08-30-2006, 09:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Vande Mataram must be optional </b>
Nehaluddin | Secretary General, People's Democratic FrontÂ
Love for the country overcomes socio-religious barriers, but the concept of bowing one's head has a religious connotation that cannot be imposed upon those people whose religious convictions do not permit this
Vande Mataram has off and on been a bone of contention. As the composition of this song is approaching its centenary year and with the Government planning its commemoration, it is threatening to rip society along religious lines.
In the ongoing debate, Hindutva organisations have found a renewed opportunity to exploit religious sentiments and infuse a new vigour in its shaking ideology of 'cultural nationalism', thus strengthening the sagging morale of its cadre. Muslims, on the other hand, are regarding the compulsory singing of Vande Mataram as an onslaught on their religious belief, which dictates them not to bow their heads before any abstract or concrete entity except god.
As is inherent in democracy, the tone and tenor of politicians and the cognitive faculties of general masses undergo a radical transformation on the eve of election, whether at the State or the national level. So is the case with the ongoing controversy surrounding Vande Mataram. The Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh is round the corner and all political parties have started making caste and communal calculations so as to achieve optimal electoral benefits. However, for vast multitude of secular Indians, such social tensions must be treated as occasions to analyse the basic postulates of Indian democracy. They should, in fact, make concerted efforts to eliminate such irritants.
It is high time for people to give a dispassionate thinking to some of the following issues: Is the foundation of Indian secularism weak? Have we been unable to understand its true meaning and transform it into a living reality? And whether the old cultural and religious values, which had a totally different dimension when they came into existence, are forcefully squeezed into the new secular values through the Constitution. These are some basic questions that need immediate attention if we are sincere in preserving our common heritage of communal harmony.
It is commonly known that the concept of secularism in India is based on the diversity of religious, social and cultural values. There is no doubt that India is the only country in the world that is harbouring within its bosom so many religious entities and their countless branches. Having such a vast ocean of cultural ethos, occasional clashes between different currents are inevitable, but their frequency must be reduced through strong will. Evidently, it was this sagacity, prescience and farsightedness that inspired the makers of the Constitution to phrase Article 25: "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion":
(1) Subject to the public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion
The Supreme Court, being extremely cautious about the sensitivities and susceptibilities of Indian social structure has consistently endeavoured to protect the underlying spirit of the language of this Article. In 1954, in the case of Rati Lal Panachand Gandhi Vs State of Bombay, AIR, 1954 SC, pp.388,392, it declared, "Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines."
Again in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748, it emphasised: "That the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment, but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant. If the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Article 25 but subject, of course, to the inhibitions contained therein."
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the religious belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses not to sing the National Anthem. Significantly, according to the decision of the apex court, a person cannot be compelled even to sing the National Anthem if its singing is against his religious belief.
When the Constitution is so explicit on the concept of religious freedom and the Supreme Court, too, has consistently been attempting to strengthen the country's secular polity, it is highly regrettable that some political parties have been unscrupulously generating useless controversies.
Vande Mataram was composed 100 years ago for a particular community and under totally different social milieu. It is because of its direct invasion over the monotheistic religious structure of Islam that whenever any attempt is made to elevate it to the status of National Anthem, it is opposed by Muslims. It was because of this opposition that even the NDA Government could not make the singing of Vande Mataram compulsory.
We love our country, she is our "Mahboob but can't be the Maboot (Almighty)". To love one's country is different from worshipping it. Love for the country overcomes socio-religious barriers, but the concept of bowing one's head has a religious connotation that cannot be imposed upon those people whose religious convictions do not permit this. Muslims, therefore, should not be forced to sing Vande Mataram.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=3
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Fanatics sing an anti-national song</b>
Swapan Dasgupta, Pioneer, August 27, 2006
A determined band of fanatics committed to unrelenting jihad against all "non-believers" have landed Muslims in a soup. A YouGov survey published in Friday's Daily Telegraph revealed that 53 per cent of Britons believe "Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy". In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 less than a third of the United Kingdom held such views. What began as a "war on terror" in the West is fast escalating into the much-feared "clash of civilisations."Â
Coming on the heels of another survey which suggested that nearly one-third of British Muslims are in sympathy with those President Bush called "Islamic fascists", it is not surprising that the West is gripped by a dread of Islam - a fear which explains the disproportionate reaction to 12 exuberant Mumbai Muslims on the flight from Amsterdam. "We simply do not know", admitted writer William Shawcross in the Wall Street Journal, "how to deal with the fact that we are threatened by a vast fifth column..."
Â
It would be sheer escapism to insist these fears are missing from India. The Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey conducted after the Mumbai blasts showed that a whopping 35 per cent of Indians believe that terrorism is supported by Indian Muslims. A few more terrorist incidents and the perception may end up becoming common sense.
