Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

by charvaka Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:12 pm

[Nehru's and Prasad's] differences came to a head in the spring of 1951 when the president [Rajendra Prasad] was asked to inaugurate the newly restored Somnath temple in Gujarat... When the President of India chose to dignify the temple's consecration with his presence, Nehru was appalled. He wrote to Prasad asking him not to participate... Prasad disregarded the advice and went to Somnath...

The prime minister [Nehru] thought that public officials should never publicly associate with faiths and shrines. The president [Prasad], on the other hand, believed that it should be equally and publicly respectful of all. Although he was a Hindu, said Prasad at Somnath, "I respect all religions and on occasion visit a church, a mosque, a dargah and a gurdwara."

India After Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha, pages 131-132. Emphasis in the original.

This runs counter to the oft-repeated (and copy-pasted) claims that Nehru's secularism was different from what the term usually means. What is now advanced as the "Indian meaning" of secularism (of equal respect for all religions) is Prasad's muddled view, not the view that Nehru took of separating state from religion.

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:16 pm

is it all right for a senior government official to wear a tika or tilak or vibhuti on his forehead while in his office or when posing for a government publication?

i recall one individual who now claims that people holding public office should not associate with any faiths had defended the right of such persons to wear the tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads even when they are on official duty.

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:25 pm

How would you describe their ideas of secularism? Were there differences in perception of the idea of secularism too?

Patel was thoroughly secular, as secular as Nehru was. The difference was that Nehru believed in scientific secularism, that is, he did not give importance or preference to any one particular religion in secularism.

But for Patel the root of secularism lay in Indian traditions, in Bhakti tradition. Just like Kabir, who was also secular, right? Patel never disjointed religion out of secularism. His ideas, idioms, metaphors, and language, were all deeply rooted in the Indian tradition. But both were equally secular.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-interview-with-nehru-patel-agreement-within-differences-author-neerja-singh/20111123.htm

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:13 pm

Rashmun wrote:How would you describe their ideas of secularism? Were there differences in perception of the idea of secularism too?

Patel was thoroughly secular, as secular as Nehru was. The difference was that Nehru believed in scientific secularism, that is, he did not give importance or preference to any one particular religion in secularism.

But for Patel the root of secularism lay in Indian traditions, in Bhakti tradition. Just like Kabir, who was also secular, right? Patel never disjointed religion out of secularism. His ideas, idioms, metaphors, and language, were all deeply rooted in the Indian tradition. But both were equally secular.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-interview-with-nehru-patel-agreement-within-differences-author-neerja-singh/20111123.htm

the underlined words refer to the south asian version of secularism which Amartya Sen talks of. Of course, whether Sardar Patel was secular even in this sense is debatable considering the things Maulana Azad and H.M. Seervai write about him in their books 'India wins Freedom' and 'Partition of India: Legend and Reality'. For example,

According to Maulana Azad, "It would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabhbhai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." [India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, p. 198]...

The Case of a Parsee, Mr. Nariman in Bombay

The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where "the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus." [p. 16] Thus, a Hindu leader was presented, instead of Mr. Nariman.

"Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman's appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal's attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee." [p. 16-17]

Nariman decided to take the case to Gandhiji. But the ploy and cunning of Sardar Patel and his colleagues were such that:

"Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel's communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end." [p. 17]

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/azad/india_wins.htm

by charvaka Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:Of course, whether Sardar Patel was secular even in this sense is debatable considering the things Maulana Azad and H.M. Seervai write about him in their books 'India wins Freedom' and 'Partition of India: Legend and Reality'.

Hahaha. This is the problem with the Rashmun Method. When you just copy-paste without your own comment, and the two things you copy-paste contradict each other, then there is nothing but a war between bolds and underlines and italics.

by charvaka Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:is it all right for a senior government official to wear a tika or tilak or vibhuti on his forehead while in his office or when posing for a government publication?

i recall one individual who now claims that people holding public office should not associate with any faiths had defended the right of such persons to wear the tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads even when they are on official duty.

Sir, are you mistaking me for Nehru? Why do you bestow such high honor on me?

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:59 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Of course, whether Sardar Patel was secular even in this sense is debatable considering the things Maulana Azad and H.M. Seervai write about him in their books 'India wins Freedom' and 'Partition of India: Legend and Reality'.
Hahaha. This is the problem with the Rashmun Method. When you just copy-paste without your own comment, and the two things you copy-paste contradict each other, then there is nothing but a war between bolds and underlines and italics.

The problem with the PP Method is that genuine debate is not permitted since everything in the PP World is in black and white. After all, PP is the ultimate authority on issues which he chooses to debate, according to PP himself, and if someone doesn't accept that then he must be prepared to face a barrage of words seeking to prove the supremacy (many would say idiocy) of the PP Method.

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:is it all right for a senior government official to wear a tika or tilak or vibhuti on his forehead while in his office or when posing for a government publication?

i recall one individual who now claims that people holding public office should not associate with any faiths had defended the right of such persons to wear the tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads even when they are on official duty.
Sir, are you mistaking me for Nehru? Why do you bestow such high honor on me?

i am only pointing out that the infallibility and flexibility of the PP Method. Proponents of the PP Method can start screaming about the western model of secularism on the one hand, and on the other hand they can also scream that government officials should have the freedom to wear religious symbols like tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads.

by Guest Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:52 pm

Nehru and secularism

Initially, Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to believe that secularism meant indifference to religion. Soon, he realized this model might not work for India and defined secularism as equal protection to all religions by the state. The state would provide equal respect to all faiths. The key thing was being even-handed

The Somnath episode

An early challenge to secularism involved reconstruction of Gujarat's Somnath temple Sardar Patel, as dy PM, pledged Centre would rebuild the temple The Cabinet, presided over by Nehru, decided to rebuild it at govt cost Gandhi told Patel money should be collected from the people for this President Rajendra Prasad installed the deity on May 11, 1951

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Flash-back/articleshow/11151233.cms

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:38 am

Rashmun wrote:Nehru and secularism

Initially, Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to believe that secularism meant indifference to religion. Soon, he realized this model might not work for India and defined secularism as equal protection to all religions by the state. The state would provide equal respect to all faiths. The key thing was being even-handed

The Somnath episode

An early challenge to secularism involved reconstruction of Gujarat's Somnath temple Sardar Patel, as dy PM, pledged Centre would rebuild the temple The Cabinet, presided over by Nehru, decided to rebuild it at govt cost Gandhi told Patel money should be collected from the people for this President Rajendra Prasad installed the deity on May 11, 1951

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Flash-back/articleshow/11151233.cms

Toilet Paper of India zindabad!

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:40 am

Rashmun wrote:i am only pointing out that the infallibility and flexibility of the PP Method. Proponents of the PP Method can start screaming about the western model of secularism on the one hand, and on the other hand they can also scream that government officials should have the freedom to wear religious symbols like tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads.

Do you have the volume turned up on a hearing aid or something?

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:18 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i am only pointing out that the infallibility and flexibility of the PP Method. Proponents of the PP Method can start screaming about the western model of secularism on the one hand, and on the other hand they can also scream that government officials should have the freedom to wear religious symbols like tilak/tika/vibhuti on their foreheads.
Do you have the volume turned up on a hearing aid or something?

the word was used figuratively and not literally.

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:37 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Nehru and secularism

Initially, Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to believe that secularism meant indifference to religion. Soon, he realized this model might not work for India and defined secularism as equal protection to all religions by the state. The state would provide equal respect to all faiths. The key thing was being even-handed

The Somnath episode

An early challenge to secularism involved reconstruction of Gujarat's Somnath temple Sardar Patel, as dy PM, pledged Centre would rebuild the temple The Cabinet, presided over by Nehru, decided to rebuild it at govt cost Gandhi told Patel money should be collected from the people for this President Rajendra Prasad installed the deity on May 11, 1951

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Flash-back/articleshow/11151233.cms
Toilet Paper of India zindabad!

