RE: Why India should not be Secular

[prabhu.guptara@ubs.com]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
dear Sanjay

Please do not be patronising to 140 million of our fellow-Indians.
There are
people from all communities who "need to see themselves as part of the
same
secular solution".

At present, as is evidenced by some of the contributors to our debate,
it is
mostly us Hindus who need to come to a conclusion about the value of
secularism
(I do not see a single Muslim in our debate, or for that matter anywhere
else,
decrying secularism).

Also, if you care to study the history of our freedom struggle, you will

realise that it was the de-secularisation (or Hinduisation) of the
freedom
struggle which led to the creation of Pakistan, just as it was the
betrayal of
the promises made by our leaders which led to our problems in Nagaland
and
Mizoram, just as we created our own worst headaches in the case of the
struggle
regarding Sikhistan, just as we created our own worst headaches in the
case of
the language isse in the 1960s, and just as it was the decisions of
Rajiv
Gandhi himself (and, earlier, Mrs Gandhi) which led to Rajiv Gandhi's
assassination.

Less mythologisation and a better study of history may also make us
better at
anticipating future problems, unlike the RSS and its sister bodies.

prabhu guptara

-----Original Message-----
From: gargsam
Sent: Dienstag, 26. Dezember 2000 17:22
To: debate
Cc: gargsam
Subject: Why India should not be Secular


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Raju,

You make some excellent points but we need to be practical. A fact of
life
is that we have 140 million muslims who must be seen as part of the same

'secular' solution.  Unlike marxists/ communists, we cannot simply
eliminate
people who disagree with us.

More importantly, muslims themselves must see themselves as part of the
same
solution - we all know the old saying about taking a horse to water.  My
own
sense is that muslims really have no idea of, or experience in, living
within the confines of a modern secular democracy.  As they progress up
the
learning curve, we will slowly and painfully arrive at a definition of
secularism which will work for all.

In the meantime, however, a UCC must be established in India.  The
current
bill of rights creates, deepens and hardens divisions in society.  The
last
thing we need is for new divisions to crop up even as we resolve old
ones.

Sanjay Garg


>From: "Raju Agarwal" <krantikari@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>Subject: Re: Why India should not be Secular
>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:33:32 -0800 (PST)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Why India Should Not Be Secular
>
>The proponents of “Secularism” argue that this construct is essential
in
>order for different religions to peacefully coexist with each other.
The
>problem with this argument is that it falsely assumes that all
religions
>are
>based on the idea of exclusivity and therefore will be hostile to one
>another.  The truth is, that while this may be a valid supposition in
the
>case of the Abrahamic religions, it is certainly not true in the case
of
>Eastern religions in general and Indian religions in particular.
>
>All religions are not based on the same philosophical underpinnings and

>therefore should not be labeled with the same brush.  Moreover, the
very
>concept of (organized) “religion” is alien to India.  There is no
>equivalent
>of the English word “religion” in any Indian language.   The closest
Indian
>word is “Dharma” which does not connote exclusivity.  Even the term
“Hindu”
>is a Persian word that refers to people living east of the Indus
(Sindhu)
>river.  That is, the term Hindu in its original sense refers to all
>Indians.
>   “Hinduism” therefore, is just the “ism” of the Indian people.
Hinduism
>has no Church, no Pope nor even a common Bible.  As noted previously,
>“Hinduism” is not a religion.  It is a paradigm like “religion” and
>“Secularism” itself, which has proved to be more successful in bringing

>about the peaceful coexistence of diverse spiritual traditions.  For
>example, despite India’s spiritual diversity, there was no equivalent
of
>‘The Crusades’ in India.  There was no war between the Vaishnavites and

