hindutva and secularism

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

From supreme court judgements:

1. Hindu religion bred “willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of view’. (Hindutva Case p1128)
2. “This philosophical approach of understanding, co-existence and tolerance is the very spirit of our ancient thought” (Ibid p 628), adding that ancient Indian thought provided for “developing Sarva Dharma Samabhav or secular thought and outlook” which enlightenment is the true nucleus of what is now known as Hinduism.” (Faruqui Case p629)
3. Hinduism or Hindutva cannot be equated with “narrow fundamentalist religious bigotry” (Hindutva Case 1129), adding: “To view the terms ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ per se as depicting hostility or enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism” is an improper appreciation of the true meaning Hinduism or Hindutva (Hindutva Case 1131).
4. “Hinduism is a tolerant faith. It is that tolerance that has enabled Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism to find shelter and support upon this land.”(Faruqui Case p 658)
5. “Secularism is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.” (Faruqui Case p 629).
6. If the protection of the minorities is the fundamental concern of secularism, the Supreme Court said, “the use of the terms ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ may be to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant” (Hindutva Case p 1132).
7. “the several views set forth in India in regard to vital philosophic concepts are considered to be the branches of the self-same tree” (Hindutva Case p 1128)
8. The Court said: “unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. (Hindutva Case p 1127).

 

[renuka]

From supreme court judgements:

1. Hindu religion bred “willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of view’. (Hindutva Case p1128)
2. “This philosophical approach of understanding, co-existence and tolerance is the very spirit of our ancient thought” (Ibid p 628), adding that ancient Indian thought provided for “developing Sarva Dharma Samabhav or secular thought and outlook” which enlightenment is the true nucleus of what is now known as Hinduism.” (Faruqui Case p629)
3. Hinduism or Hindutva cannot be equated with “narrow fundamentalist religious bigotry” (Hindutva Case 1129), adding: “To view the terms ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ per se as depicting hostility or enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism” is an improper appreciation of the true meaning Hinduism or Hindutva (Hindutva Case 1131).
4. “Hinduism is a tolerant faith. It is that tolerance that has enabled Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism to find shelter and support upon this land.”(Faruqui Case p 658)
5. “Secularism is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.” (Faruqui Case p 629).
6. If the protection of the minorities is the fundamental concern of secularism, the Supreme Court said, “the use of the terms ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ may be to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant” (Hindutva Case p 1132).
7. “the several views set forth in India in regard to vital philosophic concepts are considered to be the branches of the self-same tree” (Hindutva Case p 1128)
8. The Court said: “unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. (Hindutva Case p 1127).

Only Hinduism gives us the freedom to Be or Not to Be.

It's only Hinduism that does not judge anyone and it's only Hinduism that allows us to show the Madhyma Anguli to even society and allows us to choose the path best suited to us.

I guess we should rename the religion and call it Freedom instead of Hinduism.

We are born free,meant to be free and will be free.

It's only we humans that spoil Hinduism by making some mandatory rules and regulations that mimic other religions.

 

[T.S.Sankara Narayanan]

ஹிந்துத்வா என்றால் சிறுபான்மயினருக்கு எதிரானது ...

ஹிந்துத்வா ஆதரவு என்பது சிறுபான்மயினருக்கு எதிராக பயன்படுத்தப்படும் தீவிரவாத சொல்....

ஹிந்து என்ற சொல்லை பயன்படுத்துபவன் பா.ஜ.க மதவாதி ....

பா.ஜ.க சிறுபான்மயினர் விரோத கட்சி ... இவை எல்லாம் காங்கிரஸ் மற்றும் சிறுபான்மயினர் ஓட்டுக்காக தாஜா செய்யும் தேசவிரோத கட்சிகளின் நிலைப்பாடு.

 

[sarang]

Not 'Secularism’ again: Tavleen singh

Some key excerpts from her article in 'the indian express':

"It is a foreign word that evolved in a European context when the powers of the church and the state were separated. In India, since none of our religions were led by pontiffs who controlled armies, or had vast temporal powers, we had no need to make this separation. But, the word secularism is used in India more than almost any other country. Why?"

" political parties of leftist disposition found it convenient to keep the BJP out of power by saying they would only ally with ‘succular phorces’

"Nitish Kumar wants to hurl abuse at the party he is in alliance with in Bihar, or one of its leaders, the ‘secularism’ debate gets revived.

