[Reader-list] Secularism vs. Pseudo Secularism [ sickularism ]

[Asit asitreds]

both majority and minority communalism are dangerous both are two sides of
the same coin using religion for elctoral gains both have to be opposed
 secularism means the state will not have an y religion and there has to be
a complete separation of religion and politcs
asit

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>wrote:

> *Equating Lord Ram and Babar**
> *
>
> *“*Closely linked to the politics of minorityism, indeed providing a
> justification, is the distortion and perversion that has taken place in the
> concept of secularism. Increasingly, it is being interpreted and practiced
> in terms that negate the essential cultural and civilisational personality
> of India. In the context of the Ayodhya movement, Lord Ram and Babur were
> sought to be equated in the name of secularism, disdainfully ignoring the
> sentiments of crores of Hindus. ‘Can you prove that Ram was born exactly at
> this site?’ asked Communist intellectuals disparagingly, something they
> would never do in the case of a dispute concerning a non-Hindu community.
>
> In an interview to a Hindi journal *Vama *in 1987, I had said that for any
> section of Indian Muslims to identify themselves with Babur ‘is like the
> Christians of Delhi picking up a quarrel over the replacement of a statue
> of
> George V with that of Mahatma Gandhi on the ground that George V was a
> Christian. Now, Gandhiji may have been a Hindu by faith, but he belongs to
> this country and George V does not. Similarly, Ram belongs to this country
> whether you call him a mythical hero or a historical personage. Even on the
> issue of history and culture, I would plead with the Muslim leadership of
> this country that if the Muslims in Indonesia can feel proud about Ram and
> *
> Ramayana*, why cannot the Indian Muslims?’* ”*
>
> *Bhakti Sangeet is ‘anti-secular’!*
>
> *“*I have had many experiences in my political life showing how selfstyled
> defenders of secularism interpret it in an irreligious or anti-religious
> manner—of course, their secularism is almost always anti-Hindu, and never
> against any other faith. I recall an instance from 1970, when I was first
> elected to Parliament as a member of the Rajya Sabha. Every ministry in the
> Government of India has a consultative committee attached to it, comprising
> MPs from both Houses. These Committees discuss matters pertaining to the
> ministry, make recommendations, but do not take any decisions.
>
> A new MP is offered the option of working in a committee of his or her
> choice. As a journalist by profession, I opted for the Ministry of
> Information & Broadcasting. At the very first meeting of the committee that
> I attended, I had to participate in a discussion which I felt was queer. A
> Congress member had raised a strong objection to the Bhakti Sangeet
> programme, featuring devotional songs, on AIR every morning. The ambience
> generated by such programmes is intensely Hindu, he argued, and ‘a secular
> state like ours should not permit this’. The member’s arguments did not
> carry conviction with the committee, and so, in that forum he did not
> pursue
> the matter further. I later gathered that some time earlier this MP had
> taken a delegation to Rashtrapati Bhavan to plead the same issue with our
> then President Dr S. Radhakrishnan. After listening to their plaint
> patiently, the Rashtrapati commented: ‘Let me tell you, ladies and
> gentlemen, that I generally do not listen to All India Radio except in the
> morning hours. The only programme I do like to hear is Bhakti Sangeet!’
>
> In his writings and speeches, Dr. Radhakrishnan strongly stressed that a
> secular state simply means a state which views all religions with equal
> respect, and treats all citizens equally without any discrimination.
> However, he underscored that a secular state is not an irreligious state.
> When Mahatma Gandhi spoke of ‘Ram Rajya’ or when Gurudev Rabindranath
> Tagore
> invoked the prayer for ‘*Eka Dharmarajya hable a Bharate’ *(Let there be
> one
> Dharma Rajya, a just and moral order, in India), were they proposing a
> theocratic or anti-secular state? What both Gandhiji and Tagore meant was
> that without Dharmic underpinnings—meaning, thereby, spiritual and ethical
> guidance—the Indian State and society cannot attain their desired
> goals.*”**
> *
>
> *‘No coconut-breaking, no lamp-lighting; we are a secular state.’*
>
> *“*When Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister, he invited me, as President of
> the BJP, to serve as a member of the National Integration Council. At one
> of
> its meetings held in September 1986, there was a heated discussion on what
> is meant by secularism in India. I had asked fellow members: ‘Is it
> negation
> of secularism if a new Indian ship is launched by breaking a coconut
> against
> its keel? Or should it be done by opening a champagne bottle? How should a
> VIP formally inaugurate an exhibition—by lighting a lamp or by merely
> cutting a tape with a pair of scissors?’ Many members concurred with me
> that
> there was nothing wrong about breaking a coconut or lighting a lamp at
> functions.
>
> However, C. Rajeshwar Rao, an eminent leader of the CPI, reacted sharply to
> my views, saying: ‘No coconuts, no lamps, we are a secular state.’I could
> not resist joining issue with him. A Marxist with his conviction that
> religion is the opium of the masses would understandably be allergic to
> customs and traditions which have even a remote association to religion.
> But
> I felt that the concept of secularism, which India’s Constitution makers
> had
> in mind, had nothing in common with this Marxist approach. It is not