Correct. TOI seems to have got it wrong in that Nehru was opposed to giving any state funding for the reconstruction of Somnath. (But notice that it was not just Rajendra Prasad, but also Sardar Patel who were for reconstructing Somnath. )

Never the less, the fact that Nehru personally introduced the Haj committee act disproves your claim that Nehru's secularism should be treated on par with western secularism. Indeed, the fact that Nehru did not see the need to implement a common law for people of all religions in India (which is why Indian muslims even now can have four wives) means that he was not a secularist in the western sense. I have a lot of respect for Nehru but i believe if a common legal code would have been introduced for people of all religions in India just after independence, there would have been far fewer problems and objections than if an attempt is made to implement the same today.

------

Haj Committee Act

In this context I may refer to the Haj Committee Act of 1959 which was sponsored and enacted at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru in replacement of the defunct Port Haj Committee Act of 1932 enacted by the British Government to curry favour with the minority Muslim community as against the majority Hindu population who were the main supporters of the Indian National Congress which was spearheading the struggle for Independence while the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah, was trying to perpetuate the British Rule in India, by putting spokes in the negotiations with the British Government by Mahatma Gandhi. In the Haj Committee Act of 1959 in section 2 (b) it is defined that ``pilgrim'' means a Muslim proceeding on or returning from pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Jordan. In section 14 of the said Act it is mandatory to create a Haj Fund to which sums have to be allotted by the Central and State Governments. Whether this is a secular enactment or non- secular, the opposition parties like the CPI, the CPI(M) and the Congress should explain. Nehru had no objection to enact a statute for spending state funds to facilitate the pilgrimage of Muslims to their holy lands abroad with considerable expenses at the same time denying even small expenses by the State of Saurashtra for the inauguration of the renovated Somnath temple.

http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/30/stories/13300612.htm

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Nehru and secularism

Initially, Jawaharlal Nehru seemed to believe that secularism meant indifference to religion. Soon, he realized this model might not work for India and defined secularism as equal protection to all religions by the state. The state would provide equal respect to all faiths. The key thing was being even-handed

The Somnath episode

An early challenge to secularism involved reconstruction of Gujarat's Somnath temple Sardar Patel, as dy PM, pledged Centre would rebuild the temple The Cabinet, presided over by Nehru, decided to rebuild it at govt cost Gandhi told Patel money should be collected from the people for this President Rajendra Prasad installed the deity on May 11, 1951

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Flash-back/articleshow/11151233.cms
Toilet Paper of India zindabad!

Correct. TOI seems to have got it wrong in that Nehru was opposed to giving any state funding for the reconstruction of Somnath. (But notice that it was not just Rajendra Prasad, but also Sardar Patel who were for reconstructing Somnath. )

Never the less, the fact that Nehru personally introduced the Haj committee act disproves your claim that Nehru's secularism should be treated on par with western secularism. Indeed, the fact that Nehru did not see the need to implement a common law for people of all religions in India (which is why Indian muslims even now can have four wives) means that he was not a secularist in the western sense. I have a lot of respect for Nehru but i believe if a common legal code would have been introduced for people of all religions in India just after independence, there would have been far fewer problems and objections than if an attempt is made to implement the same today.

