Of Brahmin Belligerence and Emergence of Fascist Fundamentalism
Sid Harth
Secularism or religion-based nationalism?
By Ram Puniyani, Free Press Journal
8 November, 2000
Since the demolition of Babri Masjid the concept of secularism has come
under fire. Usually the debate is restricted to labeling the
secularists as saffron baiters, Hindu haters versus the communal nature
of parties operating in the name of religion. It is also asserted that
secularism is a foreign ideology and our founding fathers did not
incorporate it in the Constitution. Undoubtedly myths around the
concepts of secularism are quite deep rooted in the popular psyche.
To give a bit of historical backdrop secularism as a social phenomenon
emerged with the rise of industrial society. From 17th century
discoveries of science were challenging deeply held beliefs and faiths
which were integral part of the broad canvas of religion. With the
onset of industrialization process, the earlier ideological chains
proved to be an obstacle to the emerging industrial society. It is in
this canvass that one has to understand the loosening hold of clergy
and some religious traditions on the totality of social life. It also
should explain the newly developing social norms around modern
rationality, ideas from science i.e. the beginning of 'age of reason',
in contrast to 'age of faith', the former having its roots in science
and technology and later in the clergy's interpretation of the word of
God, clergy's imposition of ideologies in the name of religion,
clergy's use of emotions of people for smoothening impact of the
exploitative social system of feudalism. One is using the word clergy
in a broad sense and is applicable to all religions in some or the
other way.
Historically this process first occurred in West, where the above
phenomenon manifested itself in the struggle between church and the
state. Church stood for the declining social force of feudal lords,
stood for age of faith, while the emerging 'nation state" (vis-a-vis
kingdom) stood for 'age of reason', for industrialization process based
on science and technology, concretising newer social relations
(industrialists and the workers) in the process. This process assumed
the undisguised role of displacing some aspects of religion and faith
(especially those manufactured by clergy) to the private lives of
people, freeing the social life from the constraints of orthodoxy and
obscurantism towards the emerging realms of modernity.
Secularization process relegates the role of clergy to the background,
while many other components of religion survive in modified form after
the occurrence of process of secularization. If one is to regard
religion as morality, code of conduct to fellow human beings and
ethical values there is no contradiction between secularism and
religion.
As such the word secular has been derived from Latin sacculum, meaning
span of time or age and by implication present age or the world. Thus
the word secular stands for this world or concerned with the affairs of
this world. As such its antonym is 'other worldly' and not religion or
religious. In societies which have undergone secularization (overcoming
the yoke of faith imposed by priestly class in the name of religion),
religion does survive and state does not "oppose peoples faith and
place of religion in personal life and in its place in 'social space'.
In West, secularization process accompanied the industrialization
process and the culmination of this was diminution in the authority of
the Church. Since India was not free, the movement for secularization
was very slow. Secondly since the clergy was scattered, society was
plural and the state was colonial, the secularization process went on
in opposition to the overall rule of the colonial masters who were
ruling in alliance with the landlords, who in turn were the patrons of
priestly class in a broad sense.
The secularisation of society though slow, its political reflection in
the freedom struggle and the National movement was dominantly secular,
though communal, religion based (Muslim and Hindu) nationalisms also
came up in the wake, as a reaction to the growth of secular
nationalism. Initially secularisation process got reflected in
movements of Jotiba Phule and Ramaswamy Naiker. Secular nationalism was
finding expression in the politics of Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
and Nehru, while Muslim communalism found expression in the politics of
Muslim league and Hindu communalism was manifested in Hindu Mahasabha
and RSS. Some of the Hindu nationalists were the part of Indian
National Congress as well. The social base of Muslim communal
nationalism was Muslim jamindars and moneylenders; similarly Hindu
communal nationalism had its base in brahmin, bania (caste level),
Hindu jamindar & moneylenders (at class level). Secular nationalism was
rooted amongst the nascent industrialists, newer professionals and,
vast sections of peasantry and the low castes. It was the aspirations
of these classes, which gave strength to freedom struggle and were
translated in the foundation of Indian state and its constitution.
