MAJORITY Vs. MINORITY

[pannvalan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

MAJORITY Vs MINORITY​

Protection of minorities and their interests is now doing the rounds amongst the Indian
elites. Let us analyse this topic in minute detail.

1. Usually, when we talk of majority and minority, we take into account only the
majority and minority based on religions.

2. We very conveniently omit linguistic minorities, minority castes and minority groups
and minority professions. Don’t they need protection from the cultural and
psychological onslaught of the majority in their respective realms?

3. In a country like India, in all General elections (State/Central), the average voters’
turnout is only 60%. Even among those who vote, the percentage of votes polled in
favour of the successful contestant is usually in the range of 35 to 45% only. Then
it boils down to the fact that the successful candidate could secure just 27% of the
total population’s mandate. Then he/she is only a representative elected by a minority
of the population!

My question now is, does such successful MLA/MP or Minister or even PM or
President belong to the whole constituency that participated in the election process
or not? In other words, should not they also strive for the interests and welfare
of those who have not voted at all and those who have voted against them (who
constitute the majority say, 70%)?

4. For those who champion for the cause of the minorities, majority bashing has become
a routine affair. This is more so, in the case of religious sphere. The usual argument
heard is “the elder brother should cede and sacrifice more for the younger”. How can
this be always one-sided?

5. If the minorities are pampered, often at the cost of the majority, what role and what
say will the majority have (in matters affecting their interests too)?

6. If the majority is to bear more insults and losses, only to safeguard the minorities,
should the minorities observe stoic silence?

7. Why a section of the majority shall not raise their voice of protest, when they are
subjected to unfair treatment? How long they have to show tolerance?

CONCLUSION

If the minorities must enjoy the same rights and privileges as that of their majority counterparts, then it automatically follows that the majority community must enjoy
the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by the minorities. Is that wrong?

 

[KRS]

Dear pannvalan Ji,

You have opened up a very interesting subject. My views are in 'red'.

MAJORITY Vs MINORITY​

Protection of minorities and their interests is now doing the rounds amongst the Indian
elites. Let us analyse this topic in minute detail.

1. Usually, when we talk of majority and minority, we take into account only the majority and minority based on religions.
I hope you are talking about India. In USA, a minority can be a mormon, a woman, a black, or a homosexual.
inority is defined as a group whose views and life are not in accordance with the majority voew / life style.

2. We very conveniently omit linguistic minorities, minority castes and minority groups and minority professions. Don’t they need protection from the cultural and psychological onslaught of the majority in their respective realms?
Again, if India is doing this, it is wrong in a secular set up.

3. In a country like India, in all General elections (State/Central), the average voters’ turnout is only 60%. Even among those who vote, the percentage of votes polled in favour of the successful contestant is usually in the range of 35 to 45% only. Thenit boils down to the fact that the successful candidate could secure just 27% of the total population’s mandate. Then he/she is only a representative elected by a minority
of the population!

My question now is, does such successful MLA/MP or Minister or even PM or President belong to the whole constituency that participated in the election process or not? In other words, should not they also strive for the interests and welfare of those who have not voted at all and those who have voted against them (who constitute the majority say, 70%)?
People desrve their leaders. If anyone in power do not adhere to the majority view and interests, in theory they will be replaced by the majority vote. In other words those in power in a country with majority can not promote policies detrimental to the non welfare of the majority and get away with it. I think in India this does not happen because people identify themselves with their own caste/community first before putting the nation's overall interest (Hindu interest) first.

4. For those who champion for the cause of the minorities, majority bashing has become a routine affair. This is more so, in the case of religious sphere. The usual argument heard is “the elder brother should cede and sacrifice more for the younger”. How can this be always one-sided?
Again, this is only happening because Hindus are not united. The majority is again various groups of splintered minorities (like the Rajputs in the face of Islamic aggression). The only way to unite is on national / secular grounds not on the religious grounds, because there are multiplicity of views about Hinduism amongst the Hindus, which are reflected even in this small Forum.

5. If the minorities are pampered, often at the cost of the majority, what role and what say will the majority have (in matters affecting their interests too)?
Minority welfare should be safe guarded not at the cost of ignoring the majority interests.

6. If the majority is to bear more insults and losses, only to safeguard the minorities, should the minorities observe stoic silence?
This is where a minority should understand their role. I think that the Muslims in India and some Christians in India have not understood their roles (unlike the Parsis and the Jews for example). They also need to understand they live among a majority culture which is Hindu.

