www.outlookindia.com | Abhor Singularity!

Sandeep Adhwaryu

opinion

Abhor Singularity!

The critique of secularism by Nandy et al confuses tradition with religion

Kuldip Nayar

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

I met Ashis Nandy the other day to find out if the message I got from his writings on secularism was correct. What I understood, I told him, was that he did not believe that secularism was suited to the genius of India. He replied: "You are more or less correct." He's not the only one. In fact, there's a growing breed of intellectuals which has arrived at similar conclusions. They think the secularism agenda has flawed the Indian state right from the beginning.


	I've no quarrel with those who equate religion with tradition so long as they see that Indian tradition doesn't have the stamp of any particular religion.

According to some of them, secularism, by virtue of being a western concept, is alien to India. For others, it is anti-religion and, therefore, in contradiction with the bedrock of our society's beliefs.

I wonder why scholars like Nandy have lost faith in the pluralistic ethos of the country. I can imagine their disgust over the contamination of the educated Hindu middle class. But I hope this is not their dialectical materialism that builds political theory on political 'fact'. According to me, they should have fought against prejudice and bias instead of rationalising them, conferring credibility on them in the process. When they claim that in India tradition and religion are synonymous, they mock at the synthesis the country has managed over the years, enabling respect for the sanctity of individual entities.

I have no quarrel with those who equate religion with tradition so long as they realise that the Indian tradition does not have the stamp of any particular religion. My difference arises when this tradition is mistaken for Hinduism. Our tradition is that of accommodating different religions and separate faiths. Secularism is a product of that process. It has gone through the crucible of tolerance and understanding. So, secularism is about not mixing religion with the state or politics.

I recall my short stint at London as India's high commissioner. Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister then and the Soviet Union was crumbling. After her return from Moscow, Thatcher met me at a party. I asked her how she found Mikhail Gorbachev, then the boss at Moscow. She said Gorbachev told her that the country was slipping away from his grip and that he could not hold it together. She said she had advised him to go to "your friend" India and see how people there had lived together for centuries despite their different religions, castes, languages and standards of living.

Thatcher then asked me what I attributed this to. It took me sometime to put my thoughts together. I told her that we in India did not think that things were either black or white. We believed there was a fuzzy area of overlap which we went on expanding. That was secularism. And the sense of tolerance and the spirit of accommodation that grew out of it was the glue that held us together.

True, the proponents of Hindutva are chipping away at it. They are making secularism look anti-Hindu and are equating it with 'minorityism'. And intellectuals like Nandy fail to realise precisely this. Religions, as Jawaharlal Nehru said, have laid down values and have pointed out principles for the guidance of human life. They should not be mistaken for attributes of a completely formed and closed culture that we have inherited.

The fight between secularism and chauvinism is nothing new. In Europe, all experiments with religions, holy wars, theocratic concepts of states have been discussed. After fighting wars for hundreds of years, the continent has come to the conclusion that religion and state should be separated. Even Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the exponent of the two-nation theory, said after Partition that religion shouldn't be mixed with politics.

What I hear in support of Hindutva today is nothing new. In fact, it was worse following Partition in August 1947 because after the struggle for independence, something that was conducted keeping the secular ideals in mind, the division of India on the basis of religion was a staggering blow. At that time, the Hindutva forces were up in arms to drive out the Muslims who were told that they had their 'share' in the shape of Pakistan.

The Gandhian thoughts of pluralism and peace were pooh-poohed. It was considered a cowardly response to 'Islamic jingoism'. There were many intellectuals who argued that India was culturally and traditionally Hindu and must reflect the same thinking in the Constitution it was framing. Still, Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad and Sardar Patel stood their ground and rejected the outmoded, unscientific way of thinking in the name of tradition. So, India, Partition's aftermath notwithstanding, adopted the most liberal Constitution which gave the minorities the right to even preach and propagate their religion.

The country continued to face political religiosity or what is now sold in the name of culture. But its standard-bearer, the Jana Sangh, a forerunner of the BJP, never went beyond the one-digit figure in the Lok Sabha till the mid-'70s. I believe that Mahatma Gandhi's assassination saved the nation from the hot wind of communalism, which blew fiercely at that time. The pro-Hindutva intellectuals and the pro-BJP think-tanks did not relish secular thoughts but dared not open their mouths.

What is now accepted as the lure of cultural or traditional impulses was then considered an expression of communalism. But such confusion can't be an excuse for righting a wrong. It only shows that intellectuals like Nandy are faltering in their commitment.

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

Filed In Topics: Secularism, Kuldip Nayar

More In: National, Opinion

Daily MailPublished

COLLAPSE COMMENTS :