As seen above India won freedom under the aegis of secular democratic
movement led by Indian National Congress under the leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad. Secularism was the
guiding principle of anti-colonial struggle and it thereby succeeded in
mobilizing vast sections of this plural society.
It was recognized as an essential element of platform for multi-
religious, multi-caste, and multi-ethnic population of the
subcontinent, as an instrument for unity of the people at large. It did
act as a vehicle for transmitting the common aspirations of people
oppressed by colonialism-landlordism into a broad, powerful movement
targeted at achieving independence from the clutches of colonial
masters.After Independence, Constituent Assembly was formed which,
framed the constitution. It was diverse in nature, and represented the
aspirations of majority of population. The constitution thus framed
after prolonged debates made different provisions, which formed the
base of secular practice.
These secular provisions of Indian constitution right from the
beginning are i) State by itself shall not espouse or establish or
practice any religion, ii) Public revenues will not be used to promote
any religion, iii) the state shall have the power to regulate any
economic financial or other secular activity associated with religious
practice (Article 25 (2) (9) of Constitution), iv) every individual
person will have, an equal right to freedom of conscience and religion.
Jawaharlal Nehru explained it thus "What it means is that it is a state
which honours all faiths equally and gives them equal opportunities;
that as a state, it does not allow itself to be attached to one faith
or religion, which then becomes the state religion..... In a country
like India, no real nationalism can be built up except on the basis of
secularity... narrow religious nationalisms are a relic of the past age
and no longer relevant today."
Thus though the constitution makers had not used the word secularism in
the explicit fashion, Indian constitution was standing on the firm
foundations of secular principles. The constituent assembly debates
made it amply clear and secular principles were enshrined in our
constitution. Says Gandhi; " Religion and state will be separate. I
swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair.
The state has nothing to with it. The state will look after your
secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency
and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal
concern".
(Dr. Ram Puniyani is Secretary of EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity)
(Source: Free Press Journal)
http://www.indiaworld.co.in/news/features/feature663.html
Identity, religion and nationalism of minorities
By Ram Puniyani, Free Press Journal
31 October, 2000
We are living in strange times. With every passing day there are new
dictates for the minority community. These fatwas should normally
deserve contempt as they are based on the concepts, which are polar
opposite of the secular democratic ethos of ours'. But unfortunately as
they are coming from the 'patron saint' of the leader of the ruling
coalition, (BJP), K. Sudarshan, they have to be addressed with concern.
Lately after Bangaru Laxman took over the reigns of BJP and gave the
call of ' blood of our blood' to wean over the minorities for electoral
benefits, the supreme boss of Sangh Parivar (K. Sudarshan) true to
their agenda is reminding all and sundry that whatever be the likes of
Bangaru and others proclaim for temporary goals, the RSS goal of
intimidating the minorities, imposing Hindutva concepts on them cannot
be given up in the long run. And keeping that in mind, on the occasion
of 75th years of foundation of RSS at Agra he did come out with his
usual vibes against the minorities.
He 'advised' the minorities that they could not build national identity
on the basis of religion, stating that attempts to build nationality on
the basis of faith had not worked anywhere. Sane words indeed. But
probably they need to be followed by the organization whose chief he
himself is.
RSS right from beginning has made religion as the base for national
identity while a majority of Indians preferred to adopt Indian as the
National identity and based their religious identity on the faith they
practiced. Barring the communalists of Muslim League, who could
mobilize a section of elite Muslims and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS combine who
could spread this vicious ideology amongst a section of elite Hindus,
most of the Hindus, Muslims and people belonging to different
communities followed the politics of Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
This politics rejects the notion that the nations are based on faith.
This politics does not reject religion as one of the identities but
gives primacy to Indian identity with the result that most of the
Indians gave overwhelming response to them and even in the electoral
arena their politics swept the polls and set the tone for the secular
democratic India.
In contrast Muslim League and Hindutva ideologues believed in the two
nation theory, as for them religious communities form the nations.
Muslim League felt that since muslims are a separate nation they should
have Pakistan, while the Hindutva ideologues asserted that since this
is a Hindu nation, people of other religions should remain subordinate
to the Hindus.
