Controversy
'Stop The Use Of The Word Dharmanirpeksh'
The relevant section from the BJP President's speech at the party's National Executive Meeing in New Delhi on June 01, 2008
Opinion
The tension that existed between sections of the top RSS leadership and LK Advani had not been hidden. Political compulsions may have helped bury the hatchet, but the knives remain drawn...
Rajinder Puri
For The Record
'Our peak performance so far has been in 1999, when we won 182 seats in the Lok Sabha. In 2009, we must not only go way beyond our tally in 2004, but actually surpass our record in 1999'
L.K. Advani
Extracted from the BJP president's speech to the party's National Executive on June 1:

Stop the Constitutional Use of the Word "Dharmanirpeksh"

Friends, when India's Constitution was written in November 1949, then in the Preamble of the Constitution basically India was declared as a "Sovereign, Democratic, Republic". In context of the Preamble of the Constitution Dr Bhimrao Ambedar said that it should be considered as the soul of the Constitution and if there was to be any doubt regarding any Article then the decision should be taken after studying it with reference to the Preamble. Therefore, fundamentally there should have been no change to the Preamble of the Constitution since it reflected India's basic character and was an expression of the public sentiment at the time of independence. Yet, in the decade of the 1970s through the 42nd constitutional amendment, the words "Secular" and "Socialist" were added to the Preamble of the Constitution. And after this change the Preamble of India's Constitution became "Sovereign, Secular, Socialist, Democratic, Republic". It is only after this change that widespread politics began over the word "Secular" which was publicized as "Dharmanirpekshta". However, neither technically nor politically, the true meaning of the word "Secular" can ever be "Dharmanirpekshta". The official Hindi translation of the Preamble of the Constitution published by the Law & Justice Ministry of Government of India, which is also a public document, in that the meaning of the word "Secular" is written as "Panthnirpeksh".[sic]

Friends, there is a big difference in being "Dharmanirpeksh" and "Panthnirpeksh". Panth or sect symbolizes devotion towards any specific belief, specific way of prayer and specific form of God but Dharma symbolizes absolute and eternal values which can never change like laws of nature. For example one can say Dharma is like the earth or land while Panth is like different paths built over it. Our mind can chose any path, change from one path to another, we can hold different views about the various paths but how can we ever get separated from the earth?

"Dharmapran Nation" means a nation whose actual consciousness is imbibed in Dharma. India is a "Dharmapran" nation and this is evident from Amarnath in the extreme north to Sabarimala Temple in the extreme south, and in Haridwar, Nasik, Ujjain and Prayag where one can see Kumbh Melas in perpetual occurrence.

India's National Emblem has three lions and carries the eternal message of "Satyamev Jaytev" (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundkoupanishad. Truth signifies Dharma and not a sect. India's National Flag has the Ashoka Chakra in it. This Chakra found in Sarnath is Dharmachakra and basically symbolizes the cycle of Dharma. In India's Parliament behind the seat of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha "Dharmachakra Pravartanay" (for the propogation of the eternal cycle of Dharma) is inscribed. Therefore, if Dharma is present in the National Emblem, National Flag, and in the supreme seat of Parliament then how can the entire establishment of India be neutral to Dharma or be Dharmanirpeksh?

Probably by understanding these very sentiments, even in the Constitution the word Panthnirpeksh was written. The use of the term Dharmanirpeksh instead of Panthnirpeksh is not only incorrect, unconstitutional, not only against all the national symbols of India but also against the very basis of the real and perpetual ethos of our great nation. The level of pervasion and confusion created in both politics and among the public by the inappropriate use of the word is unimaginable. This also hurts our identity and traditions. India has always been a Panthnirpeksh or sect neutral country. Here from Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shakht to Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism many sects have flourished. Throughout history there has never been any discrimination with anybody. However, India was never Dharmanirpeksh, is not Dharmanirpeksh and till it's existence can never ever be Dharmanirpeksh. To make this Dharmapran nation into a Dharma neutral nation is a deplorable attempt to destroy the actual consciousness of this great country. At least after 61 years of independence we should try and come out of this colonial mindset. India needs to come out of the distorted Indianization from the borrowed western thoughts because without appreciating our own identity and also by hurting our own identity India cannot become a proud and powerful nation of the 21st century.

The confusion created by Dharmanirpeksh and Panthnirpeksh cannot be removed only through an explanation. The only solution is to stop the use of the word Dharmanirpeksh. That is why I am announcing that in future we will never use the word Dharmanirpeksh and the Government of India should also issue a directive prohibiting the constitutional use of the word Dharmanirpeksh so that from the Prime Minister to the common public no one constitutionally uses this term and this will prevent confusion and damage from taking place though its usage.

...

[Commentators have also made much of the concluding portion of the BJP President's speech]

Every section of society must be developed. On this occasion I would like to appeal to the minorities of the country that they should be wary of those who practice politics in the name of so called secularism. The BJP treats the minorities not as vote banks but as committed citizens of the country.