Â
Amid this growing polarisation, it was heartening that a Ulema-convened conference on terrorism adopted a resolution condemning "all forms of terror" and describing terrorism as "completely un-Islamic". Regardless of the conference being too much of a sarkari show, the declaration was a positive move.
Â
Yet one step forward was accompanied by two steps backward. On the sidelines of the conference, SQR Ilyas, spokesman of the All India Muslim Personal Board, announced that Muslims will not sing the country's national song Vande Mataram. "We love the country but don't worship (it)", announced Ilyas, "The song talks about worshipping, as in idol worship, which is against the fundamental ethos of Islam. It is a very sensitive issue for Muslims, so they can't be asked to do this for even a single day."
Sectarian objections to Vande Mataram were a key component of the Muslim League's separatist agenda prior to 1947. Yet, since the first two stanzas of the song was adopted as the national song in 1950 and put on par with the national anthem, the controversy was deemed to have been settled. By putting its authority behind an organised boycott of the most potent symbol of the freedom struggle, the AIMPLB has wilfully sought to pit Muslims versus India. The move is not only deeply offensive but an assault on the Constitution. It is tantamount to burning the national flag.
Â
A weak UPA Government has declared that singing Vande Mataram is not compulsory. The issue is not the exercise of individual vocal cords; it is respecting and acknowledging Vande Mataram . By declaring a symbol of nationhood to be optional, the Government has opened the floodgates of emotional separatism. In its deposition before the Unlawful Activities tribunal, SIMI has stated that it is not obliged to sing the national anthem. Will the Government acquiesce to this outrageous assertion on the grounds of pluralism? Where will this assault on Indian nationhood stop?
Â
Many Muslims have reacted sharply to the AIMPLB diktat. They recognise the enormous problems this decision will create for ordinary Muslims who are neither terrorists nor anti-India. They understand the grave implications of narrow-minded dogmatism on communal harmony. They must be encouraged to speak up, defy the bigots and speak up for India.
Â
The appeal of Vande Mataram is inspirational, as AR Rehman demonstrated some years ago. September 7 will mark the 101st anniversary of Vande Mataram being anointed the national song. It should be observed this year and all years to come as Vande Mataram Day, a day when the soul of a nation long suppressed found expression. Let Vande Mataram symbolise both our commitment to India and our defiance of those who want to destroy it.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nehaluddin | Secretary General, People's Democratic FrontÂ
Love for the country overcomes socio-religious barriers, but the concept of bowing one's head has a religious connotation that cannot be imposed upon those people whose religious convictions do not permit this
Vande Mataram has off and on been a bone of contention. As the composition of this song is approaching its centenary year and with the Government planning its commemoration, it is threatening to rip society along religious lines.
In the ongoing debate, Hindutva organisations have found a renewed opportunity to exploit religious sentiments and infuse a new vigour in its shaking ideology of 'cultural nationalism', thus strengthening the sagging morale of its cadre. Muslims, on the other hand, are regarding the compulsory singing of Vande Mataram as an onslaught on their religious belief, which dictates them not to bow their heads before any abstract or concrete entity except god.
As is inherent in democracy, the tone and tenor of politicians and the cognitive faculties of general masses undergo a radical transformation on the eve of election, whether at the State or the national level. So is the case with the ongoing controversy surrounding Vande Mataram. The Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh is round the corner and all political parties have started making caste and communal calculations so as to achieve optimal electoral benefits. However, for vast multitude of secular Indians, such social tensions must be treated as occasions to analyse the basic postulates of Indian democracy. They should, in fact, make concerted efforts to eliminate such irritants.
It is high time for people to give a dispassionate thinking to some of the following issues: Is the foundation of Indian secularism weak? Have we been unable to understand its true meaning and transform it into a living reality? And whether the old cultural and religious values, which had a totally different dimension when they came into existence, are forcefully squeezed into the new secular values through the Constitution. These are some basic questions that need immediate attention if we are sincere in preserving our common heritage of communal harmony.
It is commonly known that the concept of secularism in India is based on the diversity of religious, social and cultural values. There is no doubt that India is the only country in the world that is harbouring within its bosom so many religious entities and their countless branches. Having such a vast ocean of cultural ethos, occasional clashes between different currents are inevitable, but their frequency must be reduced through strong will. Evidently, it was this sagacity, prescience and farsightedness that inspired the makers of the Constitution to phrase Article 25: "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion":
(1) Subject to the public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion
The Supreme Court, being extremely cautious about the sensitivities and susceptibilities of Indian social structure has consistently endeavoured to protect the underlying spirit of the language of this Article. In 1954, in the case of Rati Lal Panachand Gandhi Vs State of Bombay, AIR, 1954 SC, pp.388,392, it declared, "Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines."