Bhai Parmanand a leader of Hindutva politics articulated it, "Jinnah
argues that there are two nations in the country..... If Jinnah is
right & I believe he is, then the Congress theory of building common
nationality falls to ground.
This situation has got two solutions. One is the partition of country
into two & the other is to allow Muslim state to grow within the Hindu
State" (Presidential speech of Paramanand at the annual convention of
Hindu Mahasabha, 1938). Even RSS and its progeny have been repeatedly
asserting about this being a Hindu rashtra, Hindu nation.
They have been using faith as the national identity as the base of
their politics. That belief of theirs' explains so many of their
actions like centrality of Ram temple campaign in their political
mobilization.
That belief of theirs also explains the lack of certain actions like
aloofness from the freedom struggle, which led to the formation of
India, in which the identity of nation does not derive from anybody's
faith. It may surprise many of us but Hindutva ideologues blackened
pages after pages in criticizing the anti-British struggles, they were
critical of the freedom movement on the ground that it is a 'mere' anti-
British movement and it cannot lead to formation of National spirit
(Their national spirit i.e. Hindutva). Though today many of them are
trying to take the credit for RSS participation in freedom struggle in
reality they looked the other way when all our freedom fighters were
rotting in jails or were facing the British bullets and batons on the
streets.
Now as a demonstration of double standards RSS boss is advising the
minorities not to build their national identity around their religion
(which any way most of them don't!), while sticking to the religion
based nationalism: Hindu rashtra for his own followers. In this society
we live with multiple identities at different levels, and each of those
have their own importance and relevance.
While the world is moving towards a global village and even the
identity as world citizens is vaguely visible, the primary identity in
the current times is definitely that of a Nation state i.e. that of
being an Indian in our context. The other identities of religion,
region, gender, language, profession etc. have their own importance and
place.
What Sudarshan needs to learn is that already most of the Hindus,
Muslims, Christians and others, unlike RSS and its progeny do not build
their national identity around religion?These double standards are very
motivated. For their own self, faith is the basis of national identity.
But for minorities different yardsticks are being prescribed.
As recently the same person has also gone on to say that all those
living in this country are Hindus. Also in a similar tone, in the new
found assertion of post Babri demolition phase, the then President of
BJP Murli Manohar Joshi had dictated that, as all of us are citizens of
a Hindu nation, we all should use the suffix Hindu to our religious
identity. As per him Muslims should call themselves as Ahmadiya Hindus
and Christians should call themselves as Christi Hindus. Of course
Hindus need not call themselves as Hindu Hindus. This once again shows
Sangh Parivar aim to ensure the total subjugation of all Indians into
the cultural paradigm dictated by them.
(Dr. Ram Puniyani is Secretary of EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity)
http://www.indiaworld.co.in/news/features/feature692.html
Were Moghuls imperialists?
By Lajpat Rai, Free Press Journal
11 November, 2000
Recently BJP Today, party's organ published an article on Indian
History. It described the ancient period as "golden" the Medieval
(Muslim period) as "dark" and the period when British ruled over us
as "period of resurgence". Earlier when BJP tried to saffronise Indian
history and opposition parties protested against it, RSS organ
Organiser reacted angrily and made fool of itself by saying that for
secularists Indian history did not exist before Mahmood Ghaznavi.
Did it exist? We had wonderful poets and philosophers but no
historians. India did not have the tradition of chronological history
till the coming of Islam. Before that we survived on mythology but we
had no sense of history as we understand it today. Kalhana's Raj
Tirangani about Kashmir is an exception, but that too is not without
mythological moorings.
We had no Thucydides or Plutarch or Polybious or an Ibn-Khaldun. Even
for information on Mauriyan empire we have to depend on Megasthenes. We
know about India also from the writings of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims
like Fa-hein and Hein-Tsang. One of the best books I have read about
the social condition and historical happenings of West and Southern
parts of India was a travelogue by Arab traders of pre-Islamic era. The
book is translated by the late Qazi Athar Mubarkpuri, a columnist of
Urdu daily Inquilab.
It is because of this lack of written history that we do not even know
where exactly Ram was born. Recently someone claimed that Ram was born
not in present Ayodhya where Hindutvavadis want to build Ram temple but
somewhere in Haryana. Even in Ayodhya there is another Ram temple
associated with his birth spot, but Hindutvavadis insist that Ram was
born on the very spot where the Babri Masjid was built.
Now there is written historical evidence that Babar willed that his son
should not do two things if he wanted to rule India: He should not
slaughter cows and should not demolish temples. In view of this it is
difficult to believe that Babar or his general Mir Abdul Baqi committed
the crime of demolishing Ram temple and building a mosque in its place.
Hindutvavadis are not able to provide any historical evidence about
their claim that a temple existed at the Babri Masjid site. They merely
say that it is a matter of "faith" and such no proof is needed. For
them, the court judgement is not important. Faith overrides the facts
of history.
However, history presented by Muslim historians too cannot be said to
be scientific. At best it is chronological and not free from the
influence of kings under whose rule it was written. British historians
too did not present India in proper perspective and divided Indian
history into Hindu and Muslim periods, but did not label their era
as "Christian" period.
It is not British alone who came to India to trade and rule. We have
French and Portuguese too. They were all Christians but they did not
call their period the Christian era. In the same way, Muslims who came
here were Arabs, Turks, Moghuls, Iranians and so on. It is a matter of
coincidence that they happened to be Muslims. It is interesting that
Indians at that time did not address them as Muslims but, instead,
called them by their nationalities. The word "Turk" in Hindi poetry of
the period stands for a quarrelsome, haughty fellow. Muslim rulers
fought more ferociously with one another than they fought with Hindus.
Allaudin Khilji killed over 30,000 Muslim tribesman who conspired
against him.
Though the Organiser had dubbed secularists as followers of Macaulay,
fact is that it is Hindutvavadis and their twins-Jamat-e-Islami
wallahs - who are perpetuators of the Macaulay brand of history. Both
of them hate Akbar and Jamat-e-Islami considers Aurangzeb as its hero.
For both of them, Indian history is a series of conflicts between
Hindus and Muslims and this is far from the truth.
It is this distorted version of history that makes Swami Muktanand of
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) declare that Moghuls (and other Muslim
rulers) were "Imperialists". As both Hindutvavadis and Jamat-e-Islami
never fought the British imperialists, they do not know the meaning of
imperialism. A Hindutvavadi is baffled as to how he can describe Akbar
as great when his hero is Rana Pratap.
For him Akbar is a villain. But he forgets, or is perhaps ignorant of
fact that while Akbar's forces were led by a Hindu Rajput, Mansingh at
the decisive battle of Haldighat, Rana Pratap's general was a Muslim,
Hakim Khan Suri. Rana Pratap had 18,000 Pathan soldiers on his side.
Shivaji's naval force was manned by Muslims and Prithviraj's army
fought the Mahmood of Ghor under the leadership of Husain Shah,
supported by thousands of Muslim soldiers.
Our history is not one of fights between Hindus and Muslims. There was
no "nation" in the modern sense of he term. There were several princely
states, ruled by rajas, nawabs and subedars. For Hindutvavadi "Muslims"
ruled over this country from 711 AD till the fall of the Moghul empire
in the 19th century. The fact is that for the first 600 years, till the
13th century, Muslims ruled merely for 30 years and that too in few
parts of India. Most of India was ruled by Hindu rajas.
And Moghuls were not imperialists as, unlike British, they did not
carry India's wealth out of this country. Instead, they brought outside
wealth into India through trade. They settled down here like the Aryans
and others who came to India from outside and some of them even dreamt
of conquering their ancient lands, like Khurasan, and making them part
of India.
Akbar besides being king, was a trader too. East India Company was
established in 1600 but it could conquer India only in 1787 when it won
the battle of Plassey. Indian traders, mostly Hindus, with their Moghul
companions, were far superior to the British and the balance of trade
was in India's favour.
All this was due to the excellent trade policies followed by Akbar and
Shah Jahan.
