement. The same
applies to the minority of Muslims who toed the Muslim League and like
their counterparts, RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, kept aloof from the movement
for democratic, plural and secular India. Here the fact that people regard
religion as private matter and state policy to transcend the individual's
religion is more than manifest.

Than comes the charge that Secularists are opposing common civil code ands
abolition of article 370. Both these questions are fairly vexed and to
think that this tantamount to appeasement of the minorities etc. has been
popularized beyond limits. What is the real case? Why Indian constitution
in the first place kept safeguards for dalits and minorities? Democracy is
not just about being aloof to the mosaic identies and problems of weaker
sections. It is an affirmative action to guarantee theses sections that
their disadvantage of being a minority will be offset by state protection
for a period of time. Unfortunately the way majoritarian politics ha been
intimidating the minorities and situations could not be created to do away
with these safeguards regarding Dalits and minorities both. The question
of removing these safeguards being postphoned time and over again has more
to do with the domination of majoritaran politics, which is the more
dominant cause of communal violence, intimidation and ghettoisation of
minorities.

Religious communities can overcome the adverse situation only if they
feel secure and homely. With the type of Hindutva getting transformed into
the Moditva the feeling of security for minorities is a far-fetched dream.
No threatened community can undertake or accept the reforms. We do need a
gender just uniform civil code, it is what we should strive for. In a
country where Muslims are 11.9%, but amongst the riot victims they
constitute 80%, the feeling of insecurity is paramount in the minorities
and it is bit too much to impose the reforms in such a state of mind. We
need a breathing space; we need a time where the violence in the name of
religion, violence in this or the other pretext is checked, guilty of
crime punished and law implemented in an honest fashion. We need a space
where the language of revenge and the rivers of blood of minorities do not
constitute the pride of a particular religion. If we can have such a state
of society removal of the privileges to minority institutions and
implementation of Uniform gender just civil code will be the agenda of the
day and all those struggling for human Rights of weaker sections of
society will lead the way for these codes and provisions on the priority
basis.

Again abrogation of article 370 has more to do with restoration of
democratic spirit in the concerned areas. This article and 'Do Vidhan Do
Pradhan' (Two constitutions-Two chiefs) was the basis on which Kashmir
acceded to India. The impositions of integration clauses in a hurry and
curtailing of democratic spirit led to a situation where militancy could
grow and Pakistan trained terrorists could get the ground for the nasty
situation to be created. It is nobody's case to have different clauses for
an area just because of Muslim majority. It is a question of bringing in
the spirit of democracy and winning over the confidence of local
population, which alone can lead us to greater integration of different
parts of the country.

Congress times and over again did compromise with the fundamentalist
sections of Muslim and Hindu communalists both. Congress practice did
appease the Mullas (Shah Bano case) on one hand and VHP (opening the locks
in Ayodhya) on the other. The criticism of secularists on these issues is
that Congress failed to practice secularism in a principled way. To call
it pseudo secularism was a brilliant stroke. The corrective was to
practice the same in an uncompromising way, but the alternative asserted
was that of a blatant Hindu communalism.

Secularism is on trial but not in the court of Indian constitution but in
the court of forces which have nothing to do with the values emerging from
India's freedom struggle, Indian constitution and those who have nothing
to share in common with the type of values which Gandhi's Hinduism
represented.

[rkumar]

Thanks Mandeep for posting. Very complicated and sensitive topic indeed. Most important questions is, where do we jats fall in the whole thing? I am not sure if Jats have any sides so far. By enlarge most jats are not strictly religious minded. So we may call ourself secularist. I look at the whole thing like perculation of thoughts or beliefs downwards; I will try to simplify my thoughts as follows;

All Gods ( Rama, Krishna, Budha, Mahaveer ) we born in kings families as Kshtriyas. Brahmas laid down the philosopy of rebirth and sang the songs of praise of Gods. Othrs just followed to the exyent they felt comfortable and could understand this. With time, every one tried to prove his/ her purity/ closeness to Gods and the centre of gravity shifted down. Things have come to a point now that mostly the baniyas are controlling the VHP and Ram Mandir issues and definitely the Kshtriyas and Brahmans have hardly any role or interest in the whole game. There is a saying in villages that, " Nai nai mullani allah allah pukaare." So all these new God's men are trying to prove their closeness to the God by raising all sorts of issues. Tragedy is that the very people among whom the Gods were born and who defined the religion have lost interest and are letting these people a free run. This insensitivity is the root cause of this problem.

Regards
Rajendra

[parul]

As far as i know (on the basis of a course I did on Indian Art and Civilisation), Buddha was a tribal prince, offcourse one can classify him to be a warrior but not a Kshatriya as in a traditional Hindu varna system.
-Parul
Rajendra Kumar Kalkhunde (May 31, 2003 01:01 p.m.):
Thanks Mandeep for posting. Very complicated and sensitive topic indeed. Most important questions is, where do we jats fall in the whole thing? I am not sure if Jats have any sides so far. By enlarge most jats are not strictly religious minded. So we may call ourself secularist. I look at the whole thing like perculation of thoughts or beliefs downwards; I will try to simplify my thoughts as follows;

All Gods ( Rama, Krishna, Budha, Mahaveer ) we born in kings families as Kshtriyas. Brahmas laid down the philosopy of rebirth and sang the songs of praise of Gods. Othrs just followed to the exyent they felt comfortable and could understand this. With time, every one tried to prove his/ her purity/ closeness to Gods and the centre of gravity shifted down. Things have come to a point now that mostly the baniyas are controlling the VHP and Ram Mandir issues and definitely the Kshtriyas and Brahmans have hardly any role or interest in the whole game. There is a saying in villages that, " Nai nai mullani allah allah pukaare." So all these new God's men are trying to prove their closeness to the God by raising all sorts of issues. Tragedy is that the very people among whom the Gods were born and who defined the religion have lost interest and are letting these people a free run. This insensitivity is the root cause of this problem.

Regards
Rajendra