7. Why a section of the majority shall not raise their voice of protest, when they are subjected to unfair treatment? How long they have to show tolerance?
Again, the answer is in your question.

CONCLUSION

If the minorities must enjoy the same rights and privileges as that of their majority counterparts, then it automatically follows that the majority community must enjoy the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by the minorities. Is that wrong?
Not at all wrong! I will go a step further. The majority usually determines the overall culture. The minorities can not object to that culture and live among the majority. Minority freedom and safeguards emanate from the majority granting them. Any long term non acceptance of this fact iusually ends up being detrimental to the lives of the minorities. Unfortunatelt this is a dangerous path to take and I think that the muslims and the christians better start a serious dialog amongst themselves on the meaning of being a minority in a majority culture.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Pts. 1 & 2;

This what our constitution says -

Cultural and Educational Rights
29. (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or
receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.


30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
1[(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational
institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.]
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational
institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

The above is just an illustration to highlight the fact that minorities may be of any kind - whether by religion or language.



Although the intent of the constitution is fair enough, its interpretation is not. For eg., all the temples in TN have been brought under the management of the State purely for the purpose of prohibiting any religious practices that may be followed which may discriminate on the basis of untouchability or caste. The same has not been done for the mosques and churches – is that an unfair practice?

By highlighting the caste system as the biggest crime of all ages, and in the name of practising equality, measures are taken by the State which have created rifts among the so called majority. This has led to so much hatred and mis-understanding of our own people. Divisions in the name of castes, language and culture have gained ground. Blame it on Moghul invasion, the British Raj – but the fact is that it has come to stay. Again, cultural and other native identities are slowly being erased with the missionaries doing their work. We, the “Hindus” are content with reiterating our doctrine of tolerance and care a damn about knowing our culture and heritage. Oh well, there are so many factors which have combined together to bring in this state of affairs.

Point 3:

Yes, what you say is true, but it would be too complicated a process to have a system which guarantees 100% voting by virtue of the process itself. So long as people are divided on various issues, the State has the advantage in choosing the group to please in order to ensure that it reclaims the throne.

Points 4, 5, 6, 7 & conclusion:

Tolerance beyond a certain point is cowardice. Unfortunately, we have practised tolerance long enough so that we have become cowards. While we thrive in discussions, the action is yet to happen. Afraid of being termed “un-secular” or “extremists”.

The answer lies with us and in our actions – are we content to be focussed just on the welfare of our family or do we care for the society as a whole? Soon the so-called majority would be divided into many small groups such that these individual groups become minorities in their own rights. And the important fact would be that nobody would be willing to help the other. Like an onion, we have let ourselves be shrouded with so many layers of perceptions that it conflicts in one way or the other to stay united. Waiting for an external force to lift us from this state is not going to help.



First of all, we need to believe in ourselves and in our way of living – we got to salvage some pride from our culture and heritage. We rush to learn French and German, but nobody is interested in learning Sanskrit. India has become a hub of activity mainly due to the IT era and the outsourcing business. As a result our way of living has considerably changed; seems like nobody has the time to concentrate on our culture. It is easy to dismiss it as a primitive way of living. The few who do believe are self-defeated by the over whelming majority who question it. Brushing aside all differences, we need to unite to have a structured political system.



In an other thread, I have called for the Brahmins to enter the political field; though it was focussed on Brahmins, it necessarily need not be restricted to a particular group. The idea is to have a governing body that is educated and truly practises Raja Dharma.

We need the same involvement we have in cricket in our cultural and political system too...

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Seshadri Subramanian Ji,

You raise some very interesting points. You say:

"Although the intent of the constitution is fair enough, its interpretation is not. For eg., all the temples in TN have been brought under the management of the State purely for the purpose of prohibiting any religious practices that may be followed which may discriminate on the basis of untouchability or caste. The same has not been done for the mosques and churches – is that an unfair practice?"

It is not true that the British willy-nilly took over the administration of the big temples (which the State administrations since then followed), because of 'prohibiting some practices that were followed'. The issue was then as it is now as to how to administer the collective hundis and the assets of some rich temples for the betterment of others. In fact, a commission was formed during the British Raj to discuss this, comprising of eminent Hindus and they could not agree on a formula across the spectrum of Hindu sects. So THEY recommended that the Government divvy up the collections. It was done in the interests of promoting all the sects of Hinduism. This practice was a carry over since independence, mainly because there is not a single Hindu religious bode which can take over the administration. So the government is doing a poor job, mainly because we as Hindus can not agree among ourselves.

