|
|
DO SOME INDIANS PURPOSELY
MISUNDERSTAND SECULARISM?
Maria Wirth
12 November 2014
Do you remember the frenzied appeals to
the Indian electorate before the elections in
May 2014 to vote secular ?
They came from all quarters from Bollywood, from intellectuals,
and even from American universities. The foreign press had
already given up.
They were certain that the electorate would make a big mistake
and vote communal instead of secular.
They all had underestimated the Indian masses.
They did not vote non-secular.
Grudgingly, even the foreign press now acknowledges that the
voters did not make the big mistake they had predicted.
However, several intellectuals and Christian and Muslims in India
still feel that the electorate did vote communal .
Those people clearly don't understand the concept of secularism,
which basically means that religion is ignored by the state.
Let me explain, since secularism is a western invention:
Contrary to the perception of some Indians, secular is not the
opposite of communal. Communal as such is not objectionable
either. It simply means pertaining to a community.
Secular is the opposite of religious and means worldly.
Now religious in this context referred to Christianity to a
well-organized, dogmatic religion that claims that it is the sole
keeper of the truth which was revealed by God himself.
Now this truth does not make sense as such, but has to be
believed blindly.
In short: some 2000 years ago, the creator-God had mercy on
sinful humanity, and sent his only son Jesus to earth to redeem
us by dying for our sins. However to be able to get the benefit of
Jesus sacrifice, one must be baptized as a Christian, otherwise one
will be singled out for eternal hell on Judgment Day.
Such claims did not appeal to Europeans who used their brains,
but for many centuries they had to keep quiet or risk their lives.
The reason was that for long the Church was intertwined with the
state, and harsh laws made sure that people did not question the
revealed truth. Heresy was punished with torture and death.
Significantly, those centuries, when Church and State were
intertwined, are called the dark ages.
And the time when the Church was forced to loosen its grip, is
called the age of enlightenment.
Scientific discoveries, which could no longer be brushed under
the carpet, played a crucial role for putting the Church into place.
A new idea took root in the west: Reason, not blind belief, should
guide society and this lead to the demand for separation between
State and Church. Such separation is called secularism. It is a recent
In India, however, the situation was different.
Here, the dominant faith never had a power centre that dictated
unreasonable dogmas and needed to be propped up by the State.
Their faith was based on insights of the Rishis, reason and direct,
inner experience. It expressed itself freely in a multitude of ways.
Their faith was about trust and reverence for the One Source of all life.
It was about The Golden Rule: not to do to others what one does not
want to be done to oneself. It was about having noble thoughts. It was
about how to live life in an ideal way.
However, this open atmosphere changed when Islam and
Christianity entered India.
Indians, who good naturedly considered the whole world as family,
were despised, ridiculed and under Muslim rule killed in big numbers
only because they were Hindus. Indians did not realise that dogmatic
religions were very different from their own, ancient Dharma. For
the first time they were confronted with merciless killing in
the name of God.
Guru Nanak left a testimony how bad the situation was, when he cried out
in despair:Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan
in dread. Such cruelty they have inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains
(Granth Sahib, Mahla 1.360 quoted from'Eminent Historians'
by Arun Shourie).
In spite of the ruthlessness of the invaders, Hindu Dharma survived
in India, whereas the west succumbed to Christianity and over 50
countries to Islam in a short span of time.
Though Hindu Dharma survived and never dictated terms to the state,
secular was added to the Constitution of India in 1976. And indeed, since
Independence, several non-secular decisions had been taken which
favoured the dogmatic religions. For example, Muslims and Christians
had pushed for special civil laws and got them.
However, after adding secular to the Constituion, the situation did not
improve. The government continued to grant benefits specifically to
the dogmatic religions.
Why would secular be added and then not acted upon?
And the strangest thing: secular got a new, specific Indian meaning.
For decades it meant: giving in to demands by those two big religions
which have no respect for Hindus and whose dogmas condemn all
of them to eternal hell.
It is an irony. Islam and Christianity that have gravely harmed Indians
over centuries, got preferential treatment by the Indian State, and their
own beneficial dharma that has no other home except the Indian
subcontinent, was egged out. And to top it, this was called secular!
The Indian electorate however understood that secularism in India
meant favouring Christianity and Islam, and communalism meant
the motto by which Modi had tried to govern Gujarat: Justice for all
and appeasement to none. So the people of India voted overwhelmingly
Yet media and several politicians still try to peddle their wrong
understanding: They still call political parties that represent a religious
group, secular, instead of religious. Why would they do this? Do they
want to give Indians first-hand experience of the dark ages that had
haunted Europe when the Church wielded power or of the experience
However, western secular states are not role models either. There is a lot
of depression, drug abuse, alcohol and people are generally not happy in
spite of doing everything to enjoy life.
Here, India has an advantage over the west. Her rishis have left
a greatheritage of valuable treatises not only dealing with how
to live life in an ideal way, but also how to conduct economy,
politics, diplomacy, etc.
If those guidelines are considered, and if India becomes a state
based on her ancient dharma, she has good chances to regain the
lost glory as the wealthiest country in the world whose citizen are
open-minded and contented.
by Maria Wirth
I was asked to shorten my article Indian Secularism is not secular.
I also updated it, but several paragraphs are from the original article
|
|
|
Comments
Post a Comment