------

Haj Committee Act

In this context I may refer to the Haj Committee Act of 1959 which was sponsored and enacted at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru in replacement of the defunct Port Haj Committee Act of 1932 enacted by the British Government to curry favour with the minority Muslim community as against the majority Hindu population who were the main supporters of the Indian National Congress which was spearheading the struggle for Independence while the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah, was trying to perpetuate the British Rule in India, by putting spokes in the negotiations with the British Government by Mahatma Gandhi. In the Haj Committee Act of 1959 in section 2 (b) it is defined that ``pilgrim'' means a Muslim proceeding on or returning from pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Jordan. In section 14 of the said Act it is mandatory to create a Haj Fund to which sums have to be allotted by the Central and State Governments. Whether this is a secular enactment or non- secular, the opposition parties like the CPI, the CPI(M) and the Congress should explain. Nehru had no objection to enact a statute for spending state funds to facilitate the pilgrimage of Muslims to their holy lands abroad with considerable expenses at the same time denying even small expenses by the State of Saurashtra for the inauguration of the renovated Somnath temple.

http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/30/stories/13300612.htm

the Indian state gives financial assistance to muslim pilgrims going for Haj, and it does the same for hindu pilgrims going to Kailash/Mansarovar and the Amarnath Yatra. This is further evidence of Indian secularism being different from secularism practiced in the west as Amartya Sen has rightly pointed out.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Haj Committee Act

In this context I may refer to the Haj Committee Act of 1959 which was sponsored and enacted at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru in replacement of the defunct Port Haj Committee Act of 1932 enacted by the British Government to curry favour with the minority Muslim community as against the majority Hindu population who were the main supporters of the Indian National Congress which was spearheading the struggle for Independence while the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah, was trying to perpetuate the British Rule in India, by putting spokes in the negotiations with the British Government by Mahatma Gandhi. In the Haj Committee Act of 1959 in section 2 (b) it is defined that ``pilgrim'' means a Muslim proceeding on or returning from pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Jordan. In section 14 of the said Act it is mandatory to create a Haj Fund to which sums have to be allotted by the Central and State Governments. Whether this is a secular enactment or non- secular, the opposition parties like the CPI, the CPI(M) and the Congress should explain. Nehru had no objection to enact a statute for spending state funds to facilitate the pilgrimage of Muslims to their holy lands abroad with considerable expenses at the same time denying even small expenses by the State of Saurashtra for the inauguration of the renovated Somnath temple.

http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/30/stories/13300612.htm

the author and editor of this unbroken sentence needs to have his/her pen and hand broken in several places. but wait, this is The Hindu with seoulhack's cousins writing dense english proudly so par for the course I guess.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:36 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Haj Committee Act

In this context I may refer to the Haj Committee Act of 1959 which was sponsored and enacted at the instance of Jawaharlal Nehru in replacement of the defunct Port Haj Committee Act of 1932 enacted by the British Government to curry favour with the minority Muslim community as against the majority Hindu population who were the main supporters of the Indian National Congress which was spearheading the struggle for Independence while the Muslim League, under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah, was trying to perpetuate the British Rule in India, by putting spokes in the negotiations with the British Government by Mahatma Gandhi. In the Haj Committee Act of 1959 in section 2 (b) it is defined that ``pilgrim'' means a Muslim proceeding on or returning from pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Jordan. In section 14 of the said Act it is mandatory to create a Haj Fund to which sums have to be allotted by the Central and State Governments. Whether this is a secular enactment or non- secular, the opposition parties like the CPI, the CPI(M) and the Congress should explain. Nehru had no objection to enact a statute for spending state funds to facilitate the pilgrimage of Muslims to their holy lands abroad with considerable expenses at the same time denying even small expenses by the State of Saurashtra for the inauguration of the renovated Somnath temple.

http://www.hindu.com/2001/01/30/stories/13300612.htm

the author and editor of this unbroken sentence needs to have his/her pen and hand broken in several places. but wait, this is The Hindu with seoulhack's cousins writing dense english proudly so par for the course I guess.

This Hindu article is a definite improvement in that department over the Toilet Paper article upthread.

by doofus_maximus Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:41 pm

actually Hindu articles have become much more readable these days. Those days of dense english are well behind them, I think.

