Prof. Sen also believes that the Indian secular state is based on Emperor Akbar's ideas of secularism. “Emperor Akbar's radical departures in religious tolerance, his line of thinking that religion must not be denied to have a secular state and that tradition must be based on reason…one can imagine how revolutionary these ideas were in the 1590s.”

Prof. Sen concluded by firmly re-affirming his belief on the Indian secular state being based on Emperor Akbar's ideas. “Historians like Ramachandra Guha have issues with this… but this is my firm belief,” he quipped.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/article2722541.ece

From Amartya Sen's book 'The Idea of Justice':

Taking note of the religious diversity of his people, Akbar laid the foundations of secularism and religious neutrality of the state in a variety of ways; the secular constitution that India adopted in 1949, after independence from British rule, has many features already championed by Akbar in the 1590s. The shared elements include interpreting secularism as the requirement that the state be equidistant from different religions and must not treat any religion with special favor. ....

The question of secularism is only one of the great many cases in which Akbar insisted that we should be free to examine whether reason does or does not support any existing custom, or provides justification for ongoing policy; for example, he abolished all special taxes on non-muslims on the ground that they were discriminatory since they did not treat all citizens as equal.

In an earlier post i had said that the Bahamani kings and Vijayanagar kings were secular with respect to the hindu-muslim issue. i would like to revise my opinion. to the best of my knowledge Akbar was the first muslim king in India who abolished jaziya (special tax to be paid by hindus). Bahamani kings, so far as i know, may have included hindus in their army and their ministries and administrative staff but to the best of my knowledge they had not abolished jaziya.

With respect to the Vijayanagar kings, the reason they cannot be considered secular is that they were Vaisnavas and some time after Krishnadeva Raya's death Saivas were actively persecuted by the state. (These Vijayanagar kings had started of being Saivas but had then later switched and become Vaisnavas.)

Rashmun wrote:i would like to revise my opinion.

Good. Now, what do you think of HiMu? Nobody can be more secular than HiMu. He even has a name that has both Hindu and Muslim in it. According to an internet link that I have copy-pasted many times, he is India's first secular king. It looks like Akbar just followed HiMu's policies, after killing HiMu.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i would like to revise my opinion.

Good. Now, what do you think of HiMu? Nobody can be more secular than HiMu. He even has a name that has both Hindu and Muslim in it. According to an internet link that I have copy-pasted many times, he is India's first secular king. It looks like Akbar just followed HiMu's policies, after killing HiMu.

linking modern indian secularism to akbar totally ignores india's colonial history. india's constitution is without a shadow of doubt based on the american and british constitutions. the framers didn't even try to hide that fact. while i haven't read guha's criticism on the subject, i suspect this might have something to do with his misgivings.

guha's instincts about many things are right on. for instance his favorite hindustani instrumentalist is n.rajam. that's excellent taste. on matters of history he probably has superior grasp on issues than sen who is an economist. i'd be interested in what exactly his objections were.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:linking modern indian secularism to akbar totally ignores india's colonial history. india's constitution is without a shadow of doubt based on the american and british constitutions. the framers didn't even try to hide that fact. while i haven't read guha's criticism on the subject, i suspect this might have something to do with his misgivings.

guha's instincts about many things are right on. for instance his favorite hindustani instrumentalist is n.rajam. that's excellent taste. on matters of history he probably has superior grasp on issues than sen who is an economist. i'd be interested in what exactly his objections were.

Guha by training is an environmentalist. in my estimate economists are better trained to write on history and historical issues than environmentalists.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:linking modern indian secularism to akbar totally ignores india's colonial history. india's constitution is without a shadow of doubt based on the american and british constitutions. the framers didn't even try to hide that fact. while i haven't read guha's criticism on the subject, i suspect this might have something to do with his misgivings.

guha's instincts about many things are right on. for instance his favorite hindustani instrumentalist is n.rajam. that's excellent taste. on matters of history he probably has superior grasp on issues than sen who is an economist. i'd be interested in what exactly his objections were.

Calling Akbar secular is as ridiculous as calling Adi Shankara a socialist. The notion of secularism did not exist back in Akbar's day. Akbar treated his Hindu subjects better than previous Muslim rulers of northern India did. But he still endowed religious places and the state was very much involved in religion -- including appointing priests who were supportive of Akbar's relatively moderate religious views. None of that can be called secular.

Religious tolerance and coexistence is not the same as "being secular." Both Rashmun and the writer of the piece on "4 little things that shaped India" misunderstand secularism when they call Akbar and HiMu secular.

there is a peculiar breed of folks (many of them ended up being NCERT history textbook writers) who all seem to hold this view that everything good in indian society sprung from akbar's head. i suspect rashmun has been indoctrinated in central board schools that use these textbooks. the textbook writers all probably studied with amartya sen. yes i agree calling akbar secular is pretty funny.

rushdie makes fun of akbar remorselessly in his book, but even though it is fiction it is probably closer in spirit to how things really were during his time.

