Ayodhya

[Guest]

Kaushal, I'm for 'secularism,' by the book, not the one practiced in India or USA (I understand why u mentioned, but from my POV USA is not totally secular either.....that's another topic and we should leave it for another day.)



Regarding the secularism in India, are you supporting how it is played today or are you sayng that's how it should be? ( I didn't get it.

To answer your question first, i dont support secularism as it is practised in India today.



But the problem goes deeper than that. There is no accepted definition of secularism in India. Because certainly the dictionary definition of secularism is not practiced in India today. For example the opposite of secularism in India is considered to be communalism , but the dictionary definition of secularism has very little to do with communalism or its opposite. In the west secularism is understood to mean 'equal dislike for all religious traditions'. A typical interpretation in the west is as follows;

sec•u•lar•ism



Pronunciation: (sek'yu-lu-riz"um), [key]

—n.

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

That is why (because of its anti-religious connotation) the phrase is not widely used in the West and no president of the US would be caught dead expressing a desire that the 'US be secular'.



But in India that is far from being the case. it is generally understood in India that it is OK to throw Iftar parties (which are clearly religious in connotation) but politicians should not attend Hindu religious functions. ( in reality of course some break this rule also)



In the matter of education , the discrepancy between theory and practice is very glaring. All Xtian schools and Muslim madrassas get subsidies in one form or the other apart from occupying very choice pieces of real estate in the metro areas. One should ask them how they acquired these in the first place. Government has no say in the way these institutions are run or the masjids or the churches. Whereas in the case of Hindu temples these are for the most part run by the Government. This is of course totally unacceptable. What if the concerned officer was a Muslim or a Xtian or a non practicing Hindu . He or she would have very little incentive to do anything for the temple and in fact would put obstacles in the path of any temple improvements.



Here are some thoughts from Sandhya Jain



Title : Nationalization of the Hindu temple

Author : Sandhya Jain

Publication : The Pioneer

Date : October 7th, 2003



No url pls.



There is a growing sense of disquiet in the Hindu community in several

parts of the country on the issue of state management of temples,

particularly the attitude of certain regimes towards temples well

endowed with lands and funds. While sharing the Hindu apprehension that

this could cause closure of hundreds of temples, I would like to first

express concern at the virtual derailment of the social reform agenda

that has been the distinguishing feature of the Hindu community for the

past two hundred years.



On Gandhi Jayanti this year, I tried to put my finger on a sense of

something missing. I soon realized that secularism and modernism had

taken us so far ahead that we were finally spared the hypocritical

spectacle of political dignitaries queuing up to clean public toilets

previously cleaned by zealous municipal workers. We were also spared

platitudes against untouchability, uplift of women, and other issues to

which Bapu addressed himself so eloquently. No matter what our present

day difficulties with parts of his political legacy may be, on the issue

of social reform Mahatma Gandhi was second to none.



Hence the surprise that his agenda merited no affirmation or renewal

when it is nobody's case that we have resolved the problems Gandhi

struggled to overcome in his lifetime. This is confirmed by the unease

in a section of society in Uttar Pradesh after Mayawati foolishly

squandered her government away. I am most disturbed by caste-based rape,

disrobing, and other forms of abuse of women, which is intended to

humiliate families and communities. I also find it unacceptable that

upper caste Hindus distance themselves from these atrocities by pinning

the blame for such incidents on a certain social stratum. This is too

clever by half. So long as caste-based discrimination persists in Hindu

society, all Hindus will have to be concerned about it.



Temple entry is another issue we have to face. Despite laws, decades of

sensitization and awareness, we still find Dalits being beaten for

entering a village temple. We must end forthwith this negation of the

very humanity and dignity of fellow beings. Until we do so, we lack a

cast-iron case against State encroachment in the religious realm.

Temples that prevent free access to citizens espousing the same religion

cannot in justice claim the freedom to manage their affairs without let

or hindrance.



Having said that we may in fairness examine some of the issues agitating

Hindus in different parts of the country. There is some unrest over a

Karnataka bill whereby private or trust-run temples must pay a minimum

tax. But what is truly upsetting the community is the use of income

collected from Government-controlled temples. One does not know that

veracity of the allegations, but they are serious enough to merit a

public debate.