You say :
By highlighting the caste system as the biggest crime of all ages, and in the name of practising equality, measures are taken by the State which have created rifts among the so called majority. This has led to so much hatred and mis-understanding of our own people. Divisions in the name of castes, language and culture have gained ground. Blame it on Moghul invasion, the British Raj – but the fact is that it has come to stay. Again, cultural and other native identities are slowly being erased with the missionaries doing their work. We, the “Hindus” are content with reiterating our doctrine of tolerance and care a damn about knowing our culture and heritage. Oh well, there are so many factors which have combined together to bring in this state of affairs.
The Jathi system is evil, and has no connection to the Varna system. It is evil because most of the Hindus agreed to outlaw it. The government is nothing but a group that reflects the value of the folks who elect it. Most of our Hindu brethren (Dalits and Shudhras mainly) have decided that the syatem has to go.

You say:
First of all, we need to believe in ourselves and in our way of living – we got to salvage some pride from our culture and heritage. We rush to learn French and German, but nobody is interested in learning Sanskrit. India has become a hub of activity mainly due to the IT era and the outsourcing business. As a result our way of living has considerably changed; seems like nobody has the time to concentrate on our culture. It is easy to dismiss it as a primitive way of living. The few who do believe are self-defeated by the over whelming majority who question it. Brushing aside all differences, we need to unite to have a structured political system.

Sir, you formulate a wrong hypotheisis and then unfortunately draw the wrong conclusion. Hindu culture is alive and very much kicking. It is even invading other countries. The problem is that your definition of what is our culture and heritage is different from our culture today. Today, Hindus are not the same people who lived in Vedic times, nor are they the same people even just before the Islamic onslaught. We have changed. Our culture has changed. Most of us wear pants, instead of panchakatchams. Is this wrong? My belief is that as our forefathers adopted to the changing times and took up professions and started earning money, which was forbidden to us, so are our brethren trying to adopt and survive in today's times. We are fortunate enough to have a religion that lets us not only survive but prosper in modern times unlike a different religious culture that all of us know.

Let us be grateful that our religion houses all different hues and colors underneath. To argue for a singular approach to our culture would be wrong. We as Tamil Brahmins need to reflect on what so called cultural values we follow today are anachronistic. If we do not, either we will make our children unfit for their society or we would make them throw out even the seminal points of our culture through sheer frustration. The time for dictating from above are over. The time for inculcating the Truths of life as taught by our religion by influence has come.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

"It is not true that the British willy-nilly took over the administration of the big temples (which the State administrations since then followed), because of 'prohibiting some practices that were followed'. The issue was then as it is now as to how to administer the collective hundis and the assets of some rich temples for the betterment of others. In fact, a commission was formed during the British Raj to discuss this, comprising of eminent Hindus and they could not agree on a formula across the spectrum of Hindu sects. So THEY recommended that the Government divvy up the collections. It was done in the interests of promoting all the sects of Hinduism. This practice was a carry over since independence, mainly because there is not a single Hindu religious bode which can take over the administration. So the government is doing a poor job, mainly because we as Hindus can not agree among ourselves."

I am not talking about the British here. The idea of a secular govt linking a govt set-up body to administer a Hindu Religious body’s funds is quite surprising!! Well why does it not do for the other religions…? It is not the in the Govt’s interest to interfere in Religious matters… that is the point. Let the Religious bodies themselves decide as to the administration. It is not the onus of the Govt to selectively bracket a religion in the name of administration. I would not have raised this point if the Govt had started to administer the affairs of all Religions.

Ref: http://www.hrce.tn.nic.in/

The Jathi system is evil, and has no connection to the Varna system. It is evil because most of the Hindus agreed to outlaw it. The government is nothing but a group that reflects the value of the folks who elect it. Most of our Hindu brethren (Dalits and Shudhras mainly) have decided that the syatem has to go.


The Jathi system is not evil; it depends of how it is practised and perceived. Democracy of fools does not make an intelligent wrong.

