[nukkad] Hindu - Muslim/Secularism?India - Pak debates

["Net Geek" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  In critical moments men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see.
			 -- Spock, "The Tholian Web," stardate 5693.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Nukkies
            In view of the heated debates going on right now, I beleive the 
below article addresses some of the issues. I feel the author is balanced in 
his views. Also I'm pleased to know that in spite of the highly 
controversial nature of the topics, no one lost cool and indulged in rabid 
mud slinging. I feel this is how Nukkad should be, an open forum for freely 
exchnging views and ideas.


Bye



Netgeek
-------
Secularism and appeasement - Amberish K Diwanji

A complaint often made is that secularism in India is flawed at best and 
minority appeasement at worst. Granted Indian secularism is not perfect. But 
just as we cannot have true secularism through minority appeasement, we 
cannot have it through minority bashing or majority appeasement either. The 
need of the hour is for better secularism. So what is it that makes for 
better secularism and appeases no particular religious section of society?

The tragic fact is that in India today, its laws do appease different 
sections in different ways. So if Muslims are 'appeased' through personal 
laws that allow them four wives in complete disregard of women's 
emancipation and liberty, Hindus too have contrived to ensure that various 
laws in the country appease Hindu sentiments, and perhaps the best, and most 
controversial, example is the law that bans the slaughter of cows, but not 
of other bovine creatures.

One of the single biggest grouse is the existence of different personal 
civil laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis in India. It has been 
pointed out how in the United States or other Western country, the law is 
common for all, regardless of race, creed, or faith. And has been rightly 
pointed out, in no major country in the world do such personal laws exist 
which means that before law, all men and women are not equal.

The founders of our Constitution agreed to personal laws to give various 
communities time to evolve so that the particular community's social 
practice comes close to the law of the land. For instance, there were some 
Hindu tribes where a man had conjugal rights over his sister-in-law since 
she was considered married to the family! The idea was to give such 
communities time to change rather than force change on them.

But it is also a fact that communities rarely change unless there is some 
external pressure. The best reforms in Hindu society came during the 
turbulent years from 1850s to 1950s, till about when some Hindu laws were 
codified in 1956. Since then, Hindu society and laws have stopped reforming, 
and the reason is the lack of external pressure. Similarly, expecting other 
religious communities in India to reform could imply an eternal wait.

Tragically, the existence of the personal laws is seen as a source of 
identity today, and any move to abolish or amend them is bound to raise a 
hue and cry, mostly by the terribly bigoted so-called leaders of the 
Muslims, the Syed Shahabuddins and the Imam Bukharis. Yet, there is no doubt 
that India, like other liberal, secular societies, must have a uniform civil 
code that is secular, liberal, equal (especially between the sexes), 
promotes fraternity, and ensures justice for all. That is the foundation of 
a modern nation. It is not just a case of Muslim man being allowed four 
wives but the fact that a Muslim woman lacks the right, like her Hindu 
counterpart, to not share her husband with another woman. The law is more 
anti-Muslim woman that pro-Muslim man and the fact that many Islamic 
republics too do not practice it clearly shows that this particular law is 
outdated.

Then, there is always a hue and cry about the fact that the Government of 
India subsidies the Haj pilgrims, a practice no one has thought fit to 
abolish. The money spent on subsidizing the Haj is needed far more 
desperately to educate poor boys and girls, including many Muslims who, in 
the absence of schools, turn to madrasas. Similarly, why should a Hindu 
undivided family get tax benefit but not a non-Hindu undivided family? It is 
not the duty of the State to subsidise religious programs or exempt united 
families from taxes.

Yet, a secular society does not end with abolishing the different personal 
laws but by bringing about civil laws that benefit the individuals, not a 
section of society. And much as certain Muslim laws and practices need 
reform, let Hindus not absolve themselves of all blame. For instance, during 
some religious festivals, often areas or cities in India simply shut down. 
Roads are taken over for processions, loudspeakers blare late into the 
evening and civic and working life is badly affected. The fact that India is 
a poor country that cannot afford to lose working days is no one's 
consideration, least of all the government that simply does not have the 
will to fight communal forces of varying denominations.

For instance, in Mumbai, during Ganesh Chaturthi and a month later, during 
Navratri, citizens are subject to blaring loudspeakers set up in every nook 
and corner. There is very little religion here, and a lot of commercial 
considerations. Though there are laws governing the use of loudspeakers, 
they are rarely applied for fear of 'offending religious sentiments.'

India needs laws that ensure that religious festivals or practices do not 
disturb or restrict the common man in any way. Religious processions must be 
kept extremely short and on specific routes that cause minimum hindrance and 
do not force a city to shut down. Namaz cannot be reason to stop traffic on 
Friday afternoons. Loud speakers need to be banned or severely limited, 
especially on the decibel count, including the loudspeakers atop mosques. 
The muezzin's call is a throwback to the days of yore when watches did not 
exist, today with watches so ubiquitous, any pious Muslim would know when to 
go to the mosque and hardly needs summons from a loudspeaker.

Secularism means to live and let live, and when there is a conflict, to back 
liberty and the individual. It is not secularism when one community forces 
another to abide by its belief systems.

The tragedy with the call to stop minority appeasement is few have cared for 
the many laws that appease the majority in India, the Hindus. India also has 
laws that, for the sake of the Hindus, impose restrictions on non-Hindus in 
India. Such laws have no place in a democratic and liberal India. To raise 
an extremely contentious issue, why are so many Hindus hell bent on ensuring 
that cow slaughter is banned? Are Hindu sentiments that revere the cow 
superior to that of non-Hindus, or even those Hindus who eat beef? After 
all, if Hindus can demand that their religious sentiments be respected, why 
can't the Muslims ask that their religious sentiments be respected by 
allowing them a distinct personal law based on the Sharia? And just as some 
aspects of the Sharia may appear outdated, so does the reverence for the cow 
today.

India has the world's largest bovine population. Hindu piety has not ensured 
these cows a decent life -- they are left to die because the owners have no 
use for them, and Hindu farmers along the borders are known to sell them 
across to the neighboring countries. There are hundreds of thousands of 
sterile, useless cattle; religious sentiments means that while they are free 
to roam the streets and chomp up vegetables that could feed hundreds of 
thousands of hungry Indians. Such cows lead a pitiable existence, yet there 
is no question of controlling their numbers, all because of 'religious 
sentiments.' This amounts to majority appeasement but no one seems to have 
raised this point.

There is no doubt that India's secularism has its flaws and needs remedial 
action. And it is time to make the necessary changes. Asking the religious 
leaders to reform their religious practice and bring it at par with a modern 
worldview is akin to asking the Pope to support abortion: it will not 
happen. It is the duty of the State to intervene on the side of the 
individual, not on the side of the community. The tragedy is India does not 
have any political party that can actually take on the communal forces: if 
one seeks to appease Muslims, the other seeks to appease the Hindus. No one 
cares to appease the Indians.




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html