DO SOME INDIAS ' PURPOSELY MISUNDERSTAND ' SECULARISM ? " - MARIA WIRTH








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 phenomenon.
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 unmoved
(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.
This was inexplicable.
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 for Narendra Modi.

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 when Sharia rules?

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 great heritage 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


_______________________________________________________________________

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts