THE IDEA OF INDIA & SECULARISM:
I intend to write a longer, research based article on the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi/Disputed Structure conflict & controversy, some time in the not too distant future.
I apologise in advance for the language used in the following sentence, Pardon my language!
However, for those daft, dopey peddler's of horseshit that actually believe THIS was the death of 'The idea of India', I would point ask: Is there any 1 idea of India? Is there 1 definition?
Secularism, is integral to the idea of India, you say?
Define it & explain when we have ever had it in independent India.
We have a different brand of secularism, you say? Yes we do!
A distorted, contrived version of secularism that has nothing to do with that inherently noble idea. Indian secularist's secularism consists of branding others communal while conveniently ignoring their own various communal acts.
The word secular was added to the preamble to our constitution, by that epitome of morality-Indira 'borderline fascist' Gandhi under the Emergency rule in 1976, through the 42nd Amendment. She also added the word socialist!
We have failed to provide secularism but succeeded tremendously at providing socialism of the hardline kind.
Would have been good if the reverse happened!!
Pantha Nirpekshata(Non-Sectarianism) is our brand of secularism.
Also because it was explained as the state treating all religions with equal respect & not preferring one over the other. Is this enough? This is not really Secularism, is it? Definitely not in the classical sense, it's not! Secularism, atleast in the classical sense would refer to an irreligious approach, where there is absolutely(or even largely) NO mixing of the state with religion. The separation of the church & state, religion & government. As mentioned above, we have never had this in India!
To quote Harsh Gupta from a debate @Centre Right India which you can find Here -"A genuinely secular polity should not indulge in any positive or negative discrimination based on any citizen’s religious faith, or lack thereof. The state should not even know or ask the faiths of their citizens – it is not the state’s business, and this just ends up congealing identities. Examples of non-secular policies in India would be religion-based quotas, religion-based tax benefits, religion-based educational autonomy, religion-based diet restrictions and of course more ambiguously religion-based law enforcement. While our state is secular insofar as it has not established itself in service of any religion and people are largely free to follow their religions, nonetheless it does not treat Indians of all religions equally. More worrying is the trend of moral surrender by the Indian state when it comes to dealing directly with individuals, especially with those who happen to be from the minority communities. We have different laws for different communities in education, civil codes, taxes, religious trusts etc (read my earlier article against the government controlling Hindu temples) – these aspects simply cannot be considered secular according to my interpretation ".
Nationalising of temples, is by definition, anti-secularism. The existence of All India Muslim Personal Law Board(AIMPLB) & the All India Shia Personal Law Board(AISPLB) are by definition, anti-secularism. The lack of a common civil code is by definition, Anti-Secularism!! Watch Ex PM AB Vajpayee make this point Here.
Also, the concept of minority in India needs to be examined. Who is a minority?
India officially and unofficially consists of multiple thousand castes, belonging to all different religions. This would lead us to believe that we are all minorities ethnically in India. And looked at from a religious pov, it is still correct to say that we are all minorities in India. India consists of monotheists, monists, dualists, attributive monists, agnostics, atheists, polytheists, henotheists, pantheists & panentheists.
Around the world when welfare schemes are created and implemented for ethnic groups, this is generally done on the basis of historical disadvantage. For example, the Blacks in America were enslaved and hugely exploited. The segregation of certain castes happened in India & these groups get state benefits & are entitled to them. Around the world, when subsidies and entitlements aren't given on the basis of an ethnic or racial identity, they are provided primarily if not exclusively, on economic criteria.
So how does religion come into the issue here? The mixing of religion with politics in even basic welfare schemes, is not secularism. To bind people in perennial identities based on religion, is not secularism.
Differences in the state's attitudes towards the various religions in India as explained by Harsh Gupta in his posts - the links of which are provided above - is a failure at the kind of secularism the Indian state has set out to achieve.
Hence, it is safe to conclude that the Indian state fails at not just classical secularism but also, at it's contrived definition of secularism ie. Giving Equal respect to all religions/sects.
Life is never this simple though!!
Should all religions actually be treated equally? Should the state never interfere in any religious practises? Is there & should there be, absolute religious freedom?
From the point of an individual, or even the State, it is practically impossible to treat every single religion with equal respect. Very much like it is impossible to treat every single verse in any religious scripture with equal respect. If religion were to be compared to sport like Sam Harris does often, it would be easy to understand this idea. Badminton & MMA are significantly different sports. Suffering an injury in combat sport is almost inevitable. Suffering one while playing Badminton or Table Tennis is just, you know, Embarassing!!
Similiarly, Jainism & Islam are completely different religions. It is practically impossible for a Jain to kill, in the name of his/her religion. A fanatic Jain walks looking down at the ground to make sure he/she doesn't trample a bug.
It becomes slightly easier as a Buddhist or a Hindu to kill in the name of religion. It becomes a lot easier as a Muslim.
Beliefs, matter! They always have, they always will! Societal oppression and humiliation, may play a role in creating violent movements. Politics and marginalisation can & does play a role in the same. However, religions & their core beliefs matter! Harris explains this over Here!