>Shaivites or between the Advaitists and Dvaitists.  There was no war
>between
>the followers of this Prophet and that Prophet, this God and that God.
>Whenever a new Prophet gained prominence in India, the message was
spread
>through peaceful means and there was no religious persecution from the
>established order.   Shankara did not raise an army to spread his
message
>and his first devotee was the head of the Dvaitist school of thought,
which
>was the prevailing philosophy at that time.  Al-Biruni put it
succinctly:
>“They (the Hindus) are opposite us in every respect.  They do not give
>their
>life or their property to defend their religious beliefs.  If they
fight,
>they fight only with words”.
>
>Unlike the Judeo-Christian concept of religious exclusivity, Indian
>spiritual traditions are based on the idea of Unity in Diversity.
Hinduism
>remarkably reconciles seemingly irreconcilable religious differences.
Just
>as light is known to have both wave-like and particle-like
characteristics,
>in Hinduism God is considered to be both without form and attributes
>(nirguna) and with form and attributes (saguna).  The one does not
negate
>the other.  Consequently there is no compulsion for believers in the
>impersonal form of God (Brahman) to feel any antagonism toward those
that
>worship idols and believe in the saguna view of God (i.e. Lord Ram,
Lord
>Krishna).
>
>In Hinduism, believers in one spiritual tradition do not see themselves
as
>having exclusive knowledge of God’s true nature or His word.  They do
not
>consider themselves to be the “chosen race” anointed by God to spread
His
>Word.  They do not think that all “non-believers” have been misled by
Satan
>and will be damned to spend eternity in Hell.  In fact, just as the
concept
>of “religion” is alien to India, so too is the concept of “Satan”.
>
>By contrast, Lord Krishna says in the Gita “Just as all streams flow
into
>the sea, so do all paths of worship lead to Me”.  He also shows His
>disciple
>Arjuna His cosmic form (vishwa roop) within which Arjuna not only sees
all
>of the forms of God known to him but many more forms (i.e. Gods) that
he
>has
>never seen before.   Hinduism believes in One God that manifests itself
in
>infinite forms.  Just as Lord Ram and Lord Shiva are considered to be
>manifestations of the same Divinity, Jesus and Allah may also be viewed
as
>manifestations of that Divinity. The God realized soul, Shri
Ramakrishna
>Paramhansa, used the analogy of three men, Hindu, Muslim and Christian,

>standing on opposite sides of a lake.  The Hindu drinks the water
calling
>it
>Jaal, the Muslim drinks calling it Paani and the Christian drinks
calling
>it
>Water, but in each case the taste is the same and the thirst equally
>quenched.
>
>The fundamental problem with the idea of Secularism is that it does not

>address the root problem of religious violence – religious bigotry.
>Mahatma
>Gandhi described violence as consisting of three forms: violent
actions,
>violent words, and violent thoughts.   While the concept of Secularism
>successfully put an end to the era of religious warfare (i.e. The
>Crusades),
>it has hardly made a dent in reducing religious bigotry.  For example,
a
>prominent American television Evangelist recently called India a nation
of
>900 million Satan Worshippers and asked his followers for donations to
>establish a Missionary movement in India that would go to “every
village”
>in
>the country.  The Pope has frequently stated that all religions are not
the
>same and that Christianity is the “true” religion.  During his recent
visit
>to India, the Pope said that the mission of the Church in this
millennium
>is
>to bring the masses of Asia into the fold.
>
>Because of its failure to address the issue of religious bigotry,
>Secularism
>has not been successful in creating a society in which all religions
can
>truly peacefully coexist.  In order for this to happen, adherents of a
>particular religion must think beyond merely “tolerating” another
religion,
>they must accept its divinity.  This may be difficult but it is not
>impossible.  There is no verse in the Bible for instance that
specifically
>says that God does not manifest Himself in forms other than Jesus. It
is
>only a matter of changing the prevailing interpretation.
>
>In fact, this idea is the basis of a new paradigm known as “Pluralism”,

>that
>is quickly gaining popularity in many academic circles engaged in the
study
>of Philosophy and Religion.  Whether you call it Hinduism, Pluralism,
or
>any
>other ism, this idea is destined to become the future religion of
mankind
>(whatever “religion” means).
>
>In some sense, Hinduism is the evolution of Secularism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------