• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hariharan1972

Guest
I picked up this title, written by Mani Shankar Iyer, recently and in the processing of completing the reading.

As the title itself suggests, MSI takes on the 'communal forces' of the country aka VHP, BD, BJP, SS et all, pillorying them for their 'communal agenda' and passionately argues about the supremacy of 'Secularism'.

Noble intentions.

But the execution ?

Alas! this is where MSI disappoints.

In a manner that can be strictly identified as the 'Brahmana Kusumbu' (no 'serious' offence meant), MSI, quite cleverly, calls the parties of other faiths as 'communitarian' while any pro-Hindu party is communal.

Infact he does not even wait for the first page to unleash his BK. Even when he is dedicating the book to the memory of his mother, MSI, does pack a punch by noting that the book is dedicated to his mother who was 'religious AND secular' as if to indicate that his mother was one of the rare specimens among the believers.

Declaring himself as an atheist, MSI, doesnt mind invoking "Inshallah" when hoping against hope. Even i do this, so while it may seem nit-picking, the point i want to drive home is that even in a lighter vein, MSI wants to be very "politically correct".

There are ofcourse many points where i find myself agreeing with his views. His covering of the events that unfolded before the Partition was really eye-opening. I have not, thus far, come across a book where the role of "Hindu rigidity" in the Partition has been explained. I will have to find another book.

I am just about 50 pages away from finishing the book. I must say that MSI has written with amazing felicity and lucidity and the book is nothing short of a racy thriller who like such genre of books.

A recommended read, ofcourse, keep a pinch of salt nearby :)

KRS Sir, hopefully to your absolute delight, MSI devotes an entire chapter defining "Secularism".
 
Dear Sri Hari,

I will try to get this book. Sounds interesting. Currently I am reading Stanley Wolpert's book on partition:Shameful Flight: Last Years of British Empire in India.

I am quite worried over the course some of our fellow Hindus are taking against the evils of so called 'Secularism'. This word is being tarnished and my worry is that it is a very deliberately thought out onslaught to leverage on the unsavoury and wrong policies of the Congress/Communist governments.

If you think through properly, we need to understand that whether we have a Hindu Raj or any Raj, we would require Secular Policies to administer the very large number of minorities, otherwise we court disaster as a nation. Just because some of our unenlightened neighbours do not practice this, does not mean that we too in the guise of promoting our majority values nedd to follow administratively in their foot steps.

The policies of the party that Sri MSI belongs to can never be termed truly as secular, nor are the 'secular' policies promoted by the Communists in India.

We all know why they do it and it produces the shocking scene of the Union Health Minister telling reporters that he was being attacked because he was a member of the 'OBC'! Not to mention the predicament of a brave Bengali writer.

In my opinion, unless the majority of the Hindus understand what a true secularism in the context of India is, we are going down the path of throwing the baby with the bathwater.

Pranams,
KRS
 
I am quite worried over the course some of our fellow Hindus are taking against the evils of so called 'Secularism'. This word is being tarnished and my worry is that it is a very deliberately thought out onslaught to leverage on the unsavoury and wrong policies of the Congress/Communist governments.

If you think through properly, we need to understand that whether we have a Hindu Raj or any Raj, we would require Secular Policies to administer the very large number of minorities, otherwise we court disaster as a nation. Just because some of our unenlightened neighbours do not practice this, does not mean that we too in the guise of promoting our majority values nedd to follow administratively in their foot steps.

The policies of the party that Sri MSI belongs to can never be termed truly as secular, nor are the 'secular' policies promoted by the Communists in India.



Sri KRSji,

You are right on the money that India has to continue to be a 'Secular nation' and there is indeed no parallel between Indian and other nations based on theocracy.

While i don’t see imminent dangers to Secularism on the whole in India, treating the minorities as a vote bank is to be countered, not by the majority but by the minorities themselves.

The UPA and its cohorts’ shameless attempts to woo the minorities is reaching newer nadirs, the latest being the declaration of reward to those madarassas which hoist the national flag on I-day and R-day. Mercifully, the powers that be, recognized that this would isolate the minorities and promptly snubbed the Govt.

Due to the deep ravines of caste, there is a ‘natural hedge’ against majoritarianism in India. That apart, the right thinking persons among Hindus are in abundance, so there is really no cause for despair.