HAVE YOUR SAY

Mar 28, 2005 12:00 AM 14	The critique of secularism by Nandy et al confuses tradition with religion KULDIP NAYAR Kuldip Nayar’s criticism of Ashis Nandy is based on Nayar’s faulty and inconsistent definitions and assumptions. Nayar expressed shock that many Indian intellectuals see secularism as flawed. He does not explain the reasons for Nandy and others’ critiques, which focus on the uneven, or contorted manner in which the concept of secularism has been instituted in the Indian context during the past half century. Nayar trivializes the concepts and theories of “a growing breed of intellectuals” saying that they consider secularism as “a western concept” and therefore “alien to India”. This is not the problem… globalization goes both ways. India has incorporated many western ideas, such as representative democracy—in a particularly Indian manifestation (i.e.: caste-based parties, which have their pros as well as cons). What Nandy and other intellectuals in modern India object to is the manner in which secularism has been implemented in India. Many laws supported by Nayar and his genre of intellectuals are actually inconsistent with the very concept of secularism. From what I know of Mr. Nayar he has never had any faith in “the pluralistic ethos of the country”. According to Nayar, when scholars, “claim that in India tradition and religion are synonymous, they mock at the synthesis the country has managed over the years”. Doesn’t Nayar realize that it is the Dharmic orientation of the traditions of India that have made it a pluralistic and accommodating culture? Ask descendants of the Syrian Christians, or the Parsees who fled persecution, or numerous other refugee groups, including Tibetans who have made India their home. That ethos which allowed them their differences was the Hindu ethos, the Sanatana Dharma. Nayar’s problem arises because he doesn’t understand that in India the tradition “of accommodating different religions and separate faiths” is the basic core tradition of Hinduism. The histories of the survival of different faiths that marched in or otherwise quietly slipped into India through the centuries are proof of the Dharmic nature of the Indian ethos. When Margaret Thatcher told Nayar that Gorbachev’s Indian friends “had lived together for centuries despite their different religions, castes, languages and standards of living,” Nayar responded with what is actually a very good definition of Hinduism, that things are “neither black or white” and “there is a fuzzy area of overlap which … went on expanding the sense of tolerance and the spirit of accommodation that … was the glue that held [India] together.” That glue, Mr. Nayar, is Hindu Dharma. No where else in the world have so many different belief systems lived peacefully side by side for so many centuries, except in Dharmic (Hindu dominated) India. Yvette C. Rosser Austin, TX, USA
Jan 03, 2005 12:00 AM 13	The USA , Europe are secular societies. State and religion do not mix. No special laws for anyone and same obligations for all. Nayar and his companions mistake secularism for multiculturalism. A society can be secular and intolerant of its minorities. After all the state does not impinge on individuals or communities very often. On the other hand attitudes of various communities to each other, effect the life of everyone nearly every day. A case in point is the USA, which has a purely secular constitution. However this has not stopped white Americans from discriminating against minorities, and especially now against muslims. The Indian model of multiculturalism is based on a undue large degree of tolerance and forbearance by the Hindu community. Nayar and Mehta and others are constantly lectureing the Hindus to be tolerant and bashing them at the slightest deviance fron their commandments. However they have nothing to say to the muslims and other minorities, It is a fact that Europeans thinkers who are far ahead of our country bumpkins like Nayar, are begining to conclude that a multicultural society with muslims is not possible. Turkey is being cold shouldered by the European people. Only some politicians are speaking up for Turkey for their own reasons. Hindus have over centuries allowed themselves to be subjugated and harassed first by the muslims, and later on by the British. Their servile and spineless attitude is still very evident in their worship of the Gandhi family. Nayar and Mehta are the faithful followers of this tradition of slavery and selfabnegation. I dont give a hang for religion, but I believe that if India has to have a tolerant multireligious and multicultural society the entire bill should not be paid by the Hindus. The muslims and others should not be allowed to have a free lunch at the expense of the Hindus . As is true, the rapid economic surge of India and Indians is largely the result of the Hindu/Sikh and Christian middleclasses, where as the muslim have taken time of in their pursuit of heaven, with the 72 virgins. Is this right or wrong. ?? Europeans are acutely conscious that muslims are not a worthy partner in their liberated, free societies. Imbeciles like Nayar, who keeps on feeding us with tid bits of his past tenure as High Commisioner- a favour bestowed him by his equally stupid chum Gujeral-, should clean up their top storie and let new thoughts and ideas from the west blow away the cobwebs from his mind. It is indeed amazing that the so called secularists get no inspiration from the west,with it numerous intellectuals and think tanks. Even Pakistani journalists to their credit are more aware of western attitudes then our desi rapporters. lalit bagai kalundborg, danmark
Jan 03, 2005 12:00 AM 12	Mr. Nayar, the masses in India, I'm sure, don't understand (and don't care) what the hoopla is about... this religious v/s secular nationalism. In India, we have the problem the other way. The Constitution of India was amended for the 42nd time in 1976 to add the spurious words "secular, socialist" to the earlier plain "sovereign democratic republic" in the Preamble. Does the 42nd amendment mark a point of inflection in India's social life (in terms of secular/religious)? In my view, clearly not! People have continued to live like they did before. Indians are not secular in the same way as, say, Europeans or the Americans. Paradoxically, Indians are secular because they are insular! There are thousands of communities, all minding their own business. This instinctive non-interference in the other community's affairs is the basis of India's social harmony. As long as this is the case, we don't need the European jargon. Fascist! Rightwing Radical!! Nauseating! I admit it is an intricate dance and has it's attractions. But I don't want it as it is irrelevant. Just let people be, as they always have been. We see our youngsters aping another culture in the matter of dress/customs etc, just to feel 'cool'. Similarly, our intellectuals are borrowing the Western vocabulary to describe Indian problems. They force-fit Western solutions to Indian problems. Is the Indian problem uniquely Indian? No problem! First convert the Indian problem into the 'known' Western problem and then use the Western solution!! There is so little original thinking in India. Prashanth Bangalore, India
