07-07-2005, 09:37 PM
Secularism: A fraud on the Hindus
By M.S.N. Menon
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HINDU India was tolerant to every faith. Buddhist India was not
different. Is this the tradition of the Semitic faiths? No. Hindu
India kept politics and religion separate. Was this the tradition of
the Semitic faiths? No.
It was the tradition of rajadharma (Politics) to protect all people
irrespective of their faiths. And be impartial in whatever the ruler
did. Thus, Ashoka, the great Buddhist emperor, gave protection to
all his subjects: to the Brahmanas, Sramanas and even the atheists.
It was this impartiality which gave the Indian state its moral
competence. It was from this that its authority flowed. Are these
the traditions of the Semitic faiths? No. Then what is it that
Hinduism has in common with Semitic faiths? Very little.
In Rock Edict XII, Ashoka says (2300 years ago): "A person should
not make an exhibition of reverence of his own sect (religious
group) and condemn another without good reason." On the contrary, he
says, "the other sect should be shown reverence. By so doing, a
person exalts his own sect and does service to another's sect. By
doing otherwise, he does harm to both." This policy came to be known
as sarva dharma samabhava (Equal respect to all religions). Does the
Pope of Rome look upon other religions with `equal respect'? Do the
American Methodists respect Hinduism? Does Islam respect other
religions? The answer is: No, No, No!
Then why was this doctrine of samabhava imposed on the Hindus, when
they needed no Nehru to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at
the bottom to tell them of their ancient traditio to tell them to
tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not
bec to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain
secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at the bottom
to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will to tell them of
their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because to
tell them of their to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because fr the
Wahhabis, major Sunni sects, consider the samabhava of Hindus and
European secularism as the worst evils.
Both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions. To denounce
Hinduism is a daily routine with their missionaries. That is the
traditional way to win converts. The Christians say that Hinduism
represents `demonic forces', while Muslims say it (Hinduism) is
a `false religion'.
So, was it not a deliberate fraud on the part of Nehru to impose
this doctrine of `equal respect for all religions' on the Hindus
alone? Didn't he know that Christianity and Islam, both foreign
religions, are committed to convert India. Even a man of ordinary
intelligence (and he certainly was not so `ordinary') would have
called for a ban on conversion to make his doctrine of samabhava
meaningful. But he did nothing. He was as cussed to the Hindus as he
was when he passed the Hindu Code Bill.
When the American colonies founded the United States, they declared
themselves in favour of secularism. So, when the Mormons (an
obscurantist Christian sect) insisted on retaining their Personal
Laws including polygamy (as the Indian Muslims have been insisting
on) they were told that admission to the Union would depend on their
giving up their Personal Laws.
Was Nehru aware of this episode? Did he have the courage to follow
the American example? Perhaps he was more comfortable with the
adulation of the Muslims.
So, the appeasement went on. The Congress party continued to make
concessions to the minorities for their votes. Nehru had little to
say against minority fundamentalism, but much against Hindu
fundamentalism. This suited the Muslims. But this does not suit the
Hindus. They want this pseudo-secularism of Nehru to be scrapped.
The case against religion is that it is divisive. But by introducing
the Parliamentary system, with unchecked growth of political
parties, the Congress brought in the worst divisive form of
government that one could think of. Race, religion, ethnicity,
caste, language, region-all these became fault lines in the divisive
process. The Indian polity is already highly fragmented. The damage
has been done. Thanks to the Congress Party.
But what is one to make of Nehru, the `visionary', the `builder of
modern India' when he went for the `first-past-the-post' system of
elections? Was this not done in the full knowledge of its
consequences? Of course it was, but it helped the Congress to stay
in power.
Secularism was, therefore, designed to hold the Hindus in duress. In
the event, it kept the fault lines open. To close these fault lines,
the Indian people must go back to nationalism. One simple way is to
insist that the winner in an election must secure 51 per cent of the
votes cast.