Atal Behari Vajpayee intends to build roads from North to South and
East to West, but what he is intending now was accomplished by Sher
Shah Suri during the "dark medieval period" when he built the Grand
Trunk Road that linked Peshawar with Calcutta and paved the way for
India's trade with the Central Asia. The "Imperialist and enslaver of
Hindus" was also the man who laid down the infrastructure of India's
postal system, an essential prerequisite for development of modern
trade and commerce.
http://www.indiaworld.co.in/news/features/feature673.html
The misunderstood RSS
M.V. Kamath, Free Press Journal
3 November, 2000
The Vajpayee Government - or call it the BJP-led government - has been
one year and slightly longer in office and, sadly, the secularist voice
is stilled. Not quite, but substantially. When it came to power there
was talk about "secret agendas", about Fascist tendencies etc, etc.
Now, according to a poll conducted in behalf of the BJP-hating "The
Hindustan Times," at least urban Indians think that Vajpayee's prime
ministership is described as good by 44 per cent and excellent by 25
per cent. Not even Jawaharlal Nehru received that kind of certificate.
But that has not prevented the secular press from remaining in the
`hate Hinduism' mode, except that attack is shifted from the Vajpayee
government to the RSS.
The Statesman (23 oct.), for example attacked the RSS for "suddenly"
seeing Christianity as a threat to the "affirmation of Hindu identity".
It is clear that The Statesman does not have a complete file on the RSS
or The Organiser, or, if it had, its editorial writer has not had
enough time to study the RSS approach toward Christianity. But apart
from that, had not the Pope made two revolting statements dismissing
non-Roman Catholic religions, as irrelevant, the RSS probably would
have let sleeping dogs lie. The provocation came from the Vatican, the
RSS has merely responded to it with dignity. What's wrong with asking
for a Swadeshi Christian Church ? In what way is that an expression of
fascism? The Hindustan Times ran a debate (23 Oct.). One Dominic
Emmanuel who is Director, Communication/Info Bureau of the Catholic
Archdiocese of Delhi condemned the demand saying that "a Swadeshi
Church means a Hindutva Church" - and a more ridiculous point could not
have been raised. Tarun Vijay, editor of Panchjanya, official organ of
the RSS said that "a national Church would profess the faith in an
atmosphere of mutual co-existence and respect" and that it would "not
be a `dollar-seeker' Church but a Church for Bharat and Bharatiya
people" which "even Jesus would not object." There is a queer belief
that if Hindu NRIs can send money to their fellow countrymen in India
there is no reason why Christian bodies abroad should not send monies
to Christian bodies in India - a point made by several newspapers. What
is forgotten is that NRIs are not sending monies to India to encourage
efforts at conversion. If Indian Christians send monies to their fellow
Indian Christians, nobody could possibly object. Hindu NRIs are sending
monies to Hindu organisations to help Hindus.Of all people, M.J.akbar
editor-in-chief of The Asian Age made another silly point. He said he
was an invitee to a grihapravesh ceremony being observed in California
home by Vijaya Mallya; the brahmin priest from a nearby Hindu temple
was the officiating priest and he was apparently dressed as many
brahmin priest would in India. Why was he dressed like an Indian
brahmin priest in the United States when he could be wearing a proper
suit in tune with American culture, Akbar asked. Two points can
immediately be made. In the first place no Hindu pope lays down dress
rules for all brahmin priests to follow everywhere. There is, in the
first place no such thing as a Hindu Pope. Should the California
brahmin priest have worn American dress nobody would have questioned
him. The Ramakrishna Mission sadhus have their own dress style.
Besides, the California priest was attending to an Indian Hindu. Should
there be American or European Christians in India attending a Church
service nobody would insist that the attendant priest adopt "swadeshi"
dress. Akbar is just ridiculous.
All that the RSS chief K.S.Sudarshan had asked was that Christians
should integrate with the culture of the land. Actually that has been
in progress for decades now. Christians are giving their children
Sanskrit (not 'Hindu') names. Many Roman Catholic descendants of
converted Hindus are now even using their ancestral surnames. The Hindu
(17 Oct.) another BJP-hating newspaper has deliberately misunderstood
Sudarshan's plea calling it "distributing aggressiveness". Wrote The
Hindu: "the doggedness with which the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief
K.S.Sudarshan has pursued the "swadeshi church" line that he has
gratuitously and presumptuously proposed to Indian Christians ..... is
another disturbing indication that the Sangh means business in its
aggressive pushing of its fundamentalist Hindutva ideology" The Hindu
obviously does not know the meaning of the word 'fundamentalism".