Jun 13, 2004 12:00 AM 11	Mr. Nayar syasy "...its standard-bearer, the Jana Sangh, a forerunner of the BJP, never went beyond the one-digit figure in the Lok Sabha till the mid-'70s...."! What are the facts? The BJS won 33 seats in 1967 and 22 in 1971. It was the largest or one of the opposition group in assemblies of Bihar, UP (yes, UP), Rajasthan, MP, Delhi (a majority), Haryana, HP and Punjab in 1967! Anyone can check the above facts, something we though a man claiming to be aleading political analyst and Gandhian should ahve known and adhered to. But, then, this is not first time that Mr. Nayar has taken liberty with facts and truth. I guess, lying in the holy cause of secular jehad is permissible for them. Gopi Maliwal Hong Kong, China
Jun 13, 2004 12:00 AM 10	I used to read KN's articles, once upon a time. Now I don't waste my time much. It seems that KN has lost his balance, or is it that he has drifted to the easy side? Vijay Abu Dhabi, UAE
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 9	For the west, secularism is separation of religion from social-political space. No prayers before social functions, etc. In India, secularism is sa-kula-taa, carrying all cultures together, i.e., prayers from all religions in social functions or solemn occasions. Clearly, this is because of the hindu base of Indian tradition, for which religion means hril-lajjaa, heart-felt modesty towards The Higher Power, Almighty, call it by many names and see it in many forms. The poem quoted by Swami Vivekananda in Chicago : sarva-deva-namaskaarah kesavam prati-gatcati: obeisance to any god-head in modesty reaches the only substantive Reality in the cosmos of apparentalty [ kesam vahati iti kesavah]. The lord says in the Geeta: yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktyaa sraddhayaa arcitum icchati, tasya tasya acalaam sraddhaam tatra-eva vidadhaamy-aham : Wherever there is worship with faith, I sustain and strengthen in there with positive responses. Thus, when the man who might have built a Devi temple earlier, prayed to Mother Mary later when in danger, whether as convert to Christianity or otherwise, the Cosmic Mother Power behind all religions responded to his prayer with immediate help. Most hindus in south India see Maariamman and mother Mary/Maria as one and the same. The whole world will become truly secular, if all religions follow Dr. Kalam, to unite at the spiritual level, recognizing a mono-theistic poly-morphic Reality behind all of them. v.seshadri chennai, india
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 8	Part 1 of 3 I am always surprised to see the names of those who write in and enter the Rants and Raves columns of on-line journals ( like Outlook India ). I contrast this with those who write FOR such on-line journals and enter the main masthead. In the former category you have people like me writing in from the international equivalent of Jhumroo Taliya. Aam janata, if you like. In the latter category you have those whom Ashis Nandy calls the “worthy scions of metropolitan India” and “living symbols of academic respectability” ( yes, people like Kuldip Nayar ). What surprises me is that no scion of metropolitan India or no living symbol of academic respectability ever chooses to pitch in where aam janata does not fear to tread. I do not see the litterati in Rants and Raves. Why? Is it because the litterati do not see themseves as Ranting and Raving ? But in that case why do they not confine themselves to the Olympian and abstruse heights of the EPW or the Journal of Secularistic Studies, in the first place? Why do they descend only to the main page of the raucous and patch-worked Outlook India, have their say and then scoot ? I shall leave others to tackle this mystery; I shall move on to take up cudgels on behalf of R&R section of aam janata. The refrain that runs through Kuldip Nayar’s encounter of the singular kind is that conceptual confusion in Olympia has led to the fouling of common secular effort. Ashis Nandy does not know the difference between tradition and religion, proclaims Nayar. And because of this confusion Nandy is letting down the troops, admonishes Nayar. Now I cannot speak for Ashis Nandy. I have a gut feeling though that, should he comment, he will comment in his customary stylised manner leaving all but his fellow-Olympians wondering if he is protesting or agreeing. In any case, I would love to hear his side - learned references, learned asides and learned grunts all included. But I digress. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 7	Part 2 of 3 My feeling is that it is not Ashis Nandy who is confused but it is Kuldip Nayar who has got his vocabulary crossed. I suspect Nayar wandered into the wrong garden in his youth and has still not woken himself up out of it. "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." The question is how many different things does Nayar mean by religion and tradition, secularism and chauvinism. And again is one of these categories to be the master – or an altogether different category that is currently outside Nayar’s mental radar? If I have correctly got Nayar’s drift, on the one side, he says, we have pluralism, synthesis, secularism, tolerance, understanding, accommodation and liberal-thinking. On the opposing side you have Hindutva, chauvinism, prejudice, bias, singularity, ‘majorityism’, and intolerance. Tradition – Indian tradition – is a package when opened reveals the former set of goodies. On the other hand, a horrible set of viruses represented by the second list tends to reside in that entity called religion of which Hinduism is one example. Ergo, keep the two separate. Here, I wish to make a detour. It is not a digression I assure you. Some weeks ago I had at home a long-lost mate from university in Chennai. We went back a long way – to the early 60s, in fact. He left for Canada and the US soon after graduation while I wandered into Europe some three decades later. I discovered he was an able raconteur and around the family table matters soon turned to questions of faith and belief. He then recounted to us how once he got stuck in a lashing storm somewhere in a hill in South America. They got down from the car and then he explained in the most normal and matter-of-fact tones how he was able to find a grotto and praying deeply to Mother Mary, as he said, he was able to see himself and his companions out of that near-death encounter. In the previous visit he had recounted with glee how he had played a major role in getting a Hindu temple built for his personal deity (and those of his other friends ) in small-town America where he lived. It was the utter innocence with which he made his proclamations that made me see what Kuldip Nayar is not able to. As counterpoint, after my raconteur friend had finished, my thoughts went back to school in New Delhi when after the Senior Cambridge examinations were over, we, a group of students, were chatting together with our favourite teacher, an Irish Christian Brother who for the first time in two long years made the one and only comment on religion that, to the best of my memory, we ever heard from him. “Christianity “, he commented to us, “may not be a good religion to live in but it is certainly the best religion to die in “. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 6	Part 3 of 3 My point is simply this. My friend, the raconteur, spoke from his tradition and not from his religion. My teacher, the Irishman, spoke from his religion and not from his tradition. I make no value judgements on either of the two sets of observations. I have recounted them here to lead gently to the point that the entity that is outside Nayar’s mental radar is, in fact, a form of holistic tradition to which the practitioners themselves never gave a name. There was no necessity for a label because it was a ranch which did not know the meaning of corrals. Did you hear CNN, BBC and the Western media screaming from the house tops about the first non-Hindu prime-minister of India ? Did you see any Indian newspaper, notwithstanding the heavy contamination of the English-language media here, use the same terms? Tradition seeps close if not quite to the bones. To return to my central thesis: Nayar appears to be unable to escape the shackles of a Western construct called ‘religion’ to label his native tradition. If Hinduism were a religion in the Western sense of the term and not the Indic sense of dharma, then his logic falls into place. But if he manages to escape the shackles, leaves his intellectual baggage outside and walks in with his emotions, it will become clear that Hindu dharma not only embraces pluralism, synthesis, tolerance, understanding, accommodation and liberal-thinking but much, much more. It is music, dance, folklore, literature, verse, legend, animal stories, philosophy, metaphysics and yoga. The list goes on. It is truly a “fuzzy area of overlap” that goes on expanding. This is dharmic space. Religions occupy this or that corner of this unique space generated over many millennia of tradition. This dharmic space is not ‘religion’ in the Western sense of the term. The confusion is then resolved. The “fuzzy area of overlap” which goes on expanding is what I call Hinduism and Nayar calls secularism. What the Catholic Encyclopedia says, on the other hand, is that : "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable”. Fuzziness and expansion have no place in the definition. Finding myself as I do at this halfway-house between ‘street’ riposte and academic pretension, I dare not walk away without at least one learned reference. For a 563-page account of what religion is and is not, please see : Prof. S .N. Balagangadhara, “The Heathen in his Blindness...': Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion”, Brill Publishers in the Netherlands, 1993. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 26, 2004 12:00 AM 5	India, Bangladesh and Pakistan share the the same history and culture though many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis love to believe they are desendents of Arabs. But India remained secular and Bangladesh and Pakistan became Islamic states. Why ?? Because in India Hindus are the majority , where in Pak and Bangladesh Muslims are the majority. % of minority popultaion has reduced from 40% to 10% in Bangladesh , from 24% to 1% in Pakistan in 56 years. While the % of population of minorities in India has increased from 12% to 20%. Why ????? Because in India Hindus are the majority , where in Pak and Bangladesh Muslims are the majority. Ahmed bangalore, india
May 26, 2004 12:00 AM 4	Hindu writers-are they really Hindu-are always preaching secularism to other Hindu's. It is because of Hindu tolerance that India had a secular constitution. Its the minorities who are agressively religious. I know many christians and muslims who would never enter a temple. They have the smug feeling of having the right god, and a childish belief that they will end in heaven. Furthermore muslims in towns and cities do everything to mark their difference from Hindu's- Its the same in Europe. France has had to enact legislation to force muslim girls to dress without the hijab, and sikhs can not wear the turban. 80% of the French agree with the new legislation. By and large muslims do not accept secularism in Europe. There is a muslim parliament in Britain, lots of Koran schools. Unfortunately many of the writers on secularism have no idea as to what is happening outside their familiar beat. At the very least secularists could travel to Europe- and see how secularism is faring. Most Europeans are very dissatisfied with the attitude of muslims to their secular societies. lalit bagai kalundborg, danmark
May 25, 2004 12:00 AM 3	It is true that a mix of communities has long been part of India's history and tradition. However, there is a difference between pre and post independence. Prior to independence, any tensions between communities was "managed" by one ruler or the other - not necessarily justly, but it was managed. Post independence, the aimwas to build a modern, democratic and secular nation where law formed the basis of social life. While I abhor the Hindu fundamentalists who are eroding India's reputation for tolerance, I can not dismiss their objection to the fact that Muslims have a body of law that applies especially to them. In a truly secular nation, one law would govern everyone and it is partly because this has not been the case in India (because successive governments were too weak and felt the need to appease the Muslim voters), that a party with as crude a message as the BJP has been able to manipulate poorly educated (or easily prejudiced) people. What India needs, amongs many other things, is education and a body of law that applies equally to everyone - regardless of religion, ethnic background, or wealth. Rustam Roy London, UK
May 25, 2004 12:00 AM 2	Mr. Nayyar could have done better than quote Mr. Jinnah's example. That was a very poor example and of an utterance which to this very day makes very little sense considering the politics and bloodshed which preceeded and followed it! Mr. Jinnah did not singularly constitute the Muslim League and silently or not, did condone the actions of his more communal followers. Secondly, as far as mentioning Sardar Patel is concerned, maybe Mr. Nayyar will do himself and his readers a favour by reading the unabridged version of "India Wins Freedom", by Maulana Azad. It is a contradiction to use the Maulana and the Sardar as examples in one and the same sentence especially in the present context. Mr. Nayyar and the editors at Outlook have done themselves a massive disservice by proceeding with this unfortunate, unfortunate article. Raveesh Varma Grand Rapids, MI, USA
May 22, 2004 12:00 AM 1	How should one understand the insistance of many european nations to have it written in the new european constitution that europe is essentially a christian civilization? jayasimha Bangalore, India

