Předmět (Subject): 	[world-vedic] Secularism is no virtue
Datum (Date): 	23.6.2005 0:14
Od (From):  "Vrn Davan" <vaidika1008@hotmail.com
Komu (To):  vediculture@yahoogroups.com         

Secularism is no virtue
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:38:31 -0700

Secularism is no virtue
Sandhya Jain
Organizer
June 19, 2005

"Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, 
indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. Hence, unlike western 
concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance in Indian 
hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has 
traditionally vested spiritual authority in the guru and political 
power in the king, and given the latter the duty to protect dharma."

Secularism today ranks foremost among India's burden of bad ideas, a 
term coined by Prof. Shiva Bajpai to debunk the ill-founded Aryan 
Invasion Theory, which held academics in thrall for a century before 
being flung into the dustbin of history. The term secular entered 
India's political vocabulary as a device to disarm the Hindu majority 
and inhibit expression of resentment against minority-appeasing 
policies of successive Governments.

Given the shoddy motives of its promoters, it is surprising that the 
term secular has come to acquire such a powerful hold over the elite. 
Secularism is not a lofty ideal, like liberty or equality. It owes its 
birth to Christianity's inability to maintain peace between warring 
Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored pogroms 
against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious 
warfare, France invented secularism to ensure State neutrality in 
matters of faith, and separation of Church and State. Secularism was 
thus born as an extra-religious answer to the intolerance of both 
Church and State.

Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, 
indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. Hence, unlike western 
concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance in Indian 
hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has 
traditionally vested spiritual authority in the guru and political 
power in the king, and given the latter the duty to protect dharma.


Dharma is not religion in the sense that monotheistic creeds are. 
Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual experience and 
includes the specific dharmas of specific groups (desachara, 
lokachara), which the king is duty bound to uphold and protect. Since 
dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was 
never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, 
non-communal), because dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all 
without discrimination. The duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought 
is best exemplified by the concept of Rajdharma, which is a sacred 
duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the 
travails of Raja Harish Chandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama 
reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his 
responsibilities and fulfill commitments.

Dharma is thus not co-terminus with religion; the closest Indian word 
for religion is pantha. Secularism in India, as noted jurist Dr. L.M. 
Singhvi insisted when translating the modified Preamble of the 
Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination 
towards individual faiths). So, while 'secular' is the opposite of 
'religion' and 'communal,' dharma is neither secular in the sense of 
being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favouring a 
particular sect.

This brings us to the peculiar practice of secularism in modern India. 
While the proper definition of secularism should be pantha-nirpeksha, 
as noted previously, the media and politicians speak of dharma 
nirpeksha or neutral in the matter of religion. This is antithetical 
to Hindu civilizational experience which demands that the State 
respect and uphold dharma; but this is only part of the problem.

The real difficulty is that even dharma nirpeksha is not implemented 
honestly. Dharma nirpeksha means the State should be aloof from all 
religions or treat all equally. The Indian Government however, has not 
been religiously neutral since independence itself. Despite the 
terrible sufferings of Hindus before and during Partition, Mr. 
Jawaharlal Nehru created the false bogey of 'majority communalism' to 
create and consolidate a Muslim votebank for Congress. The first blow 
was struck with the refusal to implement a uniform civil code, even 
though this was both desirable and possible at the time of framing the 
constitution.

Despite grandiose commitments to equality before law, 
non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and equality of opportunity 
in public employment and public office, the Indian Constitution was 
manipulated to give weightage to minorities. Cumulative Hindu disquiet 
over the politics of appeasement gave Mr. L.K. Advani the ovation he 
received from Somnath-to-Ayodhya, when he promised "Justice for all, 
appeasement of none."

Sadly, little has been done in the nearly fifteen years since the 
problem was raised in the public arena. Article 28(1) says no 
religious instruction should be provided in any educational 
institution wholly maintained out of the State funds, but this was 
undone by Article 28(3) which permits a state-recognized or 
state-aided school to give religious instruction or offer religious 
worship to those desiring it. Thus, religious schools (madrasas) 
receive generous state funds and the religious training imparted 
therein is considered at par with normal secular education.

Recently, the Aligarh Muslim University was permitted fifty percent 
reservation for Muslim students. Interestingly, the controversy 
revealed that the previous NDA regime had permitted fifty percent 
communal reservations to Jamia Hamdard University in the capital!

The Indian state, therefore, does not practice religious neutrality, 
and uses secularism as a tool to discriminate against Hindus. It was a 
silent spectator to the brutal expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir and 
Buddhists from Nagaland and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. It remains 
mute while Andhra Pradesh moots five percent reservation for Muslims 
in State employment and educational institutions. It has failed to end 
terrorist infiltration in Kashmir, and despite warnings from the Assam 
Governor, appears determined to inhibit action against illegal Muslim 
immigrants from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, a new danger beckons in the 
form of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind's demand for communal reservations 
in Parliament and State legislatures.