02-06-2005, 08:59 AM
I cannot believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. He goes on to say
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The battle for Indiaâs soul
- By K. Natwar Singh
While a critique of our composite culture has different bases, the central feature of the ideology of the BJP and its fraternity is to view the Muslim as "the Other" and, celebrate, and even idolise an India which exalts Hindu culture and ethos at the expense of other communities and influences in our national polity.
The premises put forward by the BJP and its fraternity in the debate against secularism places the "Hindu" identity at the core of the nation; criticises Muslims for failing to integrate with the nation and even being disloyal to it; and finally, criticises the practice of secularism since Independence as having wounded the Hindu ethos and psyche even as Muslims were given privileged status. In support of these assertions, there are frequent references to Indian history based on a selective readings of old events and episodes.
The presentation I have made so far should make it clear that to see India as a "Hindu" country has little support in our historical and cultural experience, which has seen a continued intermingling of diverse peoples, communities and religions over several centuries. I have also pointed out that Hinduism itself has never been a universal or monolithic concept.
<b>Again, recollection of ancient wrongs of Muslim rulers is both fallacious and pernicious: first, there is no evidence to suggest the sustained persecution of Hindus by Muslim rulers. Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite. </b> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> What does the statement mean ? There has been hindu persecution of muslims ?? I cant believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> <b>Second, even if certain Muslim rulers were guilty of atrocious conduct, it is difficult to see how one can transfer their guilt over the centuries on to millions of Muslims who are in our midst today.</b> I am sure this guy doesnt apply this same logic elsewhere..
Our cultural inheritance is the product of a sustained intermingling of Hindu, Islamic and other traditions. As Amartya Sen has noted, "There is in fact no communal line to be drawn through Indian literature and arts, setting Hindus and Muslims on separate lines." Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who knew his Islam and his history better than most, spoke of "a notable event in history," the fusion of the Islamic and Hindu cultural currents, and "eleven hundred years of common history." I am sure the quote would have been in a different context. Even at face value such a statement is stupid. The common history is thousands of years more then eleven hundred years. This 1100 yr history means muslims came from out of India. This joint wealth, according to him, was the heritage of common nationality. In one of his most eloquent speeches at the Ramgarh session of the AICC, he declared, "I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim."
Azad, who bore the brunt of religious abuse with dignity and fortitude, was overwhelmed by partition. Yet, he could envisage an Islam not of sectarian belligerence but of confident partnership with other cultural and religious entities. And what good did that do ? How many were there like him ? The founding fathers of our polity, as they framed the Constitution, simply gave legal recognition to our religious pluralism which had been a living reality for centuries and which was not and could not be undermined by the misguided zealots and their imperial masters who pursued the partition of our country.
The anti-secular philosophy of the BJP, the strident assertions of its adherents and the rampages of its cohorts have led some observers to suggest that our record in upholding our core national value is at best mixed and, indeed, there has been an increase in religious bigotry, and that minorities remain insecure while communal conflicts proliferate. One observer believes that secularism in India "looks pale and exhausted."
I do not agree with the negative assessment put forward in regard to our secular order. I remain convinced that our commitment to pluralism and multi-culturalism remains our core national value and enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of our people. One more stupid statement. The pluralism comes from Hinduism and not because of secularism. There have been occasional aberrations and some serious setbacks and failures, but the central commitment of our nation has not wavered. Indeed, it would be correct to assert that no political movement will be able to seize power in our polity on the basis of an exclusivist philosophy and agenda, however emotive its assertions and seductive its appeals. Or, to put it in positive terms, to rule India, a movement or party must necessarily represent and uphold Indiaâs rich diversity and include within its agenda the interest, on equitable basis, of the different sections that make it our national tapestry. What equitable basis ? Like in Shah Bano case ?
Having asserted this, it would be wrong to be complacent and to believe that the future is inevitably rosy. To my mind, our failure so far has been in two areas: political and intellectual. In the political arena, we have not always upheld the essential requirements of a secular order, namely, symmetrical treatment of all groups; defence of the rights and interests of all groups but particularly the weaker and vulnerable elements; and, above all, the rigorous use of the instrument of law to penalise those who have participated in crimes against our vulnerable sections. Instead, from time to time, tokenism has taken the place of genuine commitment to our core national values. But these core national values remain our ideal and those of the Indian National Congress. I would love to see this guy say this in person with a straight face
However, our more serious failure has been in the intellectual arena. For several years, the critics of secularism, particularly those from within the Sangh Parivar, have honed their philosophical moorings, established political alliances, and have tried to build up a movement to promote their exclusivist ideology and their doctrine of confrontation and abuse. They have not succeeded. The 2004 Lok Sabha elections testify to the fact that bigotry has been shown its place. The peopleâs verdict is for harmony and tolerance rather than discord and disunity. More spin. Does he mean 99 verdict was for discord and disunity ?
I would like to reiterate our commitment to our core national value of secularism, democracy and pluralism. At the same time, we will vigorously participate in the debates in defence of our nationâs heritage and our core national values. We cannot allow our legacy to be frittered away or lost due to complacency, indecisiveness or lack of conviction. The battle is for the soul of our nation and there can be no greater call upon us than this.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not seen a more stupid article on secularism. Where do they make morons like these ? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The battle for Indiaâs soul
- By K. Natwar Singh
While a critique of our composite culture has different bases, the central feature of the ideology of the BJP and its fraternity is to view the Muslim as "the Other" and, celebrate, and even idolise an India which exalts Hindu culture and ethos at the expense of other communities and influences in our national polity.
