01-08-2008, 09:14 PM
Hindus are also experiencing new thought and new views. Nathuram Godse and his views were expressed milliseconds ago compared to the centuries of history of evolution of society.
Godse's views, IMO have not been consigned to history, but (and mark my words) have actually become stronger. I can see it and feel it in the way people talk, and in the way violence is being used. Both Babri Masjid and the post Godhra riots were examples of that, and in my view it would be gross negligence to dismiss them as a flash in the pan.
Part of the reason for such anger is the active suppression of debate at a national level (as opposed to this board). For example, a minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi has asked Taslima Nasreen to apologise "with folded hands" for what she said in her book.
Any educated person would like to know what she said, so we can judge for ourselves. He will not say. But we can depend on the fact that a High Court judgement ruled that her words did not intend to hurt religion and the book was unbanned. I would classify Shri Munshi's statement as "less than fair" to an individual in his anxiety to be fair to the Islamic rioters of Kolkata. This is not "equidistance from religion". This is deliberate support for a religious view with a motive - perhaps electoral.
The concept that a government can remain "equidistant" from religion does not stand up to scrutiny in a society that is bound by a mixture of adversarial and non adversarial religions. Amartya Sen may have spoken of an ideal, but even the implementation of such an ideal requires open and honest debate and deep understanding of issues that the highest office bearers of India do not seem to have.
For example, the Indian constitution allows the freedom to practice and propagate all religions. This means that those who want to propagate their faith have the right to do so.
But what of those who do not want to propagate their faith? What about faiths that do not call for active propagation? Two answers can come for this question.
a) They can start propagating their faith. But this means that they have to change the tenets of their faith. Why should one faith be asked to change its tenets and not another? This is a bad solution, therefore the second answer seems more appropriate:
b) If a faith does not want to propagate itself, its members are welcome to be as they are and not propagate their faith.
Fine. This seems like a fair judgement.
Now let us look at faiths that seek to propagate themselves. A faith gets propagated only by getting new converts. That means people who do not belong to the propagating faith have to be made to join the faith as new converts.
In India the two religions that actively seek propagation are Islam and Christianity. The largest mass of people who can form new converts are Hindus. So Islam and Christianity MUST get converts primarily from Hindus. That seems fair and reasonable.
Now look at this a little deeper. The act of conversion requires the rejection of all other Gods as false, and the rejection of all old rites and rituals as false, and the acceptance of an Islamic or Christian God as the only true God.
In other words the India constitution legally allows any Christian evangelist or Muslim to demand that Hindu Gods be declared as false as part of conversion.
Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.
But guess how many "secular" Indian people, minorities and government react to any Hindu calling Allah a false God, Mohammad a false prophet and being similarly "disrespectful" of the Christian God? Speaking like this is "Blasphemy" or "Persecution of minorities".
In other words, in India, as per the Indian constitution it is legal for Christians and Muslims to demand from Hindus the declaration that their Gods are false as part of conversion. A similar declaration by some Hindus about Christianity or Islam is "communalism" or lack of secularism.
This is how Hindus become "communalists". Indian secularism is far from being equidistant from all religions. The Hindu in India is required to bear a heavier burden of secularism than the Christian or Muslim. It is a misconception to imagine that our brand of secularism is equidistant from all religions when secularism is not required at all from islam or Christianity in this matter. Only Hindus are required to be secular. This is not secularism.
I think most educated people in India do not understand this, and even debate about this is disallowed as the right wing's "Hindutva" brand of communalism. I personally believe that such wearing of blinkers is the result of widespread and real dhimmitude.
Godse's views, IMO have not been consigned to history, but (and mark my words) have actually become stronger. I can see it and feel it in the way people talk, and in the way violence is being used. Both Babri Masjid and the post Godhra riots were examples of that, and in my view it would be gross negligence to dismiss them as a flash in the pan.
Part of the reason for such anger is the active suppression of debate at a national level (as opposed to this board). For example, a minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi has asked Taslima Nasreen to apologise "with folded hands" for what she said in her book.
Any educated person would like to know what she said, so we can judge for ourselves. He will not say. But we can depend on the fact that a High Court judgement ruled that her words did not intend to hurt religion and the book was unbanned. I would classify Shri Munshi's statement as "less than fair" to an individual in his anxiety to be fair to the Islamic rioters of Kolkata. This is not "equidistance from religion". This is deliberate support for a religious view with a motive - perhaps electoral.
The concept that a government can remain "equidistant" from religion does not stand up to scrutiny in a society that is bound by a mixture of adversarial and non adversarial religions. Amartya Sen may have spoken of an ideal, but even the implementation of such an ideal requires open and honest debate and deep understanding of issues that the highest office bearers of India do not seem to have.
For example, the Indian constitution allows the freedom to practice and propagate all religions. This means that those who want to propagate their faith have the right to do so.
But what of those who do not want to propagate their faith? What about faiths that do not call for active propagation? Two answers can come for this question.
a) They can start propagating their faith. But this means that they have to change the tenets of their faith. Why should one faith be asked to change its tenets and not another? This is a bad solution, therefore the second answer seems more appropriate:
b) If a faith does not want to propagate itself, its members are welcome to be as they are and not propagate their faith.
Fine. This seems like a fair judgement.
Now let us look at faiths that seek to propagate themselves. A faith gets propagated only by getting new converts. That means people who do not belong to the propagating faith have to be made to join the faith as new converts.
In India the two religions that actively seek propagation are Islam and Christianity. The largest mass of people who can form new converts are Hindus. So Islam and Christianity MUST get converts primarily from Hindus. That seems fair and reasonable.
Now look at this a little deeper. The act of conversion requires the rejection of all other Gods as false, and the rejection of all old rites and rituals as false, and the acceptance of an Islamic or Christian God as the only true God.
In other words the India constitution legally allows any Christian evangelist or Muslim to demand that Hindu Gods be declared as false as part of conversion.
Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.
But guess how many "secular" Indian people, minorities and government react to any Hindu calling Allah a false God, Mohammad a false prophet and being similarly "disrespectful" of the Christian God? Speaking like this is "Blasphemy" or "Persecution of minorities".
In other words, in India, as per the Indian constitution it is legal for Christians and Muslims to demand from Hindus the declaration that their Gods are false as part of conversion. A similar declaration by some Hindus about Christianity or Islam is "communalism" or lack of secularism.
This is how Hindus become "communalists". Indian secularism is far from being equidistant from all religions. The Hindu in India is required to bear a heavier burden of secularism than the Christian or Muslim. It is a misconception to imagine that our brand of secularism is equidistant from all religions when secularism is not required at all from islam or Christianity in this matter. Only Hindus are required to be secular. This is not secularism.
I think most educated people in India do not understand this, and even debate about this is disallowed as the right wing's "Hindutva" brand of communalism. I personally believe that such wearing of blinkers is the result of widespread and real dhimmitude.