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:linking modern indian secularism to akbar totally ignores india's colonial history. india's constitution is without a shadow of doubt based on the american and british constitutions. the framers didn't even try to hide that fact. while i haven't read guha's criticism on the subject, i suspect this might have something to do with his misgivings.

guha's instincts about many things are right on. for instance his favorite hindustani instrumentalist is n.rajam. that's excellent taste. on matters of history he probably has superior grasp on issues than sen who is an economist. i'd be interested in what exactly his objections were.

Calling Akbar secular is as ridiculous as calling Adi Shankara a socialist. The notion of secularism did not exist back in Akbar's day. Akbar treated his Hindu subjects better than previous Muslim rulers of northern India did. But he still endowed religious places and the state was very much involved in religion -- including appointing priests who were supportive of Akbar's relatively moderate religious views. None of that can be called secular.

Religious tolerance and coexistence is not the same as "being secular." Both Rashmun and the writer of the piece on "4 little things that shaped India" misunderstand secularism when they call Akbar and HiMu secular.

Notice the PP Method at work: he attacks me and he attacks the unknown internet writer who claims Hemu was secular but he very carefully desists from attacking Amartya Sen.

This is the Indian version of secularism (i.e. not the western version of secularism familiar to Charvaka) defined by the Indian Supreme Court. It is this version of secularism which Amartya Sen rightly claims had been anticipated by Akbar in the 16th century AD:

Secularism
Supreme Court while adjudicating that a State Government cannot follow particular religion discussed at length the concept of Secularism. The Court held that Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Secularism is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. This attitude is described by some as one of neutrality towards religion or as one of benevolent neutrality. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To the state, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. And if the Constitution requires the State to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties as well. The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing religion and State power. Both must be kept apart. That is the constitutional injunction. None can say otherwise so long as this Constitution governs this country. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State government which pursues nonsecular policies or nonsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356. Given the above position, it is clear that if any party or organization seeks to fight the elections on the basis of a plank which has the proximate effect of eroding the secular philosophy of the Constitution would certainly be guilty of following an unconstitutional course of action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Bommai_vs._Union_of_India#Secularism

Rashmun wrote:This is the Indian version of secularism

Thank you for posting this. Let me draw your attention to what you posted.

The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing religion
and State power. Both must be kept apart. That is the constitutional
injunction. None can say otherwise so long as this Constitution governs
this country.

Rashmun wrote:It is this version of secularism which Amartya Sen rightly claims had been anticipated by Akbar in the 16th century AD

Akbar did not anticipate this, because he actively mixed religion and State power.

Hope that helps.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rushdie makes fun of akbar remorselessly in his book, but even though it is fiction it is probably closer in spirit to how things really were during his time.

Akbar himself was a fairly irreverent fellow. He would have identified more with those (like Rushdie) who mock authority figures than with those (like Rashmun) who blindly hero-worship them. After all, Akbar questioned Mohammad, and tried to better Islam by forming his own religion -- acts of blasphemy and heresy in Islam.

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rushdie makes fun of akbar remorselessly in his book, but even though it is fiction it is probably closer in spirit to how things really were during his time.

Akbar himself was a fairly irreverent fellow. He would have identified more with those (like Rushdie) who mock authority figures than with those (like Rashmun) who blindly hero-worship them. After all, Akbar questioned Mohammad, and tried to better Islam by forming his own religion -- acts of blasphemy and heresy in Islam.

--> is that why he was a great devotee of the sufi saint Shekh Salim Chishti so much so that he asked the Shekh to bless him when he was not having a son and worrying about whether he would ever have heirs? Was this irreverence also the reason why his first son was born in the abode of Shekh Salim Chishti and was named Salim after the Shekh ?

--> is this irreverence also the reason why he would often frequent the dargah of the sufi saint Moin ud din Chishti?

--> it is sad to see you taking pleasure in constantly parading your ignorance to the rest of the world.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:This is the Indian version of secularism

Thank you for posting this. Let me draw your attention to what you posted.

The Constitution does not recognize, it does not permit, mixing religion
and State power. Both must be kept apart. That is the constitutional
injunction. None can say otherwise so long as this Constitution governs
this country.

Rashmun wrote:It is this version of secularism which Amartya Sen rightly claims had been anticipated by Akbar in the 16th century AD

Akbar did not anticipate this, because he actively mixed religion and State power.

Hope that helps.

--> We have now gone past the stage of making the kind of superficial statements you are now making. If you are so confident that Akbar was actively mixing religion and state power why don't you give us some examples?