TOI articles on the other hand are written by teens.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:02 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:Those days of dense english are well behind them, I think.

the other possibility is that you've grown up.

by doofus_maximus Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:Those days of dense english are well behind them, I think.

the other possibility is that you've grown up.

I thought of that possibility being raised by some one here. But I guess that you don't read The Hindu any more. Even their opinion section has simplified English these days.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:53 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:Those days of dense english are well behind them, I think.

the other possibility is that you've grown up.

I thought of that possibility being raised by some one here. But I guess that you don't read The Hindu any more. Even their opinion section has simplified English these days.

Even the editorial page has improved. No more the soporific, interminable sentences of a bygone era. Now you see many more short, crisp sentences in their editorials.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:the Indian state gives financial assistance to muslim pilgrims going for Haj, and it does the same for hindu pilgrims going to Kailash/Mansarovar and the Amarnath Yatra. This is further evidence of Indian secularism being different from secularism practiced in the west as Amartya Sen has rightly pointed out.

When the Indian state does things that are the exact opposite of something, that doesn't mean "the Indian meaning" of that something is the opposite of its usual non-Indian meaning. It means that the Indian state is simply not that something. India is not a secular state -- and will not be as long as it pays for pilgrimages and nonsense like that. If the Indian state practices a different idea from secularism (which it does in its better moments), it should adopt a proper name for it, not try to misappropriate another term that has a distinct meaning of its own.

Consider the Chinese analogy. They are a "communist" state. And their "intellectuals," like you, go to great lengths to advance bullshit claims that the Chinese meaning of communism is different. When you cut through the bullshit you recognize that China is not communist, period.

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:03 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the Indian state gives financial assistance to muslim pilgrims going for Haj, and it does the same for hindu pilgrims going to Kailash/Mansarovar and the Amarnath Yatra. This is further evidence of Indian secularism being different from secularism practiced in the west as Amartya Sen has rightly pointed out.
When the Indian state does things that are the exact opposite of something, that doesn't mean "the Indian meaning" of that something is the opposite of its usual non-Indian meaning. It means that the Indian state is simply not that something. India is not a secular state-- and will not be as long as it pays for pilgrimages and nonsense like that. If the Indian state practices a different idea from secularism (which it does in its better moments), it should adopt a proper name for it, not try to misappropriate another term that has a distinct meaning of its own.

Consider the Chinese analogy. They are a "communist" state. And their "intellectuals," like you, go to great lengths to advance bullshit claims that the Chinese meaning of communism is different. When you cut through the bullshit you recognize that China is not communist, period.

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:04 pm

from all of rashmun's writings it is clear to me that his favored form of government is a benign dictatorship or an authoritarian govt like singapore. neither is appealing to someone raised in india making a life in the US.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

if something brays and doesn't quack, it is not a duck that brays. it is a donkey.

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:from all of rashmun's writings it is clear to me that his favored form of government is a benign dictatorship or an authoritarian govt like singapore. neither is appealing to someone raised in india making a life in the US.

in fact, i am a strong supporter of democracy. what the country needs is more democracy. i would want India to follow the western model of secularism as soon as possible. but i recognize the worth of the Indian model of secularism where all religions are given equal respect. we are far better off than many other countries which have a state religion.

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:10 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

if something brays and doesn't quack, it is not a duck that brays. it is a donkey.

there are five different models of secularism according to Vinay Dharwadker.

From Vinay Dharwadker's book 'Kabir: The Weaver's Songs':

This is the secularism of the Kabir poets--but it is paradoxically a 'theological secularism'. In the modern period, we have come to view secularism as historically and conceptually possessing four basic orientations:
(a) a non-religious disposition...
(b) an a-religious disposition...
(c) an anti-religious disposition...
(d) a post-religious disposition...

Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, however, the Kabir poets invented an astonishing fifth alternative. In the dissident conception of the secular, institutionalized religions--with their wealth, power, mediating structures and violent practices--determined what constitutes 'religion' and what is legitimately 'religious' in the human world...[They] stand outside the immense scaffolding of organized human religions and what they define as 'religious' doctrine and practice, and since the 'secular' is that which lies outside the the scope of the 'religious', God as such is entirely secular.

The consequence of this conception is that the process of attaining mukti...is also a secular process. It is precisely such a secularism that makes both God and mukti completely accessible to anyone and everyone, regardless of caste, class, birth, gender, upbringing, status or rank, and that becomes indistinguishable from the deeply subversive egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism of the Kabir community.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

if something brays and doesn't quack, it is not a duck that brays. it is a donkey.

Perfect way to put it.

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

if something brays and doesn't quack, it is not a duck that brays. it is a donkey.
~~Perfect way to put it.~~

PP Method!

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:14 pm

the oxford english dictionary would make a perfect birthday gift for mr. dharwadekar assuming he is still with us.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:'theological secularism'

Hahaha. Sounds like "capitalistic communism" -- one of the contortions that resulted from the intellectual gymnastics sponsored by the Communist Party of China.

Secularism as a concept arose after Kabir, HiMu and Akbar. Trying to classify them as secular is no different than trying to classify them as supporters or opponents of GM crops and artificial intelligence.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the oxford english dictionary would make a perfect birthday gift for mr. dharwadekar assuming he is still with us.

He may be working on five new meanings for the term "is."

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

--> the fact that India is a secular state is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It is just that the Indian meaning of secularism is different from the secularism practiced in the west.

if something brays and doesn't quack, it is not a duck that brays. it is a donkey.

there are five different models of secularism according to Vinay Dharwadker.

From Vinay Dharwadker's book 'Kabir: The Weaver's Songs':

This is the secularism of the Kabir poets--but it is paradoxically a 'theological secularism'. In the modern period, we have come to view secularism as historically and conceptually possessing four basic orientations:
(a) a non-religious disposition...
(b) an a-religious disposition...
(c) an anti-religious disposition...
(d) a post-religious disposition...

Between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, however, the Kabir poets invented an astonishing fifth alternative. In the dissident conception of the secular, institutionalized religions--with their wealth, power, mediating structures and violent practices--determined what constitutes 'religion' and what is legitimately 'religious' in the human world...[They] stand outside the immense scaffolding of organized human religions and what they define as 'religious' doctrine and practice, and since the 'secular' is that which lies outside the the scope of the 'religious', God as such is entirely secular.

The consequence of this conception is that the process of attaining mukti...is also a secular process. It is precisely such a secularism that makes both God and mukti completely accessible to anyone and everyone, regardless of caste, class, birth, gender, upbringing, status or rank, and that becomes indistinguishable from the deeply subversive egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism of the Kabir community.

the kind of secularism practiced in the former USSR could be legitimately classified as an 'anti-religious' secularism. The secularism in the U.S. and in countries like england, france, and germany would have to be classified as either 'a-religious' or 'non-religious'. the kind of secularism in India is of the type Amartya Sen has explained:

“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

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:the kind of secularism practiced in the former USSR ...

Ah, the good old USSR. That reminds me, whatever happened to your scholarly blog on how regional parties contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union? I was waiting for it with bated breath, and then I started breathing normally again and forgot all about it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t2271-the-case-against-regional-parties#19394

by Guest Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:48 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the kind of secularism practiced in the former USSR ...
Ah, the good old USSR. That reminds me, whatever happened to your scholarly blog on how regional parties contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union? I was waiting for it with bated breath, and then I started breathing normally again and forgot all about it.

https://such.forumotion.com/t2271-the-case-against-regional-parties#19394

my understanding is that it was not regional parties but regionalism which contributed to (i.e. this was one factor, but there were also other factors) the disintegration of the soviet union. i will write more about it subsequent to whenever i read up more on the issue.

by Sponsored content

Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad

Re: Secularism: Nehru vs. Prasad