Friends, from the core of their hearts, the people want to hand over power to the BJP. We also want the nation to experience an environment of value based politics. Alongwith Cultural Nationalism, Article 370, Uniform Civil Code and True Secularism, we are committed to preserve the national unity and integrity. We always maintain that power is a means and not an end for us. I have great hope that our party workers in every village will constitute their teams at every booth and while they will ensure the BJP's geographical, social, political and cultural expansion, they will also ensure that our ideology spreads among our supporters in their respective areas. If we succeed on this front, which I am confident that we will achieve, then that day is not far when on the ramparts of the Red Fort, our prime ministerial candidate Shri Lal Krishna Advaniji will address the entire country.


Full text of the speech can be found here.

Opinion
The tension that existed between sections of the top RSS leadership and LK Advani had not been hidden. Political compulsions may have helped bury the hatchet, but the knives remain drawn...
Rajinder Puri
For The Record
'Our peak performance so far has been in 1999, when we won 182 seats in the Lok Sabha. In 2009, we must not only go way beyond our tally in 2004, but actually surpass our record in 1999'
L.K. Advani
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Jun 12, 2008 12:00 AM
15
While the Dharmic based religions like Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikhs would welcome Dharma to be the core Indian values for the Nation, the Adharmic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Marxists would try their best to uproot the Nation from Dharma as it is an hindrance for their expansion and to ultimately wipeout Dharma. Thus Secularism is used as a weapon to keep the Nation from Dhrama, and not because they adhere to Secularism but to stop to Dharma itself. That is why, no Muslim majority nations speaks about or practices Secularism while you will find them propagating Secularism in nations where they are minorities. Where in nations like US, the Christian church is always deadly against Secularism, but the same Christian establishment wants the Hindus to practice Secularism in India. The Marxist of course will use secularism to further their atheist agenda. Well today we see so many well wishers for Secularism in the expense of Dharma itself.

Only today after so many hard lessons, the Hindus are realizing this fact!
Maha
KL, Malaysia
Jun 08, 2008 12:00 AM
14
"So shouldn't we now be talking about panthnirpeksh?"

Since you are convinced panthnirpeksh is the right word, we don't have anything to talk about.
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Jun 08, 2008 12:00 AM
13
Ganesan,

>> Really!!! Somebody was disputing this the other day.

Didn't you and others convince me the other day that secularism does not mean dharmanirpeksh? So shouldn't we now be talking about panthnirpeksh?
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jun 08, 2008 12:00 AM
12
Faruki:
"Since dharma is not religion, the question is not relevant"

Really!!! Somebody was disputing this the other day.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Jun 08, 2008 12:00 AM
11
>> That's basically Vijay's point and you don't seem to get it.

My post should indicate that I not only got the point, but went beyond it.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jun 08, 2008 12:00 AM
10
"Secularism does not require you to drop your dharma. Secularism requires that the state should be separated from religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. Since dharma is not religion, the question is not relevant."

That's exactly the point. So why should the state say that it is "without dharma" or "separated from dharma" rather than "without religion" or "separated from religion". Basically, it is wrong to translate dharma to religion. That's basically Vijay's point and you don't seem to get it. If you want a rough translation of dharma, it is basically "universal/natural laws". Now how can government or anything in this universe, for that matter be "outside" of dharma???
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Jun 07, 2008 12:00 AM
9
Vijay and Seshadri,

>> but how can Indians be secular without Dharma?

Secularism does not require you to drop your dharma. Secularism requires that the state should be separated from religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. Since dharma is not religion, the question is not relevant. Actually secularism does not require you to drop your religion either. All it requires is that there be a wall between state and religion, even if it is slightly porous. Under secularism, I can keep my Islamic religion, as well as my Islamic dharma.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jun 07, 2008 12:00 AM
8
Vijay Agarwal:>>"The western nations of USA and Europe can separate the state from the religion and be secular, but how can Indians be secular without Dharma ? It is an insult to India and her civilisation ethos ..."

Quite right. dharmo rakshati rakshitah: moral ethics is that which sustains societies which follow it truthfully. dharti iti dharmah: dharma is what sustains.

In the days of sanaatana dharma in ancient aarya-varta india, there was no conflicting religion, [rite layam janyati, tuner into cosmic rhythm]. Hence, dharma and panthaa were seen as one the same. But, now, with different religions with different names, all basically trying to tune man to God, but having diverse dogmas and dicta considered more important than mind-entunement to God, different creeds are seen as different 'dharmas' instead of different 'panths' to reach the same unique dharma of man tuning to God. Rajnath singh is right. Panthaa-nir-apekshataa is the correct approach and term for secularism, sa-kula-taa, carrying all sections or kulas or social groups together on progress with justice. The term dharma-nirpeksh' does appear as a rejection of all religion or morality or ethics, not really meant by secularism, implying only non-discrimination based on religious groupings.

Incidentally, the hindi word 'dharmanirpeksh' is a deficiient derive from the full sanskrit term: dharma-nir-apekshataa. [eekshaa = view; apekshaa: favoured view; upekshaa = neglect; nir-apekshaa = view withour favour for any]. Sorry for a lesson in sanskrit.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Jun 07, 2008 12:00 AM
7
RAJPUT:>>"self interest over rides every other interest. That indeed is a sad state of affairs in the national context."