--> Remember that the comparison must necessarily be with modern India and not with western democracies. In other words, if Akbar was mixing religion and state power as much or as little as the modern Indian state than your argument collapses.

Rashmun wrote:If you are so confident that Akbar was actively mixing religion and state power why don't you give us some examples?

Here are some examples extracted from posts made by the most famous Akbarian scholar of our times:

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/akbar-and-hinduism-130627.htm

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/mughal-emperor-akbar-and-religion-126261.htm

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:If you are so confident that Akbar was actively mixing religion and state power why don't you give us some examples?

Here are some examples extracted from posts made by the most famous Akbarian scholar of our times:

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/akbar-and-hinduism-130627.htm

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/mughal-emperor-akbar-and-religion-126261.htm

Sad to note that you are forced to rely on my posts (written several years ago) to make your points because of your complete ignorance about Akbar.

With respect to the quote you give, it is from Will Durant's 'Our Oriental Heritage'. For mughal rule, i have now come to realize that Durant is not the last word on the issue. (Not Durant's fault--his book was written in around 1942 or so when the only sources available to him were of british colonial historians.) On Akbar, Durant's major source is 'Akbar the Great Moghul' by V.A. Smith but Smith is again not the last word on Akbar as has been pointed out here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4554-will-the-real-akbar-please-stand-up

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:If you are so confident that Akbar was actively mixing religion and state power why don't you give us some examples?

Here are some examples extracted from posts made by the most famous Akbarian scholar of our times:

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/akbar-and-hinduism-130627.htm

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/mughal-emperor-akbar-and-religion-126261.htm

Sad to note that you are forced to rely on my posts (written several years ago) to make your points because of your complete ignorance about Akbar.

With respect to the quote you give, it is from Will Durant's 'Our Oriental Heritage'. For mughal rule, i have now come to realize that Durant is not the last word on the issue. (Not Durant's fault--his book was written in around 1942 or so when the only sources available to him were of british colonial historians.) On Akbar, Durant's major source is 'Akbar the Great Moghul' by V.A. Smith but Smith is again not the last word on Akbar as has been pointed out here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4554-will-the-real-akbar-please-stand-up

The above applies particularly to this quote:
The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

The claim that Akbar had started becoming intolerant of Islam and was banning Islamic customs like the fast of Ramadan and the pilgrimage to Mecca cannot be true in view of the great respect history accords him with respect to religious tolerance and neutrality. This is clear also when we read modern scholars (who are not forced to rely exclusively on british colonial historians for their source material) on the subject. As has been pointed out here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4554-will-the-real-akbar-please-stand-up

Rashmun wrote:For mughal rule, i have now come to realize that Durant is not the last word on the issue.

Here you are, just a few months ago, using Durant to make a point about Akbar: https://such.forumotion.com/t394-reply-to-carvaka-and-huzefa#3213

Rashmun wrote:(Not Durant's fault--his book was written in around 1942 or so when the only sources available to him were of british colonial historians.)

Are you now suggesting Abul Fazl and Badaoni were British colonial historians? This is getting more and more outlandish.

You may quibble about one or two things that you had earlier said Akbar did which make him thoroughly unsecular even by modern Indian standards. But you know as well as anyone who cares about this topic that Akbar did a good number of those things. If you want to stop yourself from drawing conclusions from your own evidence, you are welcome to try.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:For mughal rule, i have now come to realize that Durant is not the last word on the issue.

Here you are, just a few months ago, using Durant to make a point about Akbar: https://such.forumotion.com/t394-reply-to-carvaka-and-huzefa#3213

Rashmun wrote:(Not Durant's fault--his book was written in around 1942 or so when the only sources available to him were of british colonial historians.)

Are you now suggesting Abul Fazl and Badaoni were British colonial historians? This is getting more and more outlandish.

You may quibble about one or two things that you had earlier said Akbar did which make him thoroughly unsecular even by modern Indian standards. But you know as well as anyone who cares about this topic that Akbar did a good number of those things. If you want to stop yourself from drawing conclusions from your own evidence, you are welcome to try.

With respect to the point i made about Akbar using Durant, i said then and i agree now with Durant calling Akbar an 'illiterate scholar' funny though the phrase sounds. The reason is that Akbar did not take an interest in education when he was young. It is said that he was illiterate but there exists a painting on which a childish scrawl is inscribed and a note below of Emperor Jahangir saying that the writing above is of his father (Akbar). Later on, of course, Akbar took a great interest in literature. He had the Ramayana and Mahabharata and also other books like Babur's autobiography read out to him. When his son Murad asked him to recommend any writing on kingship Akbar recommended the Mahabharata to him.

