[Reader-list] Hindu article

[anupam chakravartty]

Dear Rakesh,

My problems are not rooted in the idea of secularism be it western or
oriental. it is this modernist idea which only takes into consideration the
dominant discourses of our time to chose the path of the development leaving
aside the marginal outlook. whether secularisation is a by product of the
modernist propaganda or not is not my concern. even non-secular position,
for example: the saffron propaganda has modern elements attached to it. in
case of gujarat, the very idea of providing voters lists to the rioters
has shows that the state (here modi administration) used modern statistical
data (in many ways, stats in the west seen as a tool that further
the secular notions of the state) to subvert machinery for development for
creating mayhem against a certain class of people. later during the election
campaigns, modi kept on citing that he stands by 5.5 crore gujaratis (which
i am sure never includes the muslims). i think you read it otherwise or you
are confusing the secular notions of mr bipin with mine.

thanks anupam


On 6/10/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>