Sir, you formulate a wrong hypotheisis and then unfortunately draw the wrong conclusion. Hindu culture is alive and very much kicking. It is even invading other countries. The problem is that your definition of what is our culture and heritage is different from our culture today. Today, Hindus are not the same people who lived in Vedic times, nor are they the same people even just before the Islamic onslaught. We have changed. Our culture has changed. Most of us wear pants, instead of panchakatchams. Is this wrong? My belief is that as our forefathers adopted to the changing times and took up professions and started earning money, which was forbidden to us, so are our brethren trying to adopt and survive in today's times. We are fortunate enough to have a religion that lets us not only survive but prosper in modern times unlike a different religious culture that all of us know.

Let us be grateful that our religion houses all different hues and colors underneath. To argue for a singular approach to our culture would be wrong. We as Tamil Brahmins need to reflect on what so called cultural values we follow today are anachronistic. If we do not, either we will make our children unfit for their society or we would make them throw out even the seminal points of our culture through sheer frustration. The time for dictating from above are over. The time for inculcating the Truths of life as taught by our religion by influence has come.


You are talking about relative perceptions here. The atmosphere where you reside may comprise of non-hindus who are interested to know its tenets. I am talking about existing Hindus and my experiences in India, and hence your comparison is incorrect.

A culture exists mainly through language and that is why everybody is so possessive about their language. Thence the importance of sanskrit – whether we live in vedic times or not is immaterial. I am a brahmin in a traditional mode in my house and in a societal mode outside. I still wear panchakachams. Yes, while it is true that we have changed a lot, it does not mean that we throw everything in oblivion. Again relative perceptions.

The idea of what is obsolete can only come only after thorough knowledge and reflection on the same. Simply because we have lost the intent, we conveniently label them as superstitions or irrelevant. What is irrelevant to you may be relevant to me…

Probably your last statements were aimed at hinting the "superior" mentality of the brahmins? To clarify - The "we" I had mentioned was "all Hindus" and not just Brahmins. The point is "unity" and not a singular cultural system.

I am talking about fair governance here Mr KRS.

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[kunjuppu]

sesh,

i may be wrong, but i detect a irreconciliable dichotomy in your post.

on the one hand, you support the jathi system, and on the other hand, you wish to speak for all hindus.

the other hindus, as is increasingly evident all over india, do not appear to have a role for the brahmins. whether it be due to remembered insults of yore or sheer competition for the small economic pie, or any other reason, it can be debated.

but on a pure religious platform, it does not behoove of anyone to claim separation, with instinctive sense of exclusiveness, with the sole claim of being a distinctive group before God.

increasingly it tends to isolate those brahmins, from the rest of mainstream. what it leaves us is bitterness and increasing sense of separation from our other tamil brethren.

i am with krs, re the sooner we throw away the yoke of jathi from our shoulders, we would be in a better position to call for hindu unity from a viewpoint of strength. any other clarion call only resembles somewhat palely the mating call of a bull frog with laryngitis.

thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

The Jathi system is evil, and has no connection to the Varna system. It is evil because most of the Hindus agreed to outlaw it. The government is nothing but a group that reflects the value of the folks who elect it. Most of our Hindu brethren (Dalits and Shudhras mainly) have decided that the syatem has to go.


The Jathi system is not evil; it depends of how it is practised and perceived. Democracy of fools does not make an intelligent wrong.

My one cent:

1) The current political jathi system has to go. We are new jathis (new occupations groups) now. Nobody i know is in old professions anymore. Those that sold corals now manage well known construction businesses and run educational institutions and various mills. Those that sold gemstones now manage big shipping businesses or work in various, usually small, jobs. Those that sold milk, curds, reared sheep and weaved blankets or reared cattle and owned land, work in innumerable forms of various jobs. What does that make them?

2) The jathi system was never evil. How it was perceived and practised varied in diff places and time periods. How to make it relavant in present times is what is the current question or rather i wud say, dilemma.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

kunjuppu,

How does acceptance of the jathi system repair the eligibility to speak for the common good of Hindus?

It is your perception that the jathi elevates an individual as a superior personality which makes him look down on the other... I ask you - is that not applicable in whatever work we do? The accountant thinks himself smart, the lawyer thinks himself to be the rescuer, the businessman thinks himself as the money maker....etc... So, however hard you try to equate mankind, there will exist some kind of distortion so as to make the system look flawed.

Accepting contradictions and co-existing is the key here... you are speaking for brahmins here... why is it that you are concerned for them? The language? The rituals? The traditions? What made you choose to speak for the welfare of the brahmin? Why not for the other?

Society has always thrived in groups and it is an irrefutable fact... you may deny it for all you want, but that is not going to make it disappear... it would appear in one form or the other.