May 22, 2004 12:00 AM 1	How should one understand the insistance of many european nations to have it written in the new european constitution that europe is essentially a christian civilization? jayasimha Bangalore, India
May 25, 2004 12:00 AM 2	Mr. Nayyar could have done better than quote Mr. Jinnah's example. That was a very poor example and of an utterance which to this very day makes very little sense considering the politics and bloodshed which preceeded and followed it! Mr. Jinnah did not singularly constitute the Muslim League and silently or not, did condone the actions of his more communal followers. Secondly, as far as mentioning Sardar Patel is concerned, maybe Mr. Nayyar will do himself and his readers a favour by reading the unabridged version of "India Wins Freedom", by Maulana Azad. It is a contradiction to use the Maulana and the Sardar as examples in one and the same sentence especially in the present context. Mr. Nayyar and the editors at Outlook have done themselves a massive disservice by proceeding with this unfortunate, unfortunate article. Raveesh Varma Grand Rapids, MI, USA
May 25, 2004 12:00 AM 3	It is true that a mix of communities has long been part of India's history and tradition. However, there is a difference between pre and post independence. Prior to independence, any tensions between communities was "managed" by one ruler or the other - not necessarily justly, but it was managed. Post independence, the aimwas to build a modern, democratic and secular nation where law formed the basis of social life. While I abhor the Hindu fundamentalists who are eroding India's reputation for tolerance, I can not dismiss their objection to the fact that Muslims have a body of law that applies especially to them. In a truly secular nation, one law would govern everyone and it is partly because this has not been the case in India (because successive governments were too weak and felt the need to appease the Muslim voters), that a party with as crude a message as the BJP has been able to manipulate poorly educated (or easily prejudiced) people. What India needs, amongs many other things, is education and a body of law that applies equally to everyone - regardless of religion, ethnic background, or wealth. Rustam Roy London, UK
May 26, 2004 12:00 AM 4	Hindu writers-are they really Hindu-are always preaching secularism to other Hindu's. It is because of Hindu tolerance that India had a secular constitution. Its the minorities who are agressively religious. I know many christians and muslims who would never enter a temple. They have the smug feeling of having the right god, and a childish belief that they will end in heaven. Furthermore muslims in towns and cities do everything to mark their difference from Hindu's- Its the same in Europe. France has had to enact legislation to force muslim girls to dress without the hijab, and sikhs can not wear the turban. 80% of the French agree with the new legislation. By and large muslims do not accept secularism in Europe. There is a muslim parliament in Britain, lots of Koran schools. Unfortunately many of the writers on secularism have no idea as to what is happening outside their familiar beat. At the very least secularists could travel to Europe- and see how secularism is faring. Most Europeans are very dissatisfied with the attitude of muslims to their secular societies. lalit bagai kalundborg, danmark
May 26, 2004 12:00 AM 5	India, Bangladesh and Pakistan share the the same history and culture though many Pakistanis and Bangladeshis love to believe they are desendents of Arabs. But India remained secular and Bangladesh and Pakistan became Islamic states. Why ?? Because in India Hindus are the majority , where in Pak and Bangladesh Muslims are the majority. % of minority popultaion has reduced from 40% to 10% in Bangladesh , from 24% to 1% in Pakistan in 56 years. While the % of population of minorities in India has increased from 12% to 20%. Why ????? Because in India Hindus are the majority , where in Pak and Bangladesh Muslims are the majority. Ahmed bangalore, india
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 6	Part 3 of 3 My point is simply this. My friend, the raconteur, spoke from his tradition and not from his religion. My teacher, the Irishman, spoke from his religion and not from his tradition. I make no value judgements on either of the two sets of observations. I have recounted them here to lead gently to the point that the entity that is outside Nayar’s mental radar is, in fact, a form of holistic tradition to which the practitioners themselves never gave a name. There was no necessity for a label because it was a ranch which did not know the meaning of corrals. Did you hear CNN, BBC and the Western media screaming from the house tops about the first non-Hindu prime-minister of India ? Did you see any Indian newspaper, notwithstanding the heavy contamination of the English-language media here, use the same terms? Tradition seeps close if not quite to the bones. To return to my central thesis: Nayar appears to be unable to escape the shackles of a Western construct called ‘religion’ to label his native tradition. If Hinduism were a religion in the Western sense of the term and not the Indic sense of dharma, then his logic falls into place. But if he manages to escape the shackles, leaves his intellectual baggage outside and walks in with his emotions, it will become clear that Hindu dharma not only embraces pluralism, synthesis, tolerance, understanding, accommodation and liberal-thinking but much, much more. It is music, dance, folklore, literature, verse, legend, animal stories, philosophy, metaphysics and yoga. The list goes on. It is truly a “fuzzy area of overlap” that goes on expanding. This is dharmic space. Religions occupy this or that corner of this unique space generated over many millennia of tradition. This dharmic space is not ‘religion’ in the Western sense of the term. The confusion is then resolved. The “fuzzy area of overlap” which goes on expanding is what I call Hinduism and Nayar calls secularism. What the Catholic Encyclopedia says, on the other hand, is that : "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable”. Fuzziness and expansion have no place in the definition. Finding myself as I do at this halfway-house between ‘street’ riposte and academic pretension, I dare not walk away without at least one learned reference. For a 563-page account of what religion is and is not, please see : Prof. S .N. Balagangadhara, “The Heathen in his Blindness...': Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion”, Brill Publishers in the Netherlands, 1993. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 7	Part 2 of 3 My feeling is that it is not Ashis Nandy who is confused but it is Kuldip Nayar who has got his vocabulary crossed. I suspect Nayar wandered into the wrong garden in his youth and has still not woken himself up out of it. "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." The question is how many different things does Nayar mean by religion and tradition, secularism and chauvinism. And again is one of these categories to be the master – or an altogether different category that is currently outside Nayar’s mental radar? If I have correctly got Nayar’s drift, on the one side, he says, we have pluralism, synthesis, secularism, tolerance, understanding, accommodation and liberal-thinking. On the opposing side you have Hindutva, chauvinism, prejudice, bias, singularity, ‘majorityism’, and intolerance. Tradition – Indian tradition – is a package when opened reveals the former set of goodies. On the other hand, a horrible set of viruses represented by the second list tends to reside in that entity called religion of which Hinduism is one example. Ergo, keep the two separate. Here, I wish to make a detour. It is not a digression I assure you. Some weeks ago I had at home a long-lost mate from university in Chennai. We went back a long way – to the early 60s, in fact. He left for Canada and the US soon after graduation while I wandered into Europe some three decades later. I discovered he was an able raconteur and around the family table matters soon turned to questions of faith and belief. He then recounted to us how once he got stuck in a lashing storm somewhere in a hill in South America. They got down from the car and then he explained in the most normal and matter-of-fact tones how he was able to find a grotto and praying deeply to Mother Mary, as he said, he was able to see himself and his companions out of that near-death encounter. In the previous visit he had recounted with glee how he had played a major role in getting a Hindu temple built for his personal deity (and those of his other friends ) in small-town America where he lived. It was the utter innocence with which he made his proclamations that made me see what Kuldip Nayar is not able to. As counterpoint, after my raconteur friend had finished, my thoughts went back to school in New Delhi when after the Senior Cambridge examinations were over, we, a group of students, were chatting together with our favourite teacher, an Irish Christian Brother who for the first time in two long years made the one and only comment on religion that, to the best of my memory, we ever heard from him. “Christianity “, he commented to us, “may not be a good religion to live in but it is certainly the best religion to die in “. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 8	Part 1 of 3 I am always surprised to see the names of those who write in and enter the Rants and Raves columns of on-line journals ( like Outlook India ). I contrast this with those who write FOR such on-line journals and enter the main masthead. In the former category you have people like me writing in from the international equivalent of Jhumroo Taliya. Aam janata, if you like. In the latter category you have those whom Ashis Nandy calls the “worthy scions of metropolitan India” and “living symbols of academic respectability” ( yes, people like Kuldip Nayar ). What surprises me is that no scion of metropolitan India or no living symbol of academic respectability ever chooses to pitch in where aam janata does not fear to tread. I do not see the litterati in Rants and Raves. Why? Is it because the litterati do not see themseves as Ranting and Raving ? But in that case why do they not confine themselves to the Olympian and abstruse heights of the EPW or the Journal of Secularistic Studies, in the first place? Why do they descend only to the main page of the raucous and patch-worked Outlook India, have their say and then scoot ? I shall leave others to tackle this mystery; I shall move on to take up cudgels on behalf of R&R section of aam janata. The refrain that runs through Kuldip Nayar’s encounter of the singular kind is that conceptual confusion in Olympia has led to the fouling of common secular effort. Ashis Nandy does not know the difference between tradition and religion, proclaims Nayar. And because of this confusion Nandy is letting down the troops, admonishes Nayar. Now I cannot speak for Ashis Nandy. I have a gut feeling though that, should he comment, he will comment in his customary stylised manner leaving all but his fellow-Olympians wondering if he is protesting or agreeing. In any case, I would love to hear his side - learned references, learned asides and learned grunts all included. But I digress. M S Chandramouli Liège, Belgium
May 29, 2004 12:00 AM 9	For the west, secularism is separation of religion from social-political space. No prayers before social functions, etc. In India, secularism is sa-kula-taa, carrying all cultures together, i.e., prayers from all religions in social functions or solemn occasions. Clearly, this is because of the hindu base of Indian tradition, for which religion means hril-lajjaa, heart-felt modesty towards The Higher Power, Almighty, call it by many names and see it in many forms. The poem quoted by Swami Vivekananda in Chicago : sarva-deva-namaskaarah kesavam prati-gatcati: obeisance to any god-head in modesty reaches the only substantive Reality in the cosmos of apparentalty [ kesam vahati iti kesavah]. The lord says in the Geeta: yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktyaa sraddhayaa arcitum icchati, tasya tasya acalaam sraddhaam tatra-eva vidadhaamy-aham : Wherever there is worship with faith, I sustain and strengthen in there with positive responses. Thus, when the man who might have built a Devi temple earlier, prayed to Mother Mary later when in danger, whether as convert to Christianity or otherwise, the Cosmic Mother Power behind all religions responded to his prayer with immediate help. Most hindus in south India see Maariamman and mother Mary/Maria as one and the same. The whole world will become truly secular, if all religions follow Dr. Kalam, to unite at the spiritual level, recognizing a mono-theistic poly-morphic Reality behind all of them. v.seshadri chennai, india
Jun 13, 2004 12:00 AM 10	I used to read KN's articles, once upon a time. Now I don't waste my time much. It seems that KN has lost his balance, or is it that he has drifted to the easy side? Vijay Abu Dhabi, UAE
Jun 13, 2004 12:00 AM 11	Mr. Nayar syasy "...its standard-bearer, the Jana Sangh, a forerunner of the BJP, never went beyond the one-digit figure in the Lok Sabha till the mid-'70s...."! What are the facts? The BJS won 33 seats in 1967 and 22 in 1971. It was the largest or one of the opposition group in assemblies of Bihar, UP (yes, UP), Rajasthan, MP, Delhi (a majority), Haryana, HP and Punjab in 1967! Anyone can check the above facts, something we though a man claiming to be aleading political analyst and Gandhian should ahve known and adhered to. But, then, this is not first time that Mr. Nayar has taken liberty with facts and truth. I guess, lying in the holy cause of secular jehad is permissible for them. Gopi Maliwal Hong Kong, China
Jan 03, 2005 12:00 AM 12	Mr. Nayar, the masses in India, I'm sure, don't understand (and don't care) what the hoopla is about... this religious v/s secular nationalism. In India, we have the problem the other way. The Constitution of India was amended for the 42nd time in 1976 to add the spurious words "secular, socialist" to the earlier plain "sovereign democratic republic" in the Preamble. Does the 42nd amendment mark a point of inflection in India's social life (in terms of secular/religious)? In my view, clearly not! People have continued to live like they did before. Indians are not secular in the same way as, say, Europeans or the Americans. Paradoxically, Indians are secular because they are insular! There are thousands of communities, all minding their own business. This instinctive non-interference in the other community's affairs is the basis of India's social harmony. As long as this is the case, we don't need the European jargon. Fascist! Rightwing Radical!! Nauseating! I admit it is an intricate dance and has it's attractions. But I don't want it as it is irrelevant. Just let people be, as they always have been. We see our youngsters aping another culture in the matter of dress/customs etc, just to feel 'cool'. Similarly, our intellectuals are borrowing the Western vocabulary to describe Indian problems. They force-fit Western solutions to Indian problems. Is the Indian problem uniquely Indian? No problem! First convert the Indian problem into the 'known' Western problem and then use the Western solution!! There is so little original thinking in India. Prashanth Bangalore, India
Jan 03, 2005 12:00 AM 13	The USA , Europe are secular societies. State and religion do not mix. No special laws for anyone and same obligations for all. Nayar and his companions mistake secularism for multiculturalism. A society can be secular and intolerant of its minorities. After all the state does not impinge on individuals or communities very often. On the other hand attitudes of various communities to each other, effect the life of everyone nearly every day. A case in point is the USA, which has a purely secular constitution. However this has not stopped white Americans from discriminating against minorities, and especially now against muslims. The Indian model of multiculturalism is based on a undue large degree of tolerance and forbearance by the Hindu community. Nayar and Mehta and others are constantly lectureing the Hindus to be tolerant and bashing them at the slightest deviance fron their commandments. However they have nothing to say to the muslims and other minorities, It is a fact that Europeans thinkers who are far ahead of our country bumpkins like Nayar, are begining to conclude that a multicultural society with muslims is not possible. Turkey is being cold shouldered by the European people. Only some politicians are speaking up for Turkey for their own reasons. Hindus have over centuries allowed themselves to be subjugated and harassed first by the muslims, and later on by the British. Their servile and spineless attitude is still very evident in their worship of the Gandhi family. Nayar and Mehta are the faithful followers of this tradition of slavery and selfabnegation. I dont give a hang for religion, but I believe that if India has to have a tolerant multireligious and multicultural society the entire bill should not be paid by the Hindus. The muslims and others should not be allowed to have a free lunch at the expense of the Hindus . As is true, the rapid economic surge of India and Indians is largely the result of the Hindu/Sikh and Christian middleclasses, where as the muslim have taken time of in their pursuit of heaven, with the 72 virgins. Is this right or wrong. ?? Europeans are acutely conscious that muslims are not a worthy partner in their liberated, free societies. Imbeciles like Nayar, who keeps on feeding us with tid bits of his past tenure as High Commisioner- a favour bestowed him by his equally stupid chum Gujeral-, should clean up their top storie and let new thoughts and ideas from the west blow away the cobwebs from his mind. It is indeed amazing that the so called secularists get no inspiration from the west,with it numerous intellectuals and think tanks. Even Pakistani journalists to their credit are more aware of western attitudes then our desi rapporters. lalit bagai kalundborg, danmark
Mar 28, 2005 12:00 AM 14	The critique of secularism by Nandy et al confuses tradition with religion KULDIP NAYAR Kuldip Nayar’s criticism of Ashis Nandy is based on Nayar’s faulty and inconsistent definitions and assumptions. Nayar expressed shock that many Indian intellectuals see secularism as flawed. He does not explain the reasons for Nandy and others’ critiques, which focus on the uneven, or contorted manner in which the concept of secularism has been instituted in the Indian context during the past half century. Nayar trivializes the concepts and theories of “a growing breed of intellectuals” saying that they consider secularism as “a western concept” and therefore “alien to India”. This is not the problem… globalization goes both ways. India has incorporated many western ideas, such as representative democracy—in a particularly Indian manifestation (i.e.: caste-based parties, which have their pros as well as cons). What Nandy and other intellectuals in modern India object to is the manner in which secularism has been implemented in India. Many laws supported by Nayar and his genre of intellectuals are actually inconsistent with the very concept of secularism. From what I know of Mr. Nayar he has never had any faith in “the pluralistic ethos of the country”. According to Nayar, when scholars, “claim that in India tradition and religion are synonymous, they mock at the synthesis the country has managed over the years”. Doesn’t Nayar realize that it is the Dharmic orientation of the traditions of India that have made it a pluralistic and accommodating culture? Ask descendants of the Syrian Christians, or the Parsees who fled persecution, or numerous other refugee groups, including Tibetans who have made India their home. That ethos which allowed them their differences was the Hindu ethos, the Sanatana Dharma. Nayar’s problem arises because he doesn’t understand that in India the tradition “of accommodating different religions and separate faiths” is the basic core tradition of Hinduism. The histories of the survival of different faiths that marched in or otherwise quietly slipped into India through the centuries are proof of the Dharmic nature of the Indian ethos. When Margaret Thatcher told Nayar that Gorbachev’s Indian friends “had lived together for centuries despite their different religions, castes, languages and standards of living,” Nayar responded with what is actually a very good definition of Hinduism, that things are “neither black or white” and “there is a fuzzy area of overlap which … went on expanding the sense of tolerance and the spirit of accommodation that … was the glue that held [India] together.” That glue, Mr. Nayar, is Hindu Dharma. No where else in the world have so many different belief systems lived peacefully side by side for so many centuries, except in Dharmic (Hindu dominated) India. Yvette C. Rosser Austin, TX, USA