Again in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1987 SC 748, it emphasised: "That the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment, but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant. If the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Article 25 but subject, of course, to the inhibitions contained therein."
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the religious belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses not to sing the National Anthem. Significantly, according to the decision of the apex court, a person cannot be compelled even to sing the National Anthem if its singing is against his religious belief.
When the Constitution is so explicit on the concept of religious freedom and the Supreme Court, too, has consistently been attempting to strengthen the country's secular polity, it is highly regrettable that some political parties have been unscrupulously generating useless controversies.
Vande Mataram was composed 100 years ago for a particular community and under totally different social milieu. It is because of its direct invasion over the monotheistic religious structure of Islam that whenever any attempt is made to elevate it to the status of National Anthem, it is opposed by Muslims. It was because of this opposition that even the NDA Government could not make the singing of Vande Mataram compulsory.
We love our country, she is our "Mahboob but can't be the Maboot (Almighty)". To love one's country is different from worshipping it. Love for the country overcomes socio-religious barriers, but the concept of bowing one's head has a religious connotation that cannot be imposed upon those people whose religious convictions do not permit this. Muslims, therefore, should not be forced to sing Vande Mataram.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=3
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Fanatics sing an anti-national song</b>
Swapan Dasgupta, Pioneer, August 27, 2006
A determined band of fanatics committed to unrelenting jihad against all "non-believers" have landed Muslims in a soup. A YouGov survey published in Friday's Daily Telegraph revealed that 53 per cent of Britons believe "Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy". In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 less than a third of the United Kingdom held such views. What began as a "war on terror" in the West is fast escalating into the much-feared "clash of civilisations."Â
Coming on the heels of another survey which suggested that nearly one-third of British Muslims are in sympathy with those President Bush called "Islamic fascists", it is not surprising that the West is gripped by a dread of Islam - a fear which explains the disproportionate reaction to 12 exuberant Mumbai Muslims on the flight from Amsterdam. "We simply do not know", admitted writer William Shawcross in the Wall Street Journal, "how to deal with the fact that we are threatened by a vast fifth column..."
Â
It would be sheer escapism to insist these fears are missing from India. The Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey conducted after the Mumbai blasts showed that a whopping 35 per cent of Indians believe that terrorism is supported by Indian Muslims. A few more terrorist incidents and the perception may end up becoming common sense.
Â
Amid this growing polarisation, it was heartening that a Ulema-convened conference on terrorism adopted a resolution condemning "all forms of terror" and describing terrorism as "completely un-Islamic". Regardless of the conference being too much of a sarkari show, the declaration was a positive move.
Â
Yet one step forward was accompanied by two steps backward. On the sidelines of the conference, SQR Ilyas, spokesman of the All India Muslim Personal Board, announced that Muslims will not sing the country's national song Vande Mataram. "We love the country but don't worship (it)", announced Ilyas, "The song talks about worshipping, as in idol worship, which is against the fundamental ethos of Islam. It is a very sensitive issue for Muslims, so they can't be asked to do this for even a single day."
Sectarian objections to Vande Mataram were a key component of the Muslim League's separatist agenda prior to 1947. Yet, since the first two stanzas of the song was adopted as the national song in 1950 and put on par with the national anthem, the controversy was deemed to have been settled. By putting its authority behind an organised boycott of the most potent symbol of the freedom struggle, the AIMPLB has wilfully sought to pit Muslims versus India. The move is not only deeply offensive but an assault on the Constitution. It is tantamount to burning the national flag.
Â
A weak UPA Government has declared that singing Vande Mataram is not compulsory. The issue is not the exercise of individual vocal cords; it is respecting and acknowledging Vande Mataram . By declaring a symbol of nationhood to be optional, the Government has opened the floodgates of emotional separatism. In its deposition before the Unlawful Activities tribunal, SIMI has stated that it is not obliged to sing the national anthem. Will the Government acquiesce to this outrageous assertion on the grounds of pluralism? Where will this assault on Indian nationhood stop?
Â
Many Muslims have reacted sharply to the AIMPLB diktat. They recognise the enormous problems this decision will create for ordinary Muslims who are neither terrorists nor anti-India. They understand the grave implications of narrow-minded dogmatism on communal harmony. They must be encouraged to speak up, defy the bigots and speak up for India.
Â
The appeal of Vande Mataram is inspirational, as AR Rehman demonstrated some years ago. September 7 will mark the 101st anniversary of Vande Mataram being anointed the national song. It should be observed this year and all years to come as Vande Mataram Day, a day when the soul of a nation long suppressed found expression. Let Vande Mataram symbolise both our commitment to India and our defiance of those who want to destroy it.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->