My claim is that Durant cannot be the last word on Akbar because the sources available to him are of colonial british historians like V.A. Smith. Durant did not have the time to go over all the primary sources himself when it comes to the mughals, not even in translation. He relies on secondary sources like V.A. Smith. Smith's views on Akbar have been debunked here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4554-will-the-real-akbar-please-stand-up

Durant's utility is that he can serve as an introduction to the subject. But he is definitely not the last word on Indian history or Indian philosophy.

The reason this is becoming more and more outlandish is because despite your best efforts at promulgating that you are a serious student of history, your complete lack of historical knowledge about the mughals is becoming very clear.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rushdie makes fun of akbar remorselessly in his book, but even though it is fiction it is probably closer in spirit to how things really were during his time.

Akbar himself was a fairly irreverent fellow. He would have identified more with those (like Rushdie) who mock authority figures than with those (like Rashmun) who blindly hero-worship them. After all, Akbar questioned Mohammad, and tried to better Islam by forming his own religion -- acts of blasphemy and heresy in Islam.

--> is that why he was a great devotee of the sufi saint Shekh Salim Chishti so much so that he asked the Shekh to bless him when he was not having a son and worrying about whether he would ever have heirs? Was this irreverence also the reason why his first son was born in the abode of Shekh Salim Chishti and was named Salim after the Shekh ?

--> is this irreverence also the reason why he would often frequent the dargah of the sufi saint Moin ud din Chishti?

--> it is sad to see you taking pleasure in constantly parading your ignorance to the rest of the world.

Forgot to add the following:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:For mughal rule, i have now come to realize that Durant is not the last word on the issue.

Here you are, just a few months ago, using Durant to make a point about Akbar: https://such.forumotion.com/t394-reply-to-carvaka-and-huzefa#3213

Rashmun wrote:(Not Durant's fault--his book was written in around 1942 or so when the only sources available to him were of british colonial historians.)

Are you now suggesting Abul Fazl and Badaoni were British colonial historians? This is getting more and more outlandish.

You may quibble about one or two things that you had earlier said Akbar did which make him thoroughly unsecular even by modern Indian standards. But you know as well as anyone who cares about this topic that Akbar did a good number of those things. If you want to stop yourself from drawing conclusions from your own evidence, you are welcome to try.

Do Abul Fazal or even Badaoni make the following claim which Durant makes (relying on V.A. Smith):

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

Rashmun, discrediting your own sources is a fine way to confuse the argument. But this is not about Durant; it is about Akbar.

Did Akbar do any one of the following? Every one of them is an example of unsecular mixing of religion and state power, even by modern Indian standards.

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

I suggest you recognize that your claim of Akbar being secular has been proven false. Prolonging the pain by discrediting sources you rely on extensively will only add to your long-term misery here.

charvaka wrote:Rashmun, discrediting your own sources is a fine way to confuse the argument. But this is not about Durant; it is about Akbar.

Did Akbar do any one of the following? Every one of them is an example of unsecular mixing of religion and state power, even by modern Indian standards.

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

I suggest you recognize that your claim of Akbar being secular has been proven false. Prolonging the pain by discrediting sources you rely on extensively will only add to your long-term misery here.

I had used Durant's writings on Akbar because i felt there were people on Sulekha who had a mental block about him (and about mughals in general). The reason for this, i felt, was because Akbar was a muslim king ruling in India. I wanted such people to have a more open mind about Akbar and for this purpose i presented them with Durant's writings which i hoped would serve as the best introduction to such people on this topic. I wanted to arouse interest in Akbar in these people so that they would read more about him and become better informed about his policies.

But when i debate Akbar with someone who claims to be a serious student of Indian history, i am not prepared to use Durant as my primary source because i do not consider him the last word on the subject of the mughals.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:Rashmun, discrediting your own sources is a fine way to confuse the argument. But this is not about Durant; it is about Akbar.

Did Akbar do any one of the following? Every one of them is an example of unsecular mixing of religion and state power, even by modern Indian standards.

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

I suggest you recognize that your claim of Akbar being secular has been proven false. Prolonging the pain by discrediting sources you rely on extensively will only add to your long-term misery here.

I had used Durant's writings on Akbar because i felt there were people on Sulekha who had a mental block about him (and about mughals in general). The reason for this, i felt, was because Akbar was a muslim king ruling in India. I wanted such people to have a more open mind about Akbar and for this purpose i presented them with Durant's writings which i hoped would serve as the best introduction to such people on this topic. I wanted to arouse interest in Akbar in these people so that they would read more about him and become better informed about his policies.