 

[kunjuppu]

sesh,

there is a thoughtful posting by hari in 'do we require..' today.

i recommend you read. it. it capsulizes my views and goes beyond in the 'thinking through' process and is closely related to the swing of this current topic.

i am somewhat busy to give you the full attention span that you deserve. i apologize.

thank you.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri SS Ji,
My response below are in 'red'.

Shri KRS,
I am not talking about the British here. The idea of a secular govt linking a govt set-up body to administer a Hindu Religious body’s funds is quite surprising!! Well why does it not do for the other religions…? It is not the in the Govt’s interest to interfere in Religious matters… that is the point. Let the Religious bodies themselves decide as to the administration. It is not the onus of the Govt to selectively bracket a religion in the name of administration. I would not have raised this point if the Govt had started to administer the affairs of all Religions.

Ref: http://www.hrce.tn.nic.in/

Your point is well taken on the role of a so called 'secular' government. Today, if a Hindu governing body representing all Hindu sects files a case against the government, the HRCE will go away. The problem is such a single organization does not exist. Take the famed Chidambaram temple - the Vishnu part of it is administered by HRCE at the request of the Vaishnavites, where as the Shiva part is administered by the Dikshidhars on the basis of antiquity, which the courts have upheld. So, how does one allocate the collections? This is the basic issue. We Hindus ourselves have asked the Government (be it British or after independence) to take care of our affairs, because we could not acheive the consensus. The government is not involved in other religions, because they have top level administering bodies, without any mixture of denominations in their worship places.
The Jathi system is not evil; it depends of how it is practised and perceived. Democracy of fools does not make an intelligent wrong.
Yes - it is like saying that the hand guns or the nukes by themselves are not evil. The fact is, today, jathis are used for nefarious purposes by politicians to divide and rule, and used by the Jathis themselves to practice clannism. They also promote illogical practices that are against humanity as well as against logic. If you want, I can produce various examples.
You are talking about relative perceptions here. The atmosphere where you reside may comprise of non-hindus who are interested to know its tenets. I am talking about existing Hindus and my experiences in India, and hence your comparison is incorrect.
My perceptions, even though I live in the west are not limited to the west. I travel to India quite often. I don't see Hinduism in retreat. I see some political manipulations of religion and I see some misplaced minority activities. I see new temples everywhere and the old temples filled.

A culture exists mainly through language and that is why everybody is so possessive about their language. Thence the importance of sanskrit – whether we live in vedic times or not is immaterial. I am a brahmin in a traditional mode in my house and in a societal mode outside. I still wear panchakachams.
It is good that you wear your jathi symbol proudly. That is your prerogatives. But what my argument was that if a Brahmin chooses to wear a pair of pants, he is no less a Brahmin than you. Languages are there for a purpose. You can not brow beat people in to learning a language. But I am finding everywhere a revival of interest in Sanskrit though.
Yes, while it is true that we have changed a lot, it does not mean that we throw everything in oblivion. Again relative perceptions.

The idea of what is obsolete can only come only after thorough knowledge and reflection on the same. Simply because we have lost the intent, we conveniently label them as superstitions or irrelevant. What is irrelevant to you may be relevant to me…
Again, people are smarter than you and me. Every culture will retain what is useful to their everyday lives and throw out the useless. Practices that are not supportive of survival are thrown out. This is life. If certain things are relevant to you that I may consider as supertitious or irrelevant to me, I will never tell you not to practice them. I thought you are the one who is questioning the people who may look at it as irrelevant!

Probably your last statements were aimed at hinting the "superior" mentality of the brahmins? To clarify - The "we" I had mentioned was "all Hindus" and not just Brahmins. The point is "unity" and not a singular cultural system.
No, I am talking about ALL Hindus. Unity within Hindus can only come if we start looking at all our fellow hindus as brethren. It will not come by belittling other philosophies, cultural styles, differentiation based on Jathis and moreover without the consensus of the majority of the Hindus who perceive to be at the bottom end of the society. Every Hindu has to think about this.
I am talking about fair governance here Mr KRS.
I understand. But then, who will be the 'Hindu Pope'?

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

As I said elsewhere, a handgun by itself does no evil. It takes a human being to use it for evil purposes.