It has, for instance, been claimed that in 1997, the Karnataka

Government received a revenue of Rs. 52.35 crores from 2,64,000 temples.

Of this, Rs. 17.33 crores was returned to the temples for maintenance;

Rs 9.25 crores allocated for madrasa development and Rs. 3 crores for

church development. The balance Rs. 22.77 crores was diverted towards

government programmes. The situation was much the same in 1998. However,

in 1999, it is alleged, the State collected Rs. 65.35 crores in revenue;

gave Rs. 15 crores for temple maintenance; and diverted Rs. 27 crores

madrasa development and Haj subsidy and Rs. 8 crores for church

development. No details were available about the use of the balance Rs.

17.35 crores.



In 2000, the temples generated a revenue of Rs. 69.96 crores, but

received only Rs. 13.75 crores for maintenance. The madrasa-Haj subsidy

rose to Rs. 35 crores. In 2001, temple revenue further rose to Rs. 71.60

crores, while maintenance grants shrank to Rs. 11.50 crores, and madrasa

development funds rose to Rs. 45 crores. Church development received Rs.

10 crores. In 2002, the State received Rs. 72 crores as revenue,

returned Rs. 10 crores for temple maintenance, and granted Rs. 50 crores

for madrasas and Rs. 10 crores for churches.



Hindu friends protest that this studied neglect of temples under the

direct control of the State Government could cause as many as 50,000 of

the 2.6 lakh temples in Karnataka to close down within five years. Many

ancient temples are in an extremely poor condition, and managements and

priests carp at inadequate funds. Even salaries are not disbursed

regularly, and priests are forced to survive on donations made by

devotees in the arti plate.



In neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, the State Government withdrew a demand

for Rs. 36 crores from the Sri Venkateshwara Temple at Tirupati in July

after a public furore and litigation in the High Court. There is,

however, a move to take away temple lands and distribute them among

poorer sections in the name of social justice. Around three thousand

acres of temple lands have been identified for takeover. Yet, government

sources themselves admit that nearly 80 percent of the State's temples

have no income other than that received from the vested lands. Thus,

once the lands are seized, many temples may fail to conduct daily puja.

What is more, the Andhra Government has failed to pay Rs. 28 crores

compensation towards temple lands previously acquired for building bus

terminals, police stations, and other public utilities.



There can be little doubt that this is a grossly unfair situation. Many

issues are involved here. To begin with, state presence in the

management of Hindu temples makes a mockery of the separation of

religion and state. But even worse, it militates against the fundamental

right to freedom of religion because State intervention is creating

obstacles in the functioning of temples by depriving them of their

legitimate funds and putting their very existence in jeopardy. This is

an act of cultural vandalism, consistent with the agenda of a Communist

State; the respective State Governments should therefore clarify their

political ideology and agenda.



It is suspected that there is a purpose to this de facto nationalization

of Hindu temples. The strong economic foundations of temples are being

bled to support activities inconsistent with the legitimate goals of

Hindu dharma, which is what the Haj subsidy, madrasa and church

development, must be acknowledged to be. These monotheistic creeds are

not only at variance with Hindu dharma, but their very raison d'etre is

expansion by the eradication of Hindu dharma and culture. Hence, when

the State acts in a blatantly partisan manner to promote these faiths,

the adherents of Hindu dharma certainly have a genuine grievance.



Above all, at a time when Governments are rushing to abandon the

commanding heights of the economy, State presence in the management of

places of worship is incongruous to say the least. Hindu temples were

once great centers of learning, and even today illustrious spiritual

leaders like Sri Sathya Sai Baba and Amritanandmayi Ma have inspired

magnificent medical and educational institutions through community

service. The argument that the managements of cash-rich temples are

necessarily corrupt and need regulation is simply irresponsible and

arrogant, especially when it is the established corruption of

state-controlled managements that is prompting Central and State

Governments alike to shed equity in the public sector! It is high time

the State similarly retreated from the temple precincts.





Of course the real question is why in a secular state,should the state be running Hindu temples at all (but not Xtian or Muslim place of worship).Nobody in a position of Government authority has explained this conundrum to me in a satisfactory manner