But when i debate Akbar with someone who claims to be a serious student of Indian history, i am not prepared to use Durant as my primary source because i do not consider him the last word on the subject of the mughals.

i just checked the sulekha archives and found something interesting: the fact that Durant is not an Indologist, only a generalist (and hence cannot be taken to be the last word on the mughals) is a point i have made 11 years ago.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:linking modern indian secularism to akbar totally ignores india's colonial history. india's constitution is without a shadow of doubt based on the american and british constitutions. the framers didn't even try to hide that fact. while i haven't read guha's criticism on the subject, i suspect this might have something to do with his misgivings.

guha's instincts about many things are right on. for instance his favorite hindustani instrumentalist is n.rajam. that's excellent taste. on matters of history he probably has superior grasp on issues than sen who is an economist. i'd be interested in what exactly his objections were.

Calling Akbar secular is as ridiculous as calling Adi Shankara a socialist. The notion of secularism did not exist back in Akbar's day. Akbar treated his Hindu subjects better than previous Muslim rulers of northern India did. But he still endowed religious places and the state was very much involved in religion -- including appointing priests who were supportive of Akbar's relatively moderate religious views. None of that can be called secular.

Religious tolerance and coexistence is not the same as "being secular." Both Rashmun and the writer of the piece on "4 little things that shaped India" misunderstand secularism when they call Akbar and HiMu secular.

Notice the PP Method at work: he attacks me and he attacks the unknown internet writer who claims Hemu was secular but he very carefully desists from attacking Amartya Sen.

interesting note abt the PP method. I also couldn't but help noticing that a certain rashmun is only quibbling petulantly on minor differences with charvaka but will not refute what maxentropy wrote just above the post he's referring to. wonder who can claim credit for inventing this particular method.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

interesting note abt the PP method. I also couldn't but help noticing that a certain rashmun is only quibbling petulantly on minor differences with charvaka but will not refute what maxentropy wrote just above the post he's referring to. wonder who can claim credit for inventing this particular method.

That be the SU-SU method, mate!

charvaka wrote:Rashmun, discrediting your own sources is a fine way to confuse the argument. But this is not about Durant; it is about Akbar.

Did Akbar do any one of the following? Every one of them is an example of unsecular mixing of religion and state power, even by modern Indian standards.

At the same time, His Majesty [Akbar] ordered Qází Jaláluddín and several 'Ulamás to write a commentary on the Qorán.

Akbar finally decided to promulgate a new religion.

He issued a decree proclaiming himself the infallible head of the church.

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

In the center of the Peace Court at Fathpur-Sikri [the imperial capital] a Temple of United Religion was built.

A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor.

I suggest you recognize that your claim of Akbar being secular has been proven false. Prolonging the pain by discrediting sources you rely on extensively will only add to your long-term misery here.

Now that i have clarified my position on Durant, i am prepared to engage with you on each and every point you raise. before i do that though, is it your contention that Akbar wearing the hindu tilak (or tika) in public was an unsecular act? If a senior government minister or judge or any government servant wears a tilak in public when he goes to work or when he poses in front of the camera for any official (government) publication is that an unsecular thing to do in your opinion. And is it your contention that such a thing never happens in modern India?

An amplification of Amartya Sen's views on secularism:

“The meaning of secularism in South Asia is very different from the West's understanding,” said Indian economist Amartya Sen at an event to commemorate Bangladesh at 40 last week. “In the West, it is understood as a person who is not religious or without religion. So if a state is secular it means it has nothing to do with religion. But in South Asia, if you say a state is secular, it means the state treats all religions equally.”

He spoke of how, earlier in that day, he had attended an event at the Bangla Academy to receive an award. There they opened the ceremony by reading a verse from the Quran, a verse from the Bible, and finally a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. “They treated all three religions equally,” the Nobel Laureate explained. “If there was a westerner at this event, they would not have described this as a secular event.”

Using the example of Akbar the Great, Amartya Sen relayed how the Mughal Emperor's own religious views did not interfere with showing respect for or awarding rights to followers of other religions. Though the tradition of Muslim kings marrying Hindu princesses was not uncommon before Akbar's time, the fact he treated the families of his wives, be they Muslim or Hindu, with equal respect and favour was unique. His administration included numerous Hindu landlords, courtiers and military generals and he granted lands and money for Hindu temples and Christian churches across India.

“Mahatma Gandhi,” Sen also added, “was deeply religious at a personal level but was deeply secular in terms of the state. So South Asia's secularism is synthesis, not just distance.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2012/01/01/perspective.htm

Other opinions on Akbar and his secularism:
-----

Akbar's Secular Governance PRE-DATES Indian Constitution.
Akbar's Proud Secular Legacy PRE-DATES India's Constitution. Yes, that is fact.

The Indian Constitution, which appropriately is a composite borrowing from many modern constitutions, could not exist without Akbar Mughal's 16th century legacy of strategic secular governance.