However, the attempts by persons such as MSI to unfairly target Hindus and to deny them even their right to assert themselves politically is surely leading to more ossified views about secularism as a concept.

Thanks for the lead on the book which you are reading. I will try to pick it up once I am done with this book.
 
Is Hinduism intrinsically secular ? Perhaps, it is. While it goes out of the way to document and institutionalize the way an inividual should conduct his life, Hinduism does not prescribe the attitude to be adapted towards followers of other religions.

While some may argue that being the most ancient religion, the hindu religious texts could not take coginzance of existence other religions. It can be seen that the religious practices and traditions followed by Hindus also do not say anything against followers of other religions. We have not heard of hindu equivalents of terms like jehad, pagans, special taxes for non-Hindus etc.

So, if we accept that Hindus are intrinsically secular, then who are the so called 'pseudo secualrs' ?
 
Secularism,Reservation&common man

These are the words that pay highest dividend to the political parties.They dont need to do anything.Because the mandate is to sit in the parliament and prevent communal forces entering in it.Anything spoken,written on them would be appreciated by many,opposed by some but no negative result is guaranteed (only for secular politicians not for Advani).There was a religious problem in Punjab some months back.No one spoke about it. People stalled parliament to ban Godse's drama in Maharashtra.Indira Gandhi's murderers are declared martyrs. Some of the Govts banned Davinci code.Kerala Govt wanted to honour MFH. As far i know, Gandhi had the capability of criticizing Hindu as well as Muslims if they involve in wrong activities. There is none now. Mani could have done something in those occasions. But that will not make him secular.That would make his party out of parliament.Even one Muslim leader who opposed Taslima acknowledged that MF hussain was also wrong in purposefully hurting the sentiments of a section of society.Not that word came from politicians esp the so called secular one.
I hate cowards like MS or Ram much more than I dislike targetted anti brahmin views.The media and people like him can have only views thats convenient for them. I read Gandhi criticizing Christian institution for their bad mouthing Hindu Gods. You cannot see these people reporting or even acknowledging the fact.
May be he is unaware of the feelings and hardships people go through because of Govt's discriminating policies.May be for him its right to give preferences for people educated in Doons school like him to poor guys coming from MMBS(Most most backward schools).
Hope that secularism doesnt depend on people like him.If it is , its in peril.Guys who have alliance with the people who helped the elimination of their leader how will they protect their policies and people??
 
Dear Sri LQ Ji,

I agree that our religion conceived the meaning of 'secular' in modern times. 'Dharma Rajyam' is nothing but a 'secular' concept.

But, a modern government whether it adopts a 'religious' majority values (like in Malaysia for example), or 'secular' values (like in the US), can not discriminate when it comes to safeguarding the 'rights' of minorities to practice their religions peacefully and share in the national pie.

In the US, the 'secular' went too far to 'non-religious' in recent times, but they are now understanding that the majority values are based on religion.

In Malaysia, you know what is happening.

Even if India becomes a Hindu country, there needs to be a truly 'secular' administration. This means one civil code. As you know, today a lot of 'reformist' Hindu values are encoded in the code, while the Muslims opted for a mainly non-reformist code. This is a fundamental flaw in the way secularism is currently envisioned in India. A minority right does not mean a minority privilege. A common code based on modern concepts of individual and human rights have to be adopted. India, by the way, still has the British concepts of Penal code which were designed to control the population. This is an outright absurdity.

So, India today is not secular.

Pranams,
KRS
 
True, India today is not 'secular', it is 'liberal-secular'. By allowing personal religious codes to continue, we have been quite liberal, hoping the minorities to join the mainstream instead of coercing them. The founding fathers showed greater maturity than many politicians and leaders of today. I do not see how enforcing a common code alone can get us salvation.

I suppose the issue of how many wives a person could keep has less to do with religious adherence and more to do with one's socio economic background.

What needs immediate attention is massive influx of resources in beefing up women's education, women and child care, universal and secular primary education , health care for all, participation of women in local self administration etc. and above all, a totally neutral government which treats every one equally (excepting for some positive reservation in favour of the disadvantaged sections).

This will really help in removing various ills of the society and bring greater cohesion among all citizens.