"So how do we explain Rajiv Gandhi? How should we understand why he was given the biggest mandate in Indian parliamentary history after justifying the pogroms that killed thousands more Sikhs in 1984 than Muslims were killed in Gujarat in 2002? Were Indian voters un-secular when they gave him more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha?

" But, there has not been a single major Hindu-Muslim riot since 2002 despite Muslims from next door having been responsible for the worst terrorist attack on Indian soil in 2008. Before 26/11, there were other attacks by Islamists on Hindu temples, commuter trains in Mumbai, stadiums in Hyderabad and bazaars in Delhi. None of these ugly acts of violence caused riots. Our 24-hour news channels have made communal riots impossible and the average Muslim has begun to understand this.

"So let us stop this silly talk of secularism and communalism

"The Indian political landscape today has become a desert in which only the stunted progeny of stunted political leaders bloom. We need our political parties to throw up real leaders and we need a political discourse in which real political problems are discussed. So can we stop fishing ‘secularism’ out of the dustbin of history and holding it up as a shining ideal? Its relevance faded a long time ago."

My addition: Narendra modi said in a tv interview; Even if there is a small eveidence against me, the congress government at the centre would have put me in jail long ago. Since ther is none, they are fighting a proxy war.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/965967/

 

[sarang]

Only Christian faith schools are acceptable: Amartya Sen

Our most secular nobel laureate's golden words. Perhaps he should apply the same yardstick and recommend only hindu faith schools in india.

"LONDON: Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has attacked the Tony Blair government for encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and for allegedly endorsing establishment of faith schools. He also said that faith schools, barring those run by Christians, should be scrapped.Christian schools "are perfectly acceptable" but other faith schools "are a big mistake and should be scrapped if the Government wants to encourage a unifying British identity," Sen said in an interview to Daily Telegraph.

Only Christian faith schools are acceptable: Amartya Sen - Economic Times

 

[guruvayurappan]

Our most secular nobel laureate's golden words. Perhaps he should apply the same yardstick and recommend only hindu faith schools in india.

"LONDON: Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has attacked the Tony Blair government for encouraging a society in which ethnic minorities were defined almost exclusively by their religion and for allegedly endorsing establishment of faith schools. He also said that faith schools, barring those run by Christians, should be scrapped.Christian schools "are perfectly acceptable" but other faith schools "are a big mistake and should be scrapped if the Government wants to encourage a unifying British identity," Sen said in an interview to Daily Telegraph.

Only Christian faith schools are acceptable: Amartya Sen - Economic Times

dear sir !
the advice can be given to people who listen &no use of telling the same to people who act as dumb &deaf
guruvayurappan

 

[prasad1]

There seems to a misconception in this site about the word secularism. Secularism is not a religion at individual level.


Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. ( separation of church and state.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.
In the United States, that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.
In personal life one may be a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc, but does not have to impose it on others.
So please understand that secularism is not against Hinduism. It might very well be against the virulent form of Hindutva.

It is crass misinterpretation of the grand religion Hinduism or sanatan Dharma to the cultist version of RSS called Hindutva.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

There seems to a misconception in this site about the word secularism. Secularism is not a religion at individual level.

I do not think the problem is with the members of this site.

In India, the concept of secular government is being misused to justify differential treatment on the basis of religion. Because such measures are generally against the interest of hindus, who form the majority in this site, arriving at a conclusion that secularism is inimical to hinduism is inevitable.

In India, the abuse is so prevalent that hindus, instead of fighting the abuse, fight the concept itself. It is a conundrum not easy to solve!

 

[prasad1]

I do not think the problem is with the members of this site.

In India, the concept of secular government is being misused to justify differential treatment on the basis of religion. Because such measures are generally against the interest of hindus, who form the majority in this site, arriving at a conclusion that secularism is inimical to hinduism is inevitable.

In India, the abuse is so prevalent that hindus, instead of fighting the abuse, fight the concept itself. It is a conundrum not easy to solve!

I guess now I understand you point.
You said it right, there is abuse of the concept, but the concept is right. There should be separation of religion and the state. So we do not get oppressed by theocracy.

 

[sarang]

Who is secular? And what is secularism?

Since RSS is brought in to bash it, let us get RSS views; I am not an rss member.

No individual can be secular unless he is an atheist or marxist. Secularism, a western import, refers to the separation of state or government from the people; a state can be secular though its people are not. Views of sri mg vaidya of rss is given in quotes. Link to the article is given in the end.