Moving on, could it be possible for the state to treat every religion with equal respect?
It is argued, by some that the state can & should indeed, do this.
But since the levels of sophistication differ even within a religion or a life philosophy- and most definitely when compared with other religions- should the state go along with the 'equal respect' idea?
There are some strange religious practises that exist all over the world as they do in India. There exist people who believe in animal sacrifice, there are those who think beating up women & children would relieve them of evil spirits & there are even self-flagellation rituals where minors are forced to do the same by unreasonable adults.
Even though I am largely for individual liberties, I believe there must be a line drawn at coercion of any kind & esp if it comes in the form of a religious practise. The primary role of the government is to protect individuals from coercion of any kind. Religious ideologies and sects that lend themselves to the creation of violent cults or death cults around them, can't be respected. Violent interpretations of certain core religious ideas, can't be tolerated. The Indian Mujahideen is a violent organisation that claims to do what it is doing, in the name of Islam. That violence, is an interpretation of 'Jihad' that they are happy to agree with. They seem to believe they are perfectly Islamic since 'Jihad' is a core Islamic belief. 'Jihad', for muslim intellectuals refers to 'Internal struggle', however critics claim in practise it is 97% of the time violence legitimised by the faith directed at the unbelievers.
There needs to be a sustained, open discussion on the various religious ideologies that exist in India & outside, in the near future by the govt. representatives of secular countries around the world. The french govt actually went ahead & banned the Burqa, which is considered integral to the Islamic faith by some. There are sections of the US of A, where the theory of Biological Evolution is not being allowed to be taught to children in schools since it conflicts with Abrahamic, Adam & Eve Creationism. Can the state afford to be secular here & allow children to be brainwashed by the dogma supporters?
Essentially, it comes down to coercion & particularly, of children. If an idea or aspect of a religion is found guilty of encouraging the enforcement of a set of dogmatic beliefs onto an individual(esp. a child), the state must step in to STOP COERCION !! This is, after all, the primary role of the state.
Even though I believe open discussions and debates on religions, their concepts & their contribution is the primary solution to reduction of dogma associated with them(religions), Military intervention can indeed - & in some cases must- exist on a global level too.
As someone who is largely libertarian, warfare(offence/intervention) is an idea that I generally oppose. Indeed, my default position is anti-warfare. However, I am not bound by any political ideology & have been convinced to take anti-libertarian positions on some issues.
If we were to look at the world as one large, distinct human nation consisting of various different citizens(nation-states), we would find that this is clearly Anarchy!!
The United Nations & global treaties are not taken seriously by a number of states around the world. There isn't any world government that eliminates this anarchy.
Now, picture an abusive man in any 1, republican nation state. Let us say he refuses to allow his wife to work or step out of the home. He feels that women should not be educated & beats up his daughter for wanting to get an education. He thinks music is evil. This is a psychotic individual prone to sudden outbursts of rage who makes open death threats to his immediate neighbours(esp the jewish family in the same neighbourhood) & to people in specific towns/cities in a different state. Imagine if this man in your neighbourhood, who still isn't jailed, wanted firearms & wished to apply for the same. Would/should he be allowed to purchase firearms? Wouldn't state intervention in this situation to protect the liberty of this girl & her mother, the neighbours & eventually the overall well being of humans in the neighbourhood, this town & those in the other threatened cities/towns, be valid? Why not on a global level then? This above mentioned man, on a global level, is the Taliban/Islamists/Arab Nationalists/Fascists! Wouldn't military intervenion wrt the abovementioned groups be valid then?
So, it has to be fair to conclude that the idea of 'each to his own' wrt religion, may not be as wonderful as we would like to think!!
Back to 'the idea of India' then! Hyderabad 1948 riots or the 1984 state-ignored or orchestrated anti-sikh pogrom, the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pundits, political failures leading to the Indo-China war, the totalitarianism of the emergency are not our darkest hours and days? The murder of industry & perpetuation of poverty by communists[which forces poor malayalee labourers to work in hellholes like the gulf, (pronounced gelf) where International labour/migrant workers treaties don't apply, that treat them like caged animals] & to a lesser extent by socialism of the nehruvian kind, the corruption/bullying/license raj that came with it, were not our darkest hours/days/months/years??
I wouldn't mind the setting up of a cagefight b/w the 2 groups of people who believe that - The Babri Masjid's demolition was the death of idea of india & those who supported the demolition. Both groups don't have a clue of what constitutes logically consistent behaviour. Even though I am no Babur fan(No person that has read the Baburnama could be one), the symbolism of the mosque breaking was terrible. Also, it indicates tremendous mental laziness to believe(And scream about any & every given opportunity) that THIS event, was the death of the idea of India.
I Would pay good money to watch this match. Standard MMA rules would apply!!
NATIONALISM:
Nationalism is not an idea set in stone!! There are several interpretations of it. Just like there are different kinds of 'hindus' or muslims.
