the Thinker

Yesterday a famous political thinker, Prof.Smith came to our college to speak on one of the most sensitive issues in our country-guess which one? Secularism. He spoke on a wide range of topics starting from VHP's Hindutva agenda to group indentities. He tried to explain concepts of secularism and belief systems of various religions across the world by providing humourous examples.

I will state one of them, he spoke about an incident in Northern Ireland where as all of you know, the war between Catholics and Protestants has transformed into ancient his'troy.' So this guy went to Northern Ireland (some part I do not remember which region), and went to a shoe-polisher. The shoe-polishman asked him a fundamental question in context of the his'troy' of the area. Following was the conversation:

Shoe-polishman : " Sir, please do not mind my asking but are you a Protestant or a Catholic?"

The man: "Hey jolly fellow! I am neither because I am an atheist."

The Shoe-polisher was not satisfied and asked: "But sir, are you a Catholic athiest or a Protestant athiest?"

You might find that to be a bad joke but then it contains the very crux of the problem of secularism. Secularism is intricately connected to our religious identities. I do not know your definition of 'religion' but personally I feel that religion refers to faith in a power who is above us all. To propitiate him/her, we worship our chosen God. It is something that is supposed to provide us peace. Whereas when we say that we are a HIndu, or a Muslim or belong to some other community, we refer to our group identity. To me both the concepts are very different from one another, though I do not disagree that both are interconnected.

When L.K Advani harps on the fact that he is secular and to him 'secularism' means to fight for the majority, which is the Hindu community in India, he, as per my opinion makes a grave mistake (quite knowingly) i.e, he talks about the group identities of the individuals.

Whenever the norms of so-called "Hinduism" is violated, a ruckus is created by the BJP and RSS, may it something as trivial as Valentine's Day celebration in Mumbai. I might not be sounding objective, but I feel that magnification of such trivial issues create the kind of disturbance we had in Gujarat two years back.

No, I am definitely not saying that burning a train full of people is trivial, but blaming it on another community and precipitating a bloody massacre is a crime.During our course we had many researchers who came to talk on the Babri Masjid issue. What they found is, till date there is no solid proof of the conjecture that Babri Masjid was constructed on Lord Rama's birthplace.

But even if now the issue is proved that the entire demolition was a farce (which is a very remote possibility), the damage has already been done.The issue I am writing on is an endless issue, there are innumerous angles to it. An excuse which the 'Hindu' politicians of our country often bring up is the fact that the minority population is going on increasing because of their religious customs, one of which allows them 4 marriages.

I wonder how many people can afford 4 marriages in today's educated civil society, owing to the kind of budget we are having every year. Atleast, among the educated masses I have not seen such cases. Even an Azharuddin had to divorce his first wife before a second marriage, even though he could have afforded all 4.The labour classes have a completely different philosophy behind having a huge family. But that they would do irrespective of whichever community they belong to.

My contention is that we should keep our group identity as a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other; separate from whatever we have faith in. I am sure people might be having their own idea of what they understand by 'secularism.' I see as an equal right to all the citizens of a nation. If you are a Hindu, and ask me whether you should or should not worship cows, I would simply tell that person that, ofcourse he can because as a citizen he has a fundamental rights. he has the freedom to practice his religion (till it does not become offensive for other religions).

Similarly, if a Muslim asks me that his religion sanctions beef-eating and whether he should do so or not. I would say the same for him.

very clearly analysed..but then there are some flaws in the argument!!!...Everyone has the freedom to pratice one's religion, till it doesnt offend the other religion..now Hinduism says, you need to workship cows..killing it is offensive...now is that not enuf..so the issue is not whether it is offensive or not..it is of understanding..take for example..ur contention of 4 wives(the economic impossibility of it)..now everyone knows, if u murder a person, u will get prison sentence..then why do murders still happen...there are certain things beyond the usual" Dont they know- that is impractical"...Probably India is the only country that claims to be secular and has different civil code for different religion...can u ever think of any other country, where u can have different laws for different religions???..also, the issue "of cannot be taken care" doesn't hold good..there is always a government that takes care of people in India.Seperatin group identity from faith is as utopianas telling everyone in this country should have 1 kg gold from today...impossible for common man...  

_____________________

Hi Krish, thanx for dropping by. I respect your views on secularism. But all of us have our own views on the topic,thats a problem. We don't have any uniform idea of secularism. My contention is that if i am a hindu and am practicing my religious rights why should not a person from another community do what his religion allows him, why should we hinder. death sentence is not the only punishment for killing, you can also life imprisonment, most of the people think when they kill that they can get away. The one's who are powerful and influential do get away.Whom should we blame for the massacre in gujarat?  

_____________________

Rightly said...Though I had commented n ur blog, I hadnt noted down the Url...Thanx for dropping by and as you said, everyone has their own defintion of secualrism..what I despise is, when some so called "Secularists" impose their idealogy on me...U know- when I read history books, I was completely kept in dark regarding certain not-so-pleasant deeds of mughal rulers..when U had the gutts to tell, Akbar's rule was a period of golden age for India, you should also have the gutts to say the Aurangazeb imposed Jiziya Tax particularly on Hindus...Is any one taught about it?? or about the Somanth shiv linga that floated in thin air..due the marvellous magnetic strucure it had and the architecture...that was subsequnetly destroyed by Md.of Ghazani(refer to Vanthaarkal, Vendraaghal of Madhan...here I assume you to be a tamilian.if not Iam sorry for the referrence..that book is a tamil book..)??why is there not even a mention of these things in Indian history books..and there is so many things about Tajmahal, being the tower of Indian architecture..infact Tajmahal has nothing to do with Indian Architecture, it is typical persion and Arabic archtecture....this is akin to appeasement..ain't it???..Even Germany after all that Hitler had done to it, doesnt feel bad to credit him with Autobahn...why we, claiming to be one of the shinning lights of democracy do so...???.
But as you said, this can be debated endlessly..I think its better that we leave certain things as it is and accept that tastes are nad will be changing...once u do that, ur version of history will be as correct as ur opposition...
Again thanx for droppin by and I am adding u in my blog list...  

_____________________

Sorry my assumption is wrong( I checked out ur previous post jus now)!! U r not a tamilian...U r...err... I am not sure...might be a bengali and as you have said, had been brought up in atleast three different states...so, I rest my case..sorry for that assumption and hence for the referrence...  

_____________________

Its ok Krish, Thanks for your opinion. Your are right, I am a Bengali. Well, the talk about tamil literature - you can take the credit fr that as you rightly asserted but then I have read about Aurangzeb along with Akbar and from my limited reading I happen to know of the Jijiya tax as well as the fact that he killed his brothers and imprisoned his father and committed many atrocities. But, if a cite an example from the ancient zamindari system in Bengal, the hindu Bengali zamindars were no better. The class as well religious differences were very much operative when they dealt with their Muslim tenants. Few of the most famous Bengali literateurs have based their stories on the atrocties committed on the non-hindu tenants.However, I am raging any kind of war here. I will agree with you when you say that certain things should be left as it is, as the debate would get endless.I am simply expressing an idea of secularism which I perceive. I believe that if I have two friends from two different communities i shall not question their beliefs till the time it does not convert into fundamentalism.Byways thanks for adding me to your blog list.  

_____________________

Post a Comment