Like so, the Varna system which degenerated in to the jathi system of today did us Hindus much good for a long time. But in today's industrialized modern society, it serves no purpose as does a hand gun in a civilized society. It is there ready to be used only for evil purposes. I can not think of one active good purpose it serves today, save one and that too not for any active purpose. It is to give people a sense of belonging to a clan and connect them to their past. But the problem is that this same positive aspect acts as a negative influence in making us all feel united as Hindus and more importantly as Indians.

Namaskarams,
KRS

My one cent:

[/color]1) 2) The jathi system was never evil. How it was perceived and practised varied in diff places and time periods. How to make it relavant in present times is what is the current question or rather i wud say, dilemma.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Dear Shri KRS ji

My comments below that of yours:

Your point is well taken on the role of a so called 'secular' government......
denominations in their worship places

Agreed, but the solution does not ipso facto make the current situation right.

Yes - it is like saying that the hand guns or the nukes by themselves are not evil. ...... If you want, I can produce various examples

A hand gun or a nuke may be too hard a word here. For the one who is skilled in the mind, even a blade would do the needful. So it is the usage which is bad and not the object itself. You are only ratifying what I had said earlier, albeit in a different manner.

My perceptions, .........I see some misplaced minority activities. I see new temples everywhere and the old temples filled.

Ok, individual perceptions differ.

It is good that .......I am finding everywhere a revival of interest in Sanskrit though

I am sceptical about this… Maybe am attached to the cultural identity which includes at least language, dressing, rituals and customary traditions. The trousers replaces the panchakacham, the bermuda the dhoti, then the language tekes over…. And slowly, the traces wear off… Good to know that you are finding a revival…

Again, people are smarter ...... you are the one who is questioning the people who may look at it as irrelevant!

Relative perception – no comments.

No, I am talking about ALL Hindus. ....... Every Hindu has to think about this

There is nothing in my post to convey that acknowledging the jathi system belittles the other hindus!!?? If you could please let me know where my post intends such a meaning, I would be glad to clarify.

I understand. But then, who will be the 'Hindu Pope'?

Do we really need one?

 

[s007bala]

>>I understand. But then, who will be the 'Hindu Pope'?

Do we really need one?<<

ROFL,super bit.

sb

 

[AnbeSivam]

The Indian government is a joke when it comes to secularism, it uses some warped definition. Secularism means the seperation of religious institutions and the government - plain and simple. This cannot happen when the government is managing Hundi collections; and this cannot happen when the government is providing subsidy for Hajj (the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca).

The only solution is for the Indian government to transfer this power to a private organisation; a Hundi Collection Organisation (HCO). This HCO should not have any say whatsoever in religious matters because it is obvious that Hindus cannot agree upon any religious issue - whether it is metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, or any other field. The HCO can collect the funds and redistribute them based on certain criteria which will have to be established. Perhaps the only declaration the HCO could make could be with regards to caste and gender discrimination, which are usually found in rural areas afflicted with poverty (and therefore considerable ignorance as well). And, the HCO controlling the Hundi funds, could withhold funds from Koyils not following that basic tenant.

The same thing goes for the Hajj subsidy - this should be transferred to a private institution, a Hajj Subsidy Fund (HSF). The HSF could collect donations and also money provided to Mosques in order to subsidize Hajj pilgrimages for those who are deemed (based on to-be established criteria) to requre the HSF's assistance in order to do the pilgrimage. The HSF should have no religious affiliations whatsoever, it should not distinguish between Muslim castes (Arzal, Aljaf and Ashraf) or sect (Sunni, Shia, Ahmaddiya, Ismaili, Sufi, etc.) or any particular stance.

In this way, the government can maintain its secular integrity and;
a) The administration work required to organize, collect and run these massive government bodies which control Hundi funds and Hajj subsidies can be saved.
b) The administration can gain the trust of the people with regards to being true to secularism. In the eyes of the Muslim, the government no longer seems like an extension of the Hindu Temple. In the eyes of the Hindu, they (the government) are no longer meddling with sacred donations, nor will they be seen as directly funding Hajj subsidies (which some Hindutva extremists have claimed are funded by the Hundi collections) while neglecting Hindu pilgrimages (e.g., to Kasi and Rameswaram). These suspicions will cease and the government can at least claim to adhere to true secularism without lieing.
c) The approximately 2 Kodi (Crore) Rs. spent on Hajj subsidies, and the insane beauracratic costs (aforementioned in point 'a') which will be saved can be directed to schemes which will benefit the country at large - not to the exclusion of any one grouping.