> secularism, but pseudo-secularism.
>
> In fact, I insisted that, unlike in communism which banished religion even
> from private life, Indian secularism has its roots in religion—in the Hindu
> view that all roads lead to God, as enunciated in the Vedic dictum ‘*Ekam
> Sat Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti*’ (Truth is One; the wise interpret it
> differently). I reminded Rao and others at the meeting about what Gandhiji
> had said: ‘Politics bereft of religion is absolute dirt, ever to be
> shunned.’
>
> One of the most comprehensive studies of Indian secularism has been done by
> Donald Eugene Smith in his book *India: As a Secular State*. It succinctly
> sums the differences between Gandhiji and Nehru on the issue of secularism,
> and describes how this divergence sometimes created problems for the
> government in the early years of Independence. Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra
> Prasad, C. Rajgopalachari (Rajaji) and Dr K.M. Munshi belonged to the
> Gandhian school. I have explained this in detail in narrating the story of
> the restoration of the Somnath Temple in Gujarat.
>
> What is deeply disconcerting, however, is that the Congress, under its
> present leadership, has become far more insensitive to the proud symbols of
> our nationalism than was the case at the time of Nehru or Indira Gandhi.
> The
> most shocking example of this is how the Congress party indirectly
> supported
> a recent vicious campaign against *Vande Mataram *by Muslim fanatics and
> Marxists, who alleged that India’s national song has communal overtones.
>
> The culture of any ancient nation is bound to be composite. But in our
> country, emphasis on the composite character of Indian culture is generally
> an attempt to disown its essentially Hindu content. Even though an
> outsider,
> Donald Eugene Smith has taken due note of this, and perceptively observed
> that, despite the composite nature of Indian culture, Hinduism remains by
> far the most powerful and pervasive element in that culture. Those who lay
> great stress on the composite nature of Indian culture frequently minimise
> this basic fact. Hinduism has indeed provided the essential genius of
> Indian
> culture.
>
> The *Ramayana *and *Mahabharata *may evoke feelings of piety and religious
> reverence in the Hindus. But do they belong only to Hindus? As invaluable
> treasures of India’s cultural heritage, shouldn’t every Indian — Hindu,
> Muslim or Christian — ought to feel proud of them? Breaking a coconut or
> lighting a lamp may be part of a religious ritual with Hindus but over a
> period of time these have become distinctive and graceful Indian customs.
> Only someone who bears a deep-rooted allergy to religion can object to
> these
> practices. A secularism that entails hostility to anything that has a Hindu
> tinge about it would not be acceptable to India. Indeed, so ingrained is
> the
> Indian concept of secularism in our national culture that it did not even
> occur to the architects of our Constitution that they should specially
> mention it as one of its preambulary principles. It is only during the
> anti-democratic Emergency rule (1975–77) imposed by Indira Gandhi that
> secularism found a place in the Constitution through the route of amendment
> without any discussion in Parliament. How could there have been any debate
> when almost all the main Opposition leaders were imprisoned and the press
> was gagged?*”*
>
> *Chaplain’s prayer at the House of Commons*
>
> *“*I recall visiting London in 1990 as a member of a parliamentary
> delegation led by the then Lok Sabha Speaker Rabi Ray. The Speaker of the
> House of Commons had invited our delegation for dinner at his residence. We
> all turned up on time. Our host and some select members of the House of
> Commons were all there. Even after we were seated at the table, the service
> would not start. ‘Are we waiting for someone?’, I asked the Labour Party MP
> sitting beside me. His name was Greville Janner, and he replied: ‘Yes, the
> Chaplain of the House is still to arrive. Dinner will commence only after
> he
> comes and conducts the prayers.’ I turned to my Indian colleague sitting on
> the other side, a senior Marxist leader, and asked: ‘If something of this
> kind were to happen in India, what would you do? Walk out?’
>
> Incidentally, when the House Chaplain finally arrived, and prayers were
> being said, Janner looked at me and, tongue-in-cheek, observed: ‘Mr.
> Advani,
> you are a Hindu, and I am a Jew; I hope he is including us also in his
> prayers.’ Ever since this dinner meeting, Janner and I have been close
> friends. He visits India quite frequently, and on no occasion have we
> failed
> to meet. I too meet up with him on my trips to London. He has been trying
> to
> foster good relations between different religions, both in Britain and
> abroad.*”*
>
> **
>
> *“*I urge all the right-minded people in the country, including silent but
> concerned Congressmen, to raise their voice against the politics of
> minorityism. Since India is not a theocratic state, the religious rights
> and
> the identities of the various faith-based communities that constitute the
> Great Indian Family must indeed be protected. But notions of ‘majority’ and
> ‘minority’ should have no place in the politics and statecraft of our
> nation
> much less be manipulated for vote-bank considerations. This divisive
> mindset
> jeopardises India as one united, integral and harmonious nation. The
> Congress party is trying to divide the nation by continuously harping on
> ‘minority protection’ in the same way that the British rulers did for their
> own ulterior motives.* ”*
>
> **
>
> *Source : lkadvani.in*
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>