Quite right. Politicians nowadays are behaving mostly as 'bala-adhi-eekshaka', 'keen seekers of power' and 'phala-adhi-eekshaka', 'keen seekers of the fruits of power'. Self-less work for nation's good, like what one saw in Rajaji or Jaypraksh Narain, is no longer there, either in the UPA or the NDA. If Nehru was PM now, with Rajaji the gov-gen, inflation would have been stopped in 24 hrs: one meeting with all CMs in Delhi, total abolition of customs, excise and all sales taxes on crude and all its derivative products, from kerosene to aviation fuel. Costs inside the country will only reflect international price, minimum profits for companies. Inflation would have come down. Politics separated from econmomics. If OPEC raises prices, people will resist by walking or cycling instead of motoring. Prices will have to come down.

v.seshadri
chennai, india
Jun 04, 2008 12:00 AM
6
Raj Nath Singh does have a point, for the one-way translation of Secularism into Sanskrit/Hindi "Dharmanirpeksh" is controversial. The Dharma, or Dhamma as found in Buddhist texts written in Pali has a common Indo-Persian root, "Dhar", i.e to fasten, to support, to hold, that which holds’ this world, or the people of the world, or the whole creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Dharma, therefore, is one's righteous duty or the ultimate truth or reality of the universe.

Throughout the history of Indian philosophy, it has governed ideas about the proper conduct of living - ideas that are upheld by the laws of the universe. The symbol of the dharma - the wheel - is the central motif in the national flag of India.

It is misleading to translate Dharma into the semitic concept of "religion" where one needs to look up to a Messiah and book for guidance. In Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. the Dharma has the central focus i.e. the correct understanding of Nature or God, as the origin of nature, which one is able to see with in oneself without relying on a prophet or a book.

The antonym of Dharma is Adharma meaning unnatural or immoral.

Therefore, the inclusion of and translating "Secular" into "Dharmanirpeksh" into the Preamble of the Constitution of India is not correct and like the term "Socialist" clearly has political undertones.

For, as Raj Nath Singh has brought to the fore, India is a "Dharmapran" or "Dharma Parayan" - follower of Dharma - state symbolized by her "national emblem of "Satyamev Jaytev" (Truth Always Triumphs) of the Mundkoupanishad. Truth signifies Dharma and not a sect. In India’s Parliament behind the seat of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha "Dharmachakra Pravartanay" (for the propogation of the eternal cycle of Dharma) is inscribed. Therefore, if Dharma is present in the National Emblem, National Flag, and in the supreme seat of Parliament then how can the entire establishment of India be neutral to Dharma or be Dharmanirpeksh ?"

The western nations of USA and Europe can separate the state from the religion and be secular, but how can Indians be secular without Dharma ? It is an insult to India and her civilisation ethos ...
Vijay Agarwal
Northampton, United Kingdom
Jun 04, 2008 12:00 AM
5
>> It is silly on the part of Singh to question the western roots of secularism. By that token, much of Indian democracy is founded on western ideas and institutions

What is so surprising in what Singh has said. They basically want to reject secular humanist democracy and thge idea of a welfare state with affirmative actions. Instead they want the age old practices that suit his ilk. Since they cannot do it directly, they are trying to do it through back door by deception.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jun 04, 2008 12:00 AM
4
>> he (Rajnath Singh) raised a demand for substituting 'dharmanirpeksh', which means neutrality with regard to religion, with 'panthnirpeksh', which is neutrality with regard to sects.

What he actually means is that special welfare schemes for disadvantages sections, impetus to social justice, affirmative action etc should be stopped and be "neutral" or treated same as advantaged sections (whose interests the BJP has in mind). With such limited interests, it is easy to make such suggestions (though deceptively clothed in a different language of minority-majority etc).
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jun 04, 2008 12:00 AM
3
"It is not impossible or even difficult, to deal with and include religions in a nationwide effort to make men truly religious, each in the way shown by his or her own religion, and add to it a spirit of understanding and respect for other people’s religion and way of life” (from the IBN-live link of Namo)

As usual, C.Rajagopalachari got it just right.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jun 04, 2008 12:00 AM
2
"he (Rajnath Singh) raised a demand for substituting 'dharmanirpeksh', which means neutrality with regard to religion, with 'panthnirpeksh', which is neutrality with regard to sects.

"While at one level this might seem semantic nitpicking, at another it questions the basis of Indian secularism and hints at a revival of aggressively nationalist ideology."

" It is silly on the part of Singh to question the western roots of secularism. By that token, much of Indian democracy is founded on western ideas and institutions.

"Should they then be scrapped? Singh has instead stressed on a strident assertion of India's national identity. But he forgets that the nation, too, is a western concept and a recent one at that."



http://timesofindia.ind...articleshow/3094328.cms

Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jun 03, 2008 12:00 AM
1
The commies raised this issue a year back


http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/23kalam.htm


They want to use the dharmanirpeksh, ergo, it is in India's interests to use the other word.
Sriram
Chennai, India
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY