A specific observation by the Judges is:
Since secularism, according to the court, contained a guarantee that "the State shall treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without, in any manner, interfering with their individual right to religion, faith and worship."
I am quite amazed, and a little puzzled as well, to read the following statement the Pioneer article attributes to the Supreme Court justices:
“It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement, or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other.”Secularism refers to the state not interfering in religious affairs, or, support or be hostile to any religion. In other words, a secular state must stay out of religious affairs. However, a secular state is also obligated to ensure the right of its citizens to practice any religion they want, change (convert) if they so wish, or even reject religion altogether.
Of course, methods that involve use of force, provocation, and incitement must not be permitted. But, attempts to convert, through persuasion, service, and argument, which must necessarily involve showing that one religion is better than another, however flawed that premise may be, cannot be clubbed with the other methods such as use of force the justices are referring to. To note that Supreme Court justices have done this is quite puzzling indeed.
Agreed. But, not all temples had Brahmin priests for ever. In cases where there is dispute, the court has the obligation to be the referee.Acording to this injunction, the time-old sampradAya of propagation of the Vedas by oral tradition, performance of veda yajnas, and conducting pujas in temples by brahmins exclusively, is NOT to be interfered with by the State.
How was the tacit approval established? How many in the other "communities" gave this tacit approval willingly? Did they ever have a voice in this matter, or was it decided by the Brahminical establishment? Finally, what if the tacit approval is withdrawn, say through a referendum?Since as Sangom says, such tradition has the tacit approval of other communities, this tradition that is exclusively managed by brahmins, IMO, SHOULD NOT be delegated to other communities, whatever yogyatAMsham any individual therein might obtain.
One must appreciate Saidevo's honesty here. This is indeed a core principle of Brahminism. This is why the days of Brahminism are numbered. It is difficult to say how it will perish, but perish it will.This is NOT to say that the other communities should not learn or study the Vedas; only that they cannot chant and perform Vedic rituals, which are in the exclusive realm of the brahmins.
If Brahmins see this writing on the wall, they can transition into a system that retains all aspects of their religion except the Varna/Jati system, but that requires some strong and enlightened leadership. Give up on MDS, or Brahminism is a goner!