In Arab countries, criminals face some what barbaric punishment like chopping off of limbs, head etc. In China, public execution is still in practice. Compared to these countries, we are quite civilized. The British Penal Code was not exactly designed with the sole objective of keeping the population in check. Infact, it recognises the rights of the accused in a far more elaborate and formal manner than what was in practice in ancient or medieval India where justice was quite often whimsically practiced by the ruler. Infact, concept of independant judiciary was actually unheard off and executive and judiciary were rolled in one.

What finally remains for debate is - whether state can deprive a person of life when it can not give life to anyone ?


Even if India becomes a Hindu country, there needs to be a truly 'secular' administration. This means one civil code. As you know, today a lot of 'reformist' Hindu values are encoded in the code, while the Muslims opted for a mainly non-reformist code. This is a fundamental flaw in the way secularism is currently envisioned in India. A minority right does not mean a minority privilege. A common code based on modern concepts of individual and human rights have to be adopted. India, by the way, still has the British concepts of Penal code which were designed to control the population. This is an outright absurdity.

So, India today is not secular.

Pranams,
KRS
 
thanda neethi

Dear Lotus!

I felt by taking away the "virya" of punishment, we sacrificed the law and order of a country. Which is the back-bone of any country.

The old-method is more effective, being bening to the criminals will only breed criminals. It doesn't help, In the name of civilization aren't we kiliing the law and order. Beings of low moral values will be brought to sub-jugation only by threat.

Isn't this saying - To save a family a head can be sacrificed and so on... logic - an uncivilized saying?

"Thanda Neethi" should live up to its name , if we want to bring some order to the society with large number of populations. In the west with small population, they can afford to be lenient, but with our population we have to instill fear no other way will work.

Do you live in India? If you are , then you should be aware of how daring the robbers are and the general law and order. All new civilization ideas will it work for our country?

My preceptions...


Regards
malgova.mango
 
Dear Mango (Malgova, not Alphonso !),

You may appreciate that the issue comprises of : 1. Identification of the guilty and bringing up the charges in a court of law; & 2. Assigning appropriate punishment to the guilty after following due process of law.

The main problem in our country is in the first stage of identification of the guilty and bringing up the charges. This is where unusual delay occurs and quite often, the investigation is done in such lousy manner (riddled with corruption) that charges fail to stick. Smart defence lawers and incompetent public prosecutors make their valuable contribution. COurts are heavily loaded, vacancies of judges remain unfilled and some one estimated that Indian courts will need another 150 years to clear the backlog of cases. QUite often, undertrials spend decades in the jail and die there without ever being produced before the court.

If some unfortunate accused is fortunate enough to clear the first stage, he spends the specified amount of time in prison which are at the best living hell , infested with rats, cockroaches, bugs, insects, diseses, gloom and despair. The guilty also faces the risk of being blinded (remember Bhagalpur ?) and many other unspeakable atrocities.

Perhaps, according instant justice in arab style might actually be welcomed by the guilty.






Dear Lotus!

I felt by taking away the "virya" of punishment, we sacrificed the law and order of a country. Which is the back-bone of any country.

The old-method is more effective, being bening to the criminals will only breed criminals. It doesn't help, In the name of civilization aren't we kiliing the law and order. Beings of low moral values will be brought to sub-jugation only by threat.

Isn't this saying - To save a family a head can be sacrificed and so on... logic - an uncivilized saying?

"Thanda Neethi" should live up to its name , if we want to bring some order to the society with large number of populations. In the west with small population, they can afford to be lenient, but with our population we have to instill fear no other way will work.

Do you live in India? If you are , then you should be aware of how daring the robbers are and the general law and order. All new civilization ideas will it work for our country?

My preceptions...


Regards
malgova.mango
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Sri Lotus,

Thanks for trouble taken for the reply.

Why don't we check with our Middle east members on whether the guilty one welcome the system?


Regards
malgova.mango
(p.s - Malgova is what I like, if you like the other one keep it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Middle East Members,

Could someone update the effectiveness of Arab system . Here the issue is only law and order. Please don't discuss on any other matters like women,racial and religious discriminations...

I heard things like one can open the store and leave out and nothing gets stolen. Just want to verify these and more if any. Is that all true?

Please chip in with your replies.

Please also I need to know, when the same rule applied to a poor country within the zone , does it work ?

Thanks

regards
malgova.mango
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Sri LQ Ji,

I have interspersed my comments in bluebelow.