The premises put forward by the BJP and its fraternity in the debate against secularism places the "Hindu" identity at the core of the nation; criticises Muslims for failing to integrate with the nation and even being disloyal to it; and finally, criticises the practice of secularism since Independence as having wounded the Hindu ethos and psyche even as Muslims were given privileged status. In support of these assertions, there are frequent references to Indian history based on a selective readings of old events and episodes.
The presentation I have made so far should make it clear that to see India as a "Hindu" country has little support in our historical and cultural experience, which has seen a continued intermingling of diverse peoples, communities and religions over several centuries. I have also pointed out that Hinduism itself has never been a universal or monolithic concept.
<b>Again, recollection of ancient wrongs of Muslim rulers is both fallacious and pernicious: first, there is no evidence to suggest the sustained persecution of Hindus by Muslim rulers. Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite. </b> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> What does the statement mean ? There has been hindu persecution of muslims ?? I cant believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> <b>Second, even if certain Muslim rulers were guilty of atrocious conduct, it is difficult to see how one can transfer their guilt over the centuries on to millions of Muslims who are in our midst today.</b> I am sure this guy doesnt apply this same logic elsewhere..
Our cultural inheritance is the product of a sustained intermingling of Hindu, Islamic and other traditions. As Amartya Sen has noted, "There is in fact no communal line to be drawn through Indian literature and arts, setting Hindus and Muslims on separate lines." Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who knew his Islam and his history better than most, spoke of "a notable event in history," the fusion of the Islamic and Hindu cultural currents, and "eleven hundred years of common history." I am sure the quote would have been in a different context. Even at face value such a statement is stupid. The common history is thousands of years more then eleven hundred years. This 1100 yr history means muslims came from out of India. This joint wealth, according to him, was the heritage of common nationality. In one of his most eloquent speeches at the Ramgarh session of the AICC, he declared, "I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim."
Azad, who bore the brunt of religious abuse with dignity and fortitude, was overwhelmed by partition. Yet, he could envisage an Islam not of sectarian belligerence but of confident partnership with other cultural and religious entities. And what good did that do ? How many were there like him ? The founding fathers of our polity, as they framed the Constitution, simply gave legal recognition to our religious pluralism which had been a living reality for centuries and which was not and could not be undermined by the misguided zealots and their imperial masters who pursued the partition of our country.
The anti-secular philosophy of the BJP, the strident assertions of its adherents and the rampages of its cohorts have led some observers to suggest that our record in upholding our core national value is at best mixed and, indeed, there has been an increase in religious bigotry, and that minorities remain insecure while communal conflicts proliferate. One observer believes that secularism in India "looks pale and exhausted."
I do not agree with the negative assessment put forward in regard to our secular order. I remain convinced that our commitment to pluralism and multi-culturalism remains our core national value and enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of our people. One more stupid statement. The pluralism comes from Hinduism and not because of secularism. There have been occasional aberrations and some serious setbacks and failures, but the central commitment of our nation has not wavered. Indeed, it would be correct to assert that no political movement will be able to seize power in our polity on the basis of an exclusivist philosophy and agenda, however emotive its assertions and seductive its appeals. Or, to put it in positive terms, to rule India, a movement or party must necessarily represent and uphold Indiaâs rich diversity and include within its agenda the interest, on equitable basis, of the different sections that make it our national tapestry. What equitable basis ? Like in Shah Bano case ?
Having asserted this, it would be wrong to be complacent and to believe that the future is inevitably rosy. To my mind, our failure so far has been in two areas: political and intellectual. In the political arena, we have not always upheld the essential requirements of a secular order, namely, symmetrical treatment of all groups; defence of the rights and interests of all groups but particularly the weaker and vulnerable elements; and, above all, the rigorous use of the instrument of law to penalise those who have participated in crimes against our vulnerable sections. Instead, from time to time, tokenism has taken the place of genuine commitment to our core national values. But these core national values remain our ideal and those of the Indian National Congress. I would love to see this guy say this in person with a straight face
However, our more serious failure has been in the intellectual arena. For several years, the critics of secularism, particularly those from within the Sangh Parivar, have honed their philosophical moorings, established political alliances, and have tried to build up a movement to promote their exclusivist ideology and their doctrine of confrontation and abuse. They have not succeeded. The 2004 Lok Sabha elections testify to the fact that bigotry has been shown its place. The peopleâs verdict is for harmony and tolerance rather than discord and disunity. More spin. Does he mean 99 verdict was for discord and disunity ?
I would like to reiterate our commitment to our core national value of secularism, democracy and pluralism. At the same time, we will vigorously participate in the debates in defence of our nationâs heritage and our core national values. We cannot allow our legacy to be frittered away or lost due to complacency, indecisiveness or lack of conviction. The battle is for the soul of our nation and there can be no greater call upon us than this.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not seen a more stupid article on secularism. Where do they make morons like these ? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->