[Reader-list] Hindu article

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Anupam jee

Reading your discourse or ideas on religion and dharma, as well as
secularism reminded me of Nandy's essays. It's he from where I first got to
think of the idea that secularism could actually be the reason for violence.


However, I have a problem with this thesis. The idea is that secularism as
you said, tries to homogenize societies, which affects those at the margins
and hence, they somewhere down the line can take part in violence. My issues
are:

1) Secularism alone can't lead to this. The major problem is development
issue, going beyond just secularism (which at best can only be a part of
it). Most of the people are living at the margins not because societies are
being asked to be secular (and there can be different definitions of the
word 'secular' here), but because people have to suffer a lot because of the
development policy we are following from the British times. This top down
approach ensures that people have to live at the margins, and in this
situation, they have no choice but to fight for themselves.

2) Secularism has never seeped in the society in my perception (here I am
considering two definitions: the Western definition or the tolerance of all
religions definition); it is just enshrined in the Constitution. Even today
if we ask people if riots should take place or not, they would obviously say
no because peace helps everybody to prosper economically and at least
ensures security of lives, which is precious for all. Secularism, as I see
it, is an elitist idea or elitist framework, and common people are least
bothered by it.

Of course, if I go by Amartya Sen's perception, India was and is secular.


If people actually thought that their marginalization due to secularism is
the issue, they would have protested against this. Till now, the only fight
against marginalization has been against the current development paradigms
and the choices made as per this paradigm, like displacement due to dams,
land acquisition for factories and so on, or even unavailability of health
and education facilities for tribals and the downtrodden (in case of
Naxalism).

Therefore, I believe the current development paradigm of benefiting the rich
at the cost of the poor is the major issue, and this can't be solved by
highway programmes or by economic reforms to benefit the corporates. What we
need is an understanding that we have to do the reverse of the 'top-down'
approach, and that is the 'bottom-top' approach, where we improve things at
the bottom, and automatically things will indeed improve at the top.

That is why removing Modi or even giving him death sentence for his deeds is
not going to help, because there is a certain section in Gujarat which
strongly supports his activities, and will make a martyr of him even if he
goes to gallows. What is needed is the change in the mindset of these
people, and automatically Modi will have to change.

More importantly violence must be abhorred not because I believe in
secularism or someone else believes in communalism; it should be abhorred
because it is against the basic right to life of human beings. This is
something even accepted by the Constitution of India, and should anyways be
accepted by all human beings.

Hope you would also share your views on this.

Regards

Rakesh