There is something which needs to be made explicitly clear at the outset. Nationalism is collectivist in nature. Nationalism sacrifices individual liberties for the collective good of the nation ie. in the name of 'national interest'. As someone who is largely(not completely) against Collectivism in all it's forms, I am also largely against the idea of Nationalism. If Nationalism has to exist, it must do so, at a bare minimum level!
An Indian civilisational nationalist would define our nation by our millenia old civilisation. Ours, is a continuing, evolving, civilisation. When I mention the evolution of our civilisation, an example would be the acceptance of the English language as important & almost indispensable for a modern day Indian urban professional. So, these nationalists are not opposed to change. They would believe in a nationalism that goes beyond the 'nation' as such to glorify and celebrate what is inspiring, noble & makes 21'st century sense ie. is intellectually relevant in the 21st century, from our civilisational heritage. This can be done through education, which would help enhance awareness of indigenous history and philosophy. We fail miserably at this right now. A moderate amount of Statism wrt education is not undesirable. This nationalism goes beyond the creation of our nation state in 1947. For this it is important for children to be shown the similiarity that exists among people from different parts of India. Our cultural continuity! Nations can't afford to be ahistorical. We must learn from the past & look to preserve the best from the past. The ignorant, are offended by the idea that we, living in the 21st century could be influenced or learn from ancient bronze age texts.
John Locke, considered the father of classical liberalism, was influenced by Aristotle. Aristotle died in the BC era almost 2000 years before Locke lived. If Locke would have sniffed in disdain & thought of these texts authored by Aristotle as irrelevant & ancient, hence useless, Classical Liberal(And 20th/21st century Liberal) history would have been rather different!!
Language, is a wonderful tool in promoting relevant native culture!
Here I would support even the Nationalists. I am for all Indians speaking atleast one indigenous Indian language. Any one!
English is now, very much an Indian Language. But it didn't originate in India. It will never be an indigenous Indian language. Every Indian citizen should speak at least one indigenous indian language.
Why or why not?
Well, nation states are created for obviously apparent reasons. Can we oppose the idea of a nation-state? Human beings have evolved to live in groups that they identify with. It is merely 'natural selection' as explained by Darwin being illustrated. It is advantageous because co-operation becomes more intense. Humans unconsciously believe that co-operating with other individuals within a group (that one may identify with for a variety of reasons), will create a win-win situation for them. It is in the 'individual of the society's' interest to co-operate with others who claim to represent, even slightly, a similar value system.
Some anarchists might point out that the Individual should be trusted with these choices since he/she is at the centre of the society. This is true at most times. Statism, Socialism, Collectivism and Nationalism are necessary evils & consequently, must be limited to a bare minimum level.
There has to be encouragement for some BASIC agreements based on culture or values in a nation. If a culturally diverse family, with members who speak different languages, live in the same home, they still follow certain basic guidelines on how to live in that home. There has to be some sort of identity concept. It is very difficult for a family to live together if there aren't even some basic cultural similarities that are promoted in a small way.
No nation can survive without a binding identity concept/concepts.
Germany re-uniting kept aside, Yugoslavia's disintegration, is also an example of the absence/presence of a kind of nationalism determining the 'fate' of a nation state. They(The successor states) didn't feel the required kinship & felt insecure about how much help they would get from groups different to theirs within Yugoslavia.
Let's be honest, the states that came from the erstwhile Yugoslavia weren't that different. How different are Bosnia and Croatia or Slovenia and Macedonia? Karnataka and Tamizh Nadu have more differences. Scary thought!
Kashmir, Nagaland, ULFA(United Liberation Front Of Assam), Maoists etc. have or are, separatist forces that want out of the Indian union or want the state to change the rules for them. There is obviously an identity issue. There is no binding identity concept!!
Nationalism, it's importance & existence can be illustrated easily. Do Indians believe in the importance of Indian independence from British Rule? Most, would say yes! Why, I would ask! Why shouldn't we have continued with british rule? Or the Turco-Mongol(mughal) rule?
Because they weren't very good to the natives? Well, then why were these rulers, by & large, so careless & unconcerned about the natives & their well being?
Maybe because both the english & mughals were culturally speaking, aliens in India & our civilisation? They didn't consider themselves culturally or civilisationally, native. They generally, didn't identify in too many ways, with the natives. I use the term 'native' here in a cultural sense. Which leads me back to the importance of some sort of identity concept. What this is, in the Indian context, is another question & an important one which is not answered in this post. But the fact that we are distinct as a civilisation, is obvious!
Do you know what a Kebab is? Sure you do.
Now then, do you know what indirect Blasphemy is? A hara bhara(vegetarian) Kebab! Do you know what direct blasphemy is? Pork, Kebab!!
Look what we did to the Kebab in India! Only Indians could come up with this. There is no doubt that ours is a unique civilisation.
To accept, embrace & promote what is the best, from our past -philosophically, culturally, linguistically- to create national identity concepts, is necessary.