The RSS is not dictating to Indian Christians. Anything but; it is
merely encouraging a trend that has been going on for a long time, and
which has caused the Vatican to react virulently. There was a Catholic
priest called Anthony D'Mello who was advocating a return to Indian
not 'Hindu' values - such as yoga, meditating in a sitting posture etc.
He had written some excellent books which became very popular.
Frightened that this process may undercut Vatican imperialism, the
Church went to the extent of prescribing his books - books,
incidentally, that had been published by the official Catholic press in
India. He went to New York on some mission and the very next day
he 'died', reportedly of a heart attack. No comments are called for.
What is a 'swadeshi church"? Writing in the Indian Express (24 October)
S. Gurumurthy recommended that everyone concerned read the history of
Christianity in Europe. As he pointed out, "the idea of national
churches independent of Roman Catholic control was the product of the
reformist movement" the Protestant Reform movement and the consequent
birth of nation states in Europe. He said: "The Reformation which began
in 1517 set off a serious erosion in the authority of the Pope who was
originally the Bishop of Rome. The transnational Papacy was a later
evolution". The first national church was established in England in
1533. In Europe there are several Churches in Europe, independent of
the Vatican and are purely nationalistic. To the best of one's
knowledge there has never been RSS shakhas in Europe in the last four
hundred years.
The Observer (17 Oct.) wrote that "Sudarshan is right in debunking the
self-righteous claim of the Catholic Church that their religion is `the
only means of salvation" though it went to say that "the prescription
he laid down from this valid critique - that Christians in this country
should Indianise their churches - is problematic". The paper said
that "the allusions to China and Britain, though historic benchmarks in
themselves, are not very apposite in the Indian context". The BJP-
hating The Asian Age (17 Oct.) said that "all in all Sudarshan has
acted true to type, followed the well laid out line and shown that he
has brought no new thinking or insights into the RSS which remains full
steam ahead on the anti-minority track". the Mumbai morninger tabloid
The Daily wrote: "Sudarshan's call should not be taken as a threat.It
is a sensible suggestion ... as such one is surprised at the hatred
shown to the majority community by the minorities. There is nothing
anti-secular in asking the minorities to look to their roots.. Unity in
diversity can be strengthened if all people of this country,
irrespective of their divergent faiths, look to our soil for
inspiration ... let faiths differ. But we should not forget the culture
and philosophy handed down to us by our forefathers:
Incidentally, every paper has ignored an interview given by
K.S.Sudarshan to Organiser (22 oct.). He was asked: "You have referred
to the need of setting up a swadeshi church in India. What kind of
concept do you propose? He replied: "The demand for a swadeshi or
national church is not a new one. Already an Indian National Church was
established in the sixties and His Eminence Mar Athanasius Joel S.
Williams of Mumbai was its archbishop. He had demanded an immediate end
to the affairs of the foreign-controlled, foreign-financed and foreign-
influenced churches and endowments in India and their entrustment to
India's own indigenous church, the Indian National Church".
It is an extensive interview in which Sudarshan has answered every
question put to him honestly. The trouble with our secular press is
that having decided that the RSS is fascist, it has no time to read and
reflect. Saffron is a dirty word and phrases like "saffronisation" are
recklessly used as words of abuse. It is pathetic. How many people know
that The Times of India brings out a bi-lingual Sandhya Times from
Delhi? Of its 16 tabloid pages, the first twelve starting from front
are in Hindi. The next four pages are in English.
So full of hatred is our secular press toward the RSS that when Dr.R.A.
Mashelkar, CSIR Director General attended the recently concluded RSS
meet in Agra, he came under its attack.
Dr Mashelkar had been asked to speak to the RSS assembly on the subject
of Property Rights and the RSS organisers had honoured him for winning
the country's battle "for haldi, basmati and need patents". Wrote the
BJP-bashing Hindustan Times "His presence at the (RSS) meet has upset a
lot of bureaucrats and scientists in the apex institute". Why don't
they come out and say so publicly? What are they ashamed or afraid of?
--
http://www.indiacyberportal.com/maintain.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.