The Indian Constitution, it is true, offers a modern legalistic framework, BUT Akbar pragmatic idealism which included HUMAN RIGHTS, is more inspiring, as LIVED historical experience, for Aam Koshur, every Indian, every subcontinental.
Akbar's proud, strategic, secular, legacy of subcontinental GOVERNANCE forms the critical basis of Kashmir's unity within India.

1586 not 1947 is the modern starting point of Kashmir's integral unity within India.

2 questions for J&K's elected and unelected 'leaders':

Q. Why rely on the deadly and tragic fallout of colonial Brit divide and rule imperial politics, including the post-Mountbatten-era UN Security Council Resolutions, to limit Kashmir's forward-looking future ? Does anybody seriously think that In-Security Council Resolutions, (even when they are in India's favor), can serve as the guiding framework for Kashmir's integrity and future prosperity?
Learn from the failed UN Security Council Resolutions on Palestine.

Q. Why expect homegrown, postcolonial elites, (which include BOTH Hindutva dominant-caste interest, pseudo-nationalists plus the self-serving alpahabet-soup Hurriyat), to offer constructive solutions when we can take the evidence offered by the secular discursive legacy of Akbar?

My critical reading of subcontinental South Asian political and social history points to the greatest Mughal, Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar, as the pioneering architect of India's modern secular diverse nation-making.

Historians and contemporary politicians, including human rights advocates have failed to fully acknowledge the Mughal master of open-court strategic, philosophical, literary and artistic Navratna discourse.

Akbar and his great grandson Dara Shikoh are the authentic, proven modern architects of Kashmir's unique historical integration within the world's most populous and most diverse democracy.

Aam Koshur can justly share the pride of every indigenous ancestor, every Muslim and Hindu, every Sikh and Rajput, in the governance of the third Mughal.

I write this response today, March 09, 2011, as I leave my University, to meet two dedicated, inspiring representatives of the Youth Parliament (YPP) of Pakistan, a meeting arranged by a dear longterm friend at the OIC.
Such is the complex relationship of blood and kinship that is the unfolding destiny of all South Asians, including of course Aam Koshur of the great State of J&K, India's crown, bestowed by Akbar, in 1586.

Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
City University of New York [CUNY]
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogps...
www.disqus.com/EthicalDemocracy

http://ethicaldemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/03/akbars-secular-governance-pre-dates.html

Rashmun wrote:Now that i have clarified my position on Durant, i am prepared to engage with you on each and every point you raise.

Haha, thanks for changing your strategy.

Rashmun wrote:before i do that though, is it your contention that Akbar wearing the hindu tilak (or tika) in public was an unsecular act?

Why before? I asked you a question first, so answer it before asking me other questions.

In his monumental 'Our Oriental Heritage' (published in 1942) Will Durant writes a book that covers not only the history of India, but also the history of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, Assyria, China, Japan, etc. He covers not only political history but also scientific, philosophical, artistic, and social history. And the first few chapters deal with the formation of civilization. It is a stunningly broad book in its scope and should be read by every student of history.

Never the less, Durant being a generalist and not a specialist, is bound to make mistakes when the arena he has chosen to operate in is so vast, so broad. In fact he admits to this in the introduction to his book. He tells us that not only are there bound to be mistakes in his book, it is natural that serious scholars will deprecate the superficial and shallow treatment of many important subjects.

One of the things Durant writes about Akbar is:

The building of mosques, the fast of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to Mecca, and other Mohammedan customs were banned.

How did this piece of information end up in Durant's work? It ended up by virtue of the fact that V.A. Smith makes this claim in his book 'Akbar the Great Moghul'. Smith wrote his book in 1919 at a time when the colonial mindset in british historians was very dominant.

Never the less, Smith was no amateur historian. He would not have inserted this fact in his book unless he had some evidence for it. So what was the evidence? The evidence consisted of what Jesuit missionaries who visited the court of Akbar on his invitation (and who hoped to convert him to Christianity) wrote in their letters to their friends and superiors. A selection of some of these letters is published in book form and called 'Letters from the Mughal Court'.

Another claim which the jesuit missionaries make which is quoted in Durant's work with the cautionary phrase that perhaps there is some exaggeration in the claim is that many mosques in Akbar's empire had been converted into store houses to store grains and as animal shelters. This quote is actually present in one of the letters in 'Letters from the Mughal Court' but the person who wrote this letter was not St. Francis Xavier to who Durant attributes this quote. In fact, there was no missionary with the name St. Francis Xavier who visited Akbar during the three different times the jesuit missionaries visited Akbar.