There is no losing in such a situation - insofar as the private institution, which will be far more efficient and effective than the lumbering beauracracy that is the Indian government, is just and recognized. It will benefit Temples; because we all know how the Indian government works. According to a recent article from 'The Economist', an example of India's lumbering beauracracy is seen with regards to food rations - approximately half of the rations provided are taken away by middle-men. Corruption and inefficiency is ubiquitous in the government. Private institutions are at a better position to deal with such nuisances. The same can be said for the Hajj subsidies. This will benefit Hindu temples and Muslim pilgrims.

Perhaps these organizations could later evolve to provide other amenities for their adherents. Perhaps. The problem today is that Hindus do not have any one organization representing them - however, starting at the basic level of economics (via Hundi collection and distribution), will allow a neutral starting point for an organization which may later be able to evolve itself as one that is, in some economic/political/social way, representative of Hindus. (Though this may never happen with regards to metaphysics, epistemology and ethics). Economics has proved in the past to be a point of unity insofar as it is mutually beneficial to all. The European Union started simply as an economic agreement for trade. It may just be a starting point.

 

[KRS]

Some comments.

1. Let us not blame 'secularism' for the conduct of the Indian Governments (both Congress and BJP) in allowing such overt violations of secularism.

2. As for us the 'hundi' collection is concerned, tomorrow if all different Hindu sects unite on this issue and go to the courts all across India, HRCE in different States will disappear. Goverment took over this function from the British Raj because of the corruption that came in to administering some temples and Hindus as a whole could not agree to a private body running the temples. This can be reversed tomorrow if all Hindu sects who lay claim on various temples agree on how to administer the funds equitably.

3. The government also subsidizes the Mansarover Yatra to the tune of about Rs 3250 per devotee. But this pales in comparison to the Rs 280 crores of 'apparent' subsidy to the muslims on Haj. This is mainly vote bank politics, devised by Congress and endorsed by BJP for the same reason. But if you scratch the surface, you will find that the subsidy for traveling by Air India (and Air India alone) and all other ameneties are more than offset by the profit Air India makes in flying to Mecca with full capacity. A few of the Muslim organizations who now understand this Math, are opposed to this subsidy.

But I agree with Sri AnbeSivam Ji on one thing. All religious subsidies must go.

Regards,
KRS

 

[AnbeSivam]

Thiru KRS Ji, I think in essence we agree;

1) I am an advocate of secularism, and an opponent to the INC and BJP who overtly violate it.

2) I understand why the government took over Hundi collections as opposed to a private institution - I just believe that we must start a movement in order to unite the innumerable Hindu sects who own these temples on the sole principle of economics. This will be beneficial for all; the government, the people, etc.

I totally agree with you on the main point - that religious subsidies must go. It is better in the hands of private institution(s).

Regards,
AnbeSivam

 

[tbs]

Thiru KRS Ji, I think in essence we agree;

1) I am an advocate of secularism, and an opponent to the INC and BJP who overtly violate it.

2) I understand why the government took over Hundi collections as opposed to a private institution - I just believe that we must start a movement in order to unite the innumerable Hindu sects who own these temples on the sole principle of economics. This will be beneficial for all; the government, the people, etc.

I totally agree with you on the main point - that religious subsidies must go. It is better in the hands of private institution(s).

Regards,
AnbeSivam

hi all,
1, we need a separation religion from state..
2, proper accountability/ transperency required..
3, equal rules/ common law for hinduism/ christianity/ islam...
4, no vote bank politics at any cost.......
5, collections from hundi for the temple purposes only....may be equally distributed all temples..

regards
tbs

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

The best way would be to have a re-draft of our constitution... but this can be achieved only through an overwhelming majority at the national level...

Hindu-ness cannot be separated from India, for this is the very essence that lives in our spirits... Yes, secularism is fine in so far as the independence to to other religions is given, but where it comes to conversion, and restrictions on hindus, I do not agree...

We have brought this state upon ourselves - if still we are clamouring for majority/minority rights (from the view of religion) from the day of freedom from british slavery, then why the heck did partition happen? We had a bunch of nincompoops at that time who failed to deliver... anyway, I restrict my views here.

Hinduism is India.

 

[happyhindu]

Hinduism is India.

This wud sorta seem unfair to non-hindu indians..for me:
a) conversion out of faith is fine, no vandalizing scriptures, no money inducements.
b) all faiths can certainly live in peace with one another alongside one another just as we do everyday (though in recent times have regrettably become despicable enuf to indulge in counter attacking other religions, but will get outta that mould very soon).
c) as long as religion interefers with state, probs will exist..both are best kept seperate. No special preference is to be shown to any one religion alone.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Dear hh, acknowledging the fact that hinduism is india does not imply that we should be unfair to other religions... apparently i have not explained properly...