"Article 14 says “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the protection of laws within the territory of India.” The Art. 15 gives the specifies when it declares “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

All ancient indian kings shivaji, ashoka, harsh were all secular in the true sense. See what has happened to pakistan and bangladesh; will anyone call then secular. Only a hindu majority state can be secular.

In europe, secularism emerged because of heavy interference of the church in the affairs of the king. No catholic can become the king of england or president of USA (kennedy?).

"Look at a few examples of the practice of pseudo-secularism that is rampant in our country. The Supreme Court, granted alimony to a Muslim divorcee woman. This was in accordance with the Art. 125 of Indian Penal Code. But the Congress government of Rajiv Gandhi, to appease the orthodox Muslim mind, amended the Constitution to nullify the verdict of the highest court of justice. Is this secularism? Though it is directed by our Constitution to enact a Common Civil Law for all citizens nothing is done in that direction. Can it be called practising secularism? And the recent shameless attempt to give 4.5 per cent reservation to the Muslims from the OBC quota. Should this be lauded as secular statecraft?"

"To vaunt a polity that makes difference between religions as secular and to insult those that propound that no discrimination be made on the basis of religion, calling them communal, is nothing short of intellectual adultery."

http://organiser.org/Encyc/2012/7/1...NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=&PageType=N

 

[sarang]

Britain, historically is a christian country

In today's DNA india:

Called 'Life in the UK Test', the mandatory test will quiz immigrants about history, customs and practicalities in Britain

As part of moves to curb immigration the test is modified adding some new sections on national anthem and history, and scrapping sections on how to claim welfare and merits of human right.

The immigrants will be told that 'historically the uk is a christian country'. In an explicit attack on islamic fundamentalism, the immigrants are told that that there is no place for extremism and intolerance and provides a list of criminal offences that have to be memorized.

Britain's new leaders perhaps echo what enoch powel said in the seventies - exceeding 8% will spell trouble.

 

[guruvayurappan]

There seems to a misconception in this site about the word secularism. Secularism is not a religion at individual level.


Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. ( separation of church and state.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.
In the United States, that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.
In personal life one may be a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc, but does not have to impose it on others.
So please understand that secularism is not against Hinduism. It might very well be against the virulent form of Hindutva.

It is crass misinterpretation of the grand religion Hinduism or sanatan Dharma to the cultist version of RSS called Hindutva.

dear prasad !
Mr. Brahmanian sir clearly explained what is secularism in his post
guruvayurappan

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Dr Radhakrishnan was uncomfortable with the word "secularism". Whatever its meaning in dictionary or statute, the word has acquired a different meaning. The powers that be have used the word against the Hindus slyly and politically. Having been the cradle of many religions it is only Hindus who are accused of non-secularists. Everybody can see "the writing on the wall" but we are foxed at the question "where is the wall?".

 

[prasad1]

dear prasad !
Mr. Brahmanian sir clearly explained what is secularism in his post
guruvayurappan

Could you please point to the post of Mr. Brahmanian?
What I wrote is widely accepted view in the world of the word Secularism.
I understand Mr. Iyya's point that this word has been used to beat up Hindus, but that does not change the meaning of the word in general context.

 

[prasad1]

In the words of Mr. Kuldip Nayar:
"I have no quarrel with those who equate religion with tradition so long as they realise that the Indian tradition does not have the stamp of any particular religion. My difference arises when this tradition is mistaken for Hinduism. Our tradition is that of accommodating different religions and separate faiths. Secularism is a product of that process. It has gone through the crucible of tolerance and understanding. So, secularism is about not mixing religion with the state or politics.


I recall my short stint at London as India's high commissioner. Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister then and the Soviet Union was crumbling. After her return from Moscow, Thatcher met me at a party. I asked her how she found Mikhail Gorbachev, then the boss at Moscow. She said Gorbachev told her that the country was slipping away from his grip and that he could not hold it together. She said she had advised him to go to "your friend" India and see how people there had lived together for centuries despite their different religions, castes, languages and standards of living.


Thatcher then asked me what I attributed this to. It took me sometime to put my thoughts together. I told her that we in India did not think that things were either black or white. We believed there was a fuzzy area of overlap which we went on expanding. That was secularism. And the sense of tolerance and the spirit of accommodation that grew out of it was the glue that held us together."