When one introduces someone to Akbar, it is ok to quote a passage from Will Durant's 'Our Oriental Heritage' particularly to a person (or people )who suffers from a mental block against all muslims. But it is not permissible to use Will Durant as a primary source in any serious debate on Akbar.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Now that i have clarified my position on Durant, i am prepared to engage with you on each and every point you raise.

Haha, thanks for changing your strategy.

Rashmun wrote:before i do that though, is it your contention that Akbar wearing the hindu tilak (or tika) in public was an unsecular act?

Why before? I asked you a question first, so answer it before asking me other questions.

Your response to the tilak/tika/vibhooti question is important because it would help to clarify one of your earlier posts:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36477

I have already clarified one of the points which you had made. Surely it is your turn to now offer a clarification.

Rashmun wrote:
Your response to the tilak/tika/vibhooti question is important because it would help to clarify one of your earlier posts:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36477

I have already clarified one of the points which you had made. Surely it is your turn to now offer a clarification.

I asked you a question first. Here: https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36525. If you answer it, we can take this conversation forward and clarify other points. If you don't answer it I will just move on from this thread.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Your response to the tilak/tika/vibhooti question is important because it would help to clarify one of your earlier posts:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36477

I have already clarified one of the points which you had made. Surely it is your turn to now offer a clarification.

I asked you a question first. Here: https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36525. If you answer it, we can take this conversation forward and clarify other points. If you don't answer it I will just move on from this thread.

Your question has six points--essentially you are asking me six questions. I have already responded to one of your questions. And since i am in a generous mood i will take the trouble to respond to one other of your questions. But it is absurd on your part to think that i have to respond to six of your questions--some of which require detailed explanations-- before you answer one of mine which would require only a brief response from you. So here is my response to one of your other points:

Will Durant writes: "A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor. "

The words i have underlined were originally underlined by you indicating that this was what you found problematic. My answer is that you have completely misunderstood Durant's point. If official favors were actually being given to Din-i-Ilahi members it would not have been a few thousand but hundreds of thousands who would have joined the new religion. The point is that those who joined did so because they hoped they would get some official favor by doing so according to Durant. But there is no indication, no evidence that anyone who joined the new religion received any material favor from Akbar.

I would add that the Din-i-Ilahi was a kind of a religious experiment to see if political unity could be forged through religious unity. Akbar never forced the new religion on anyone directly through force or indirectly through giving material incentives.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Your response to the tilak/tika/vibhooti question is important because it would help to clarify one of your earlier posts:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36477

I have already clarified one of the points which you had made. Surely it is your turn to now offer a clarification.

I asked you a question first. Here: https://such.forumotion.com/t4551-indian-secular-state-based-on-emperor-akbar-s-ideas-of-secularism-amartya-sen#36525. If you answer it, we can take this conversation forward and clarify other points. If you don't answer it I will just move on from this thread.

Your question has six points--essentially you are asking me six questions. I have already responded to one of your questions. And since i am in a generous mood i will take the trouble to respond to one other of your questions. But it is absurd on your part to think that i have to respond to six of your questions--some of which require detailed explanations-- before you answer one of mine which would require only a brief response from you. So here is my response to one of your other points:

Will Durant writes: "A few thousand rallied to [Akbar's] new cult, largely as a means of securing official favor. "

The words i have underlined were originally underlined by you indicating that this was what you found problematic. My answer is that you have completely misunderstood Durant's point. If official favors were actually being given to Din-i-Ilahi members it would not have been a few thousand but hundreds of thousands who would have joined the new religion. The point is that those who joined did so because they hoped they would get some official favor by doing so according to Durant. But there is no indication, no evidence that anyone who joined the new religion received any material favor from Akbar.

I would add that the Din-i-Ilahi was a kind of a religious experiment to see if political unity could be forged through religious unity. Akbar never forced the new religion on anyone directly through force or indirectly through giving material incentives.

You may prefer to shy away from discussing your views on government servants wearing tika/tilak/vibhooti but this is what you had written on the issue 5 years ago:

carvaka posted Re: [Merlot] Hinduism and the tilak/paan on 5 yrs ago

This is an interesting storm in a teacup... let me add my 2 cents.I think it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at universally applicable rules regarding what is professional and what is unprofessional attire at the workplace. Most people's judgments are on a case-to-case basis taking the circumstances into consideration.

Merlot, I understand you are making two distinct points:

1. The wearing of a tilak is not central to Hinduism; but one party in this case (the tilak-sporting side) is portraying it as a deeply religious issue. Somewhat like the organization in Britain when it came to culling a TB-infected bull (or was it a buffalo?) You have a point there, but I am not sure you are 100% right on this.