COLLAPSE COMMENTS

COLLAPSE COMMENTS :

HAVE YOUR SAY

Jun 14, 2004

Lost In Translation
Kuldip Nayar could have done better than cite Jinnah’s example in his column Abhor Singularity! (May 31). That was a very poor example and to this very day makes very little sense considering the politics and bloodshed which preceded and followed it! Jinnah did not singularly constitute the Muslim League and, silently or not, did condone the actions of his more communal followers. Second, as far as Sardar Patel is concerned, maybe Nayar will do himself and us a favour by reading the unabridged version of Maulana Azad’s India Wins Freedom. It’s a contradiction to use the Maulana and the Sardar as examples in one and the same sentence, especially in the present context.
Raveesh Varma, Michigan, US

Nayar’s logic is logic-defying. Instead of estimating the harm pseudo-seculars have caused to the composite culture of this country, he simply closes his eyes towards minority appeasement in the name of secularism. Now that a debate has started in the country about secularism, one can easily understand the discomfort of pseudo-secularists.
Sachin Dixit, Mumbai

COLLAPSE COMMENTS


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register

Comments Policy

We at outlookindia.com welcome your feedback to the articles, stories and blogs featured by us.

But please note the following:

1. Please keep your comments/feedback limited to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all. It is for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site. Please try and keep your comments concise and clear. Short messages tend to get noticed and also have a high probability of getting published in our respective print magazines.

2. Please do not spam us. Please do not post the same message again and again. Even in different threads.

3. Scathing, passionate, even angry, critique is welcome; abuse and invective is not. We request civility and urge our readers to try and express their disagreements, if any, without being disagreeable. There is just no space for personal attacks. No ad hominem please.

4. If any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and/or also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser(s).

Please note that it may not be possible for our moderators to sift through your messages and if they find more than one instance of abuse, they may decide to delete all your messages ever posted by you rather than spend time trying to locate all the abusive ones. Therefore, if you want us to take you seriously and for your messages to be retained on the site, please ensure that you do not cross the civil lines of propriety.

Please note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

Our endeavour is to keep these forums un-moderated and unexpurgated. Please help us help you.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not stoop to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message with links to the offending mails at the following email address: Mail AT outlookindia DOT com. Please put "COMPLAINT" in the subject-header of your mail.

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you think that an article on another site has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered "fair-use" and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular Outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and do not necessarily reflect the views of Outlookindia.com

8. Please also note that the sole responsibility for the comments posted on the site is that of the relevant registered user posting the comment. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of a comment's existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of its contents. Outlookindia.com however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays the comments posted by you. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially show up on search engines such as Google, Bing etc.

10. There is an online thread for our comments policy. You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT.

We look forward to your feedback.