In a country of India's diversity, further fragmentation poses great
danger. The time is, therefore, ripe for the reverse process. Only
nationalism, modified to suit our times, can unite our people. Only
nationalism can close the fault lines<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By M.S.N. Menon
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HINDU India was tolerant to every faith. Buddhist India was not
different. Is this the tradition of the Semitic faiths? No. Hindu
India kept politics and religion separate. Was this the tradition of
the Semitic faiths? No.
It was the tradition of rajadharma (Politics) to protect all people
irrespective of their faiths. And be impartial in whatever the ruler
did. Thus, Ashoka, the great Buddhist emperor, gave protection to
all his subjects: to the Brahmanas, Sramanas and even the atheists.
It was this impartiality which gave the Indian state its moral
competence. It was from this that its authority flowed. Are these
the traditions of the Semitic faiths? No. Then what is it that
Hinduism has in common with Semitic faiths? Very little.
In Rock Edict XII, Ashoka says (2300 years ago): "A person should
not make an exhibition of reverence of his own sect (religious
group) and condemn another without good reason." On the contrary, he
says, "the other sect should be shown reverence. By so doing, a
person exalts his own sect and does service to another's sect. By
doing otherwise, he does harm to both." This policy came to be known
as sarva dharma samabhava (Equal respect to all religions). Does the
Pope of Rome look upon other religions with `equal respect'? Do the
American Methodists respect Hinduism? Does Islam respect other
religions? The answer is: No, No, No!
Then why was this doctrine of samabhava imposed on the Hindus, when
they needed no Nehru to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at
the bottom to tell them of their ancient traditio to tell them to
tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not
bec to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain
secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at the bottom
to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will to tell them of
their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because to
tell them of their to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because fr the
Wahhabis, major Sunni sects, consider the samabhava of Hindus and
European secularism as the worst evils.
Both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions. To denounce
Hinduism is a daily routine with their missionaries. That is the
traditional way to win converts. The Christians say that Hinduism
represents `demonic forces', while Muslims say it (Hinduism) is
a `false religion'.
So, was it not a deliberate fraud on the part of Nehru to impose
this doctrine of `equal respect for all religions' on the Hindus
alone? Didn't he know that Christianity and Islam, both foreign
religions, are committed to convert India. Even a man of ordinary
intelligence (and he certainly was not so `ordinary') would have
called for a ban on conversion to make his doctrine of samabhava
meaningful. But he did nothing. He was as cussed to the Hindus as he
was when he passed the Hindu Code Bill.
When the American colonies founded the United States, they declared
themselves in favour of secularism. So, when the Mormons (an
obscurantist Christian sect) insisted on retaining their Personal
Laws including polygamy (as the Indian Muslims have been insisting
on) they were told that admission to the Union would depend on their
giving up their Personal Laws.
Was Nehru aware of this episode? Did he have the courage to follow
the American example? Perhaps he was more comfortable with the
adulation of the Muslims.
So, the appeasement went on. The Congress party continued to make
concessions to the minorities for their votes. Nehru had little to
say against minority fundamentalism, but much against Hindu
fundamentalism. This suited the Muslims. But this does not suit the
Hindus. They want this pseudo-secularism of Nehru to be scrapped.
The case against religion is that it is divisive. But by introducing
the Parliamentary system, with unchecked growth of political
parties, the Congress brought in the worst divisive form of
government that one could think of. Race, religion, ethnicity,
caste, language, region-all these became fault lines in the divisive
process. The Indian polity is already highly fragmented. The damage
has been done. Thanks to the Congress Party.
But what is one to make of Nehru, the `visionary', the `builder of
modern India' when he went for the `first-past-the-post' system of
elections? Was this not done in the full knowledge of its
consequences? Of course it was, but it helped the Congress to stay
in power.
Secularism was, therefore, designed to hold the Hindus in duress. In
the event, it kept the fault lines open. To close these fault lines,
the Indian people must go back to nationalism. One simple way is to
insist that the winner in an election must secure 51 per cent of the
votes cast.
In a country of India's diversity, further fragmentation poses great
danger. The time is, therefore, ripe for the reverse process. Only
nationalism, modified to suit our times, can unite our people. Only
nationalism can close the fault lines<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->