2. When a practice that is NOT central to a religion is restricted in a workplace, it is no big deal. I agree with you on this. On the first point: my father is a fairly religious man, but thoroughly moderate in his politics. He used to go to work wearing vibhuti on his forehead most days. I think his vibhuti was very much a religious symbol. Just like the skullcap worn by the Jewish employees of an investment bank I was working for, or the caps that my dad's Muslim colleagues wear to work. (BTW, my grandfather used to go to work at a government office wearing a dhoti -- he would wear a kurta and angavastram of course -- that was par for the course in his day.) You are most likely right that there is no scriptural command to wear a tilak -- but to me religion is more about practice than about doctrine. There may -- or may not be -- scriptural sanction for caste discrimination; but I know that it happens, and I know religion condones / assists such discrimination -- regardless of the any highfalutin verses in a Veda or Upanishad. Similarly, all I know is that my dad thinks his vibhuti has religious significance -- and it does to him. Is it central to his beliefs as a Hindu? No. Does is have religious significance to him? Yes. In my opinion, if displaying a religious symbol does not affect anyone else, then it should be acceptable as part of government office dress code. In the case of the tilak, I am not sure it hurts anyone at all. Except the claim that wearing a tilak gives away the government official's religion to a citizen who walks in -- but the name Mishra does that too! So his tilak does no difference / harm to anyone. As you pointed out somewhere, there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/p-sec-dress-code.htm

----
In the above, you seem to be defending the right of government servants in modern India to wear tilak/tika/vibhooti in their workplace. My question is: is this not an example of a mixing of religion with state power?

Rashmun wrote:An amplification of Amartya Sen's views on secularism:

“The meaning of secularism in South Asia is very different from the West's understanding,” said Indian economist Amartya Sen at an event to commemorate Bangladesh at 40 last week. “In the West, it is understood as a person who is not religious or without religion. So if a state is secular it means it has nothing to do with religion. But in South Asia, if you say a state is secular, it means the state treats all religions equally.”

He spoke of how, earlier in that day, he had attended an event at the Bangla Academy to receive an award. There they opened the ceremony by reading a verse from the Quran, a verse from the Bible, and finally a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. “They treated all three religions equally,” the Nobel Laureate explained. “If there was a westerner at this event, they would not have described this as a secular event.”

Using the example of Akbar the Great, Amartya Sen relayed how the Mughal Emperor's own religious views did not interfere with showing respect for or awarding rights to followers of other religions. Though the tradition of Muslim kings marrying Hindu princesses was not uncommon before Akbar's time, the fact he treated the families of his wives, be they Muslim or Hindu, with equal respect and favour was unique. His administration included numerous Hindu landlords, courtiers and military generals and he granted lands and money for Hindu temples and Christian churches across India.

“Mahatma Gandhi,” Sen also added, “was deeply religious at a personal level but was deeply secular in terms of the state. So South Asia's secularism is synthesis, not just distance.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2012/01/01/perspective.htm

The jesuit missionaries who visited the court of Akbar recorded their experiences in letters to their superiors and friends back in Europe. Some of these have been collected in the book 'Letters from the Mughal Court'. Many of the things the jesuits say could not be true for the simple reason that they are so extreme as to make the claims unbelievable in the absence of any corroboratory evidence to back up their claims. For instance, the claim of one of the jesuits that Akbar had banned the fast of Ramadan in his empire or that he banned the pilgrimage to Mecca or that he converted many mosques to store houses for storing grains and several mosques into animal shelters. The source of these claims seems to be the extreme hostility of the jesuits for islam as is displayed again and again in their letters.


(For a time the jesuits were hopeful of converting Akbar to Christanity. In fact, one of the letters in 'Letters from the Mughal Court' is from the Pope of the time to Akbar urging him to quickly convert to Christianity and not delay the matter. When Akbar showed interest in Christianity and asked to be educated on the subject, the jesuits were elated. Here was the possibility of converting the greatest king of India to Christianity and through him the possibility of converting most of India to the same religion in a top down fashion. But then later when Akbar, despite showing complete respect for Christianity, refuse to convert the jesuits were dejected. )

Never the less, in my opinion, the jesuit memoirs should not be dismissed completely although they certainly need to be scrutinized carefully and subjected to a critical analysis. I would submit that the jesuits were telling the truth when they report the following incident mentioned in 'Letters from the Mughal Court':

when they invited Akbar to a chapel they had built for themselves, he came. He then showed respect to the cross and to jesus by worshipping in the hindu, muslim, and christian fashion one by one.

If we agree with Amartya Sen that in the Indian context, secularism means showing equal respect to all religions one would have to conclude based on the incident involving Akbar which i just narrated that Akbar's demonstration of piety in the hindu, muslim, and christian fashion before the jesuits in their chapel was his way of telling the jesuits (and through the jesuits to posterity) that he was secular in his approach.