True, India today is not 'secular', it is 'liberal-secular'. By allowing personal religious codes to continue, we have been quite liberal, hoping the minorities to join the mainstream instead of coercing them. The founding fathers showed greater maturity than many politicians and leaders of today. I do not see how enforcing a common code alone can get us salvation.

I don't think one can term what our forefathers wanted as 'liberal-secular'. I would term it as 'confused secularism'. Because a large section of the Muslims agreed to stay put in India, we have two civil codes. Because the British mediated between the warring groups among the Hindus, they created the 'Hindu Temple Control Code' which was carried over as 'HRECE' act. Where is the true secularism in this?

'Coercing' of the minorities only happens if one is not building a secular nation. Hindu customs used to dictate marriage in childhood; sometimes polygamy; it dictated Varna; it dictated property rights only to sons. So, were these traditions kept? Why then are we keeping the contradictory traditions to modernity by muslims? We apparently had no problem in 'coercing' the majority, but worried only about the 'minority'? Any minority in any society has to adopt to the majority will ('be a Roman when you are in Rome'). The current woeful state of vote bank politics is the direct result of appeasing all minority wishes.

I suppose the issue of how many wives a person could keep has less to do with religious adherence and more to do with one's socio economic background.

But the issue here is not about any religious sentiments. It is about having the same secular rule for each and every citizen of the motherland. By having different civil codes, one is accentuating the divisions based on religion. Look at Turkey! Modern states should have laws based on modern knowledge based on equality, irrespective of one's religion, sex or ethnicity. Otherwise, I am afraid, like in India, people think that they are first Hindus, or Muslims or Christians, before they think themselves as Indians. This is why a common civil code based on modern values is important. One can not just ask one portion of the society to adopt modernity while in the guise of protecting minority rights, tolerate the stone age practices of that minority.

What needs immediate attention is massive influx of resources in beefing up women's education, women and child care, universal and secular primary education , health care for all, participation of women in local self administration etc. and above all, a totally neutral government which treats every one equally (excepting for some positive reservation in favour of the disadvantaged sections).

Agreed. But the common ground ought to be a modern secular social life for each and evryone in the modern state.

This will really help in removing various ills of the society and bring greater cohesion among all citizens.

Yes.

In Arab countries, criminals face some what barbaric punishment like chopping off of limbs, head etc. In China, public execution is still in practice. Compared to these countries, we are quite civilized. The British Penal Code was not exactly designed with the sole objective of keeping the population in check. Infact, it recognises the rights of the accused in a far more elaborate and formal manner than what was in practice in ancient or medieval India where justice was quite often whimsically practiced by the ruler. Infact, concept of independant judiciary was actually unheard off and executive and judiciary were rolled in one.

I agree that what the British institued was better than those practiced by the unenlightened rulers of the past. But, let us see how it is used today. One is incarcerated and put in jail (deliberately on Fridays, so that they can not get bail till after two days) just beacuse a local judge approves the arrest based on an FIR without any taking in to account the actual circumstance. Please read the Supreme Court verdict on granting bail to HH Shankaracharya of Kanchi Peetam a couple of years ago. I am still a party to a ridiculous law suit lodged by a competitor of mine, when I was a M.D. of my company in India in 1999 - and they are telling me that this would not even come up for hearing for the next ten years! Is this justice. Yes, justice is relative. Comparing ourselves to the Arab countries and China brings me to a joke I have haeard:

When Dwight Eisenhower died, he went to heaven and asked God where Hitler was. To his satisfaction, He told Eisenhower that Hitler was in hell, bur Eisenhower wanted to see Hitler's misery there in hell, just to feel good. So he asked to go to hell to see Hitler and God agreed.

He saw Hitler standing with human excrement filled up to his neck, but smiling. Eisenhower got infuriated seeing him like this, and so asked Hitler why he was smiling.

Hitler replied that his condition could have been worse, as he was standing on the shoulders of Mussolini!

So, this is all relative!

What finally remains for debate is - whether state can deprive a person of life when it can not give life to anyone ?
A personal morality is different from that of an entity representing a group of people. Every society has right to protect it's interest. This is why a person is not allowed to go to war with his neighbour, but a country is allowed to do so to defend itself. It is within the dharma of a country as it is when it has the right to kill it's enemy. The morality of countries are different from the morality of an individual - because a nation's morality is dependent on safeguarding the interests of it's citizenry.

Pranams,
KRS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top