Today, to believe in beliefs as a hindu, one is clamped upon as superstitious, unrealistic etc... we live in an age, where the very hindus scorn the ideals of hinduism... but their very same logic is not applied to other religions... to say that we should be neutral if we are secular is a must, but only as far as governance is concerned... interference into religion is not encouraged...

But, on second thoughts, think of any india devoid of hinduism... teeming with churches and mosques.... no temples...

Is it possible...? no, that is why i said that hinduism is india... those who are presently muslims/christians also have a hindu past... they have to acknowledge it...

The ideals that you have laid down would not hold good in reality... a chain is as strong as its weakest link... if some rule could be subverted, then it will be..

So, there should be a special clause which preserves the hindu cultural identity of india...

 

[malgova.mango]

See in the past King hold yagnas and give to the scholars, scholars in turn refined the mind of the public. pancha maha yagyam are conducted in each household, the term pricing for cooked food is unheard and conidered a papa. Food is freely given.thinnais of each house provide shelter to pilgrims..

how all this can be achieved in a secular, democratic setup?

 

[happyhindu]

Lemme explain:

Had previously sought to learn abt other religions, a teacher came home to teach me the quran (asked my parents, they had no qualms) and i learnt for nearly a year...technically, i dunno what religion i belong to...but around 30 got initiated as a Narayana upasaka which again i try to follow diligently but do not really end up doing everything required.....i do pray and devote sometime to self..but that's it...i feel am still seeking something and that small portion is somehow elusive..with growing age, there is an added desperation of not having 'reached it'...

Have listened to wonderful teachers...none of them taught any sectarian attitude, cud never bring myself to dislike any religion (i just happen to become horrible enuf in recent times to use or 'abuse' things as counter stuff, and feel much better when not into such stuff).

Why i say all this? To let you know that am probably able to see things exactly as a Christian or a Muslim living in India would.

It wud be horrible on our part to expect someone living life as a content christian or muslim to be asked to become hindu or acknowledge hindu past. Their ancestors might have been forced into it, but they may be following it as their chosen path. By acknowledging anything, not sure if anyone wud be willing to give up following anything. It is not true that all Christians and Muslims might have had a hindu past. If anything, am only seeing awareness of hindusim grow, there is nobody well-informed today who will consider a hindu as either superstitious or unrealistic or anything negative.

In one of the nayaka writings, there was a mention of how they came to rule a certain part and they had said they wudn't make the same mistake as their previous lords (probably referring to the cholas or local cheiftains or whatever) in being sectarian with displeased folk; and causing loss and poverty with infighting (its an other matter that they too ended up with infighting the same way)...one may always start off with idealism - that we are a fully hindu country...but what later - can infighting for prominence be prevented?

And what would you do if you were a christian or a muslim living in India today? Would you want to treat them the same way they had done in the past, or allow bygones to be bygones and adopt a more practical middle path to keep everyone happy?

MM-ji talks about kings and yagams. Do you think its possible to envisage such a scenario today? Moreover why do we imagine all were good even in the ancient times? Culture followed by one group could well have been challenged by the other before clashing and finally merging. Those sensibilities applied in those times. But now..(???)...Sorry sir, but anyday wud prefer all co-existed and lived in peace. We surely can but just do not wish to try.

 

[malgova.mango]

take my post as a problem to solve, it should be read like in the olden days this was the case... with changing scenario provided by the new structural setups how to address the key issues.

so you all can discuss now...

 

[happyhindu]

MM-ji,

The sands of time shift with time. Rocks turn mud with time.

Those who were brahmins in the previous manvantara are possibly not brahmins now. Those who are brahmins today may not be brahmins in the next era.

Time moves forward. Turning back time is not in our hands.

God is too beautiful to let us go back in time. When time moves forward, it probably means God says "let go".

Regards.

 

[s007bala]

H H ,S S

I do like the slogan Hinduism is India,sounds cliche to me.Anyways,as rightly pointed out by S S,the present Christians,Judaist,Islam are former Hindus who have converted,even in Israel,Nazareth,Mecca,Medina...just read the Bhagavath Gita,revealations at least came to me,dunno what the Lord Has in store for others..

sb