Search the Internet          Tips

Email from readers the world over

Response to Amberish Diwanji on Secularism and Appeasement

Another article by this man which does not merit waste of bandwidth. All it mentions is cow slaughter. America does not let dogs be consumed or slaughtered. This is a part of Korean cuisine. Does that mean America is not secular? The only thing America has to show for its secularism is unified personal law. Cats, dogs, rats and other exotic animals are part of cuisine in Asia. None of these are allowed in America. I think you will have to review what this man writes.
Vasu Mahadasu

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:05:30 +0800
Subject: 'The Founders Were Wrong!'

I think your column raises questions that are of the utmost importance to the survival of Indian secularism. The recent riots in Gujarat are just one proof that Indian secularism is failing.

As you mentioned, Indian laws were created to keep everyone happy. The Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Christians and other people of religion feel it their duty to preserve their ancestral practices and culture. But where do we draw the line? It is not the duty of the Indian government to promote religious practices. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the religious heads.

Yes, the founders of the Indian Constitution gave leeway for the population to change, to become more "Indian". Well, I have news for you, the founders were wrong. Although the change that they envisioned is possible, the time taken for it to occur is impractical. We need change and we need it now.

For starters, all religion-based organizations must be shut down. That means the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP, various Muslim and Christian political parties and organizations. Indians must learn that they are "Indians" first, and whatever else they are, second. Unless this line of thinking is instilled in the hearts and minds of Indians, there is no use because all other forms of governance will fail as well.

Strict laws must be passed that prohibit practices detrimental to the preservation of peace and development. The slaughtering of cows must be legalized again regardless of whether it receives condemnation or praise. Although I am against the killing of animals for industry (I believe animals can be slaughtered only for meat), it would serve as an economic boost. Furthermore I do not expect everyone to follow my way of life. Eateries and fast food outlets must sell beef and pork again. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Period.

The Muslim male practice of having four wives must be abolished. Marriage is a one-man or one-woman thing. It is not a play term that we can fool around with. It is common Indian tradition to view marriage with sanctity and let us keep it that way.

People must be taught, forcibly if necessary, that Indian law (as long as it is in the interest of the public) is above anything written in the Bhagvad Gita, Quran or Bible. Call me a nationalist if you will, but I call it as I see it. If some things are wrong, they are just plain wrong, not a misconception or misrepresentation.

This practice is what I would like to refer to as 'pure' secularism. It may not become reality today, tomorrow or even years from now. But it will be our way of life, plain and simple. All it takes is a few enlightened individuals with the courage to make it a reality.
Nash

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 05:59:21 +0000
Subject: Let's get organised

Excellent article! If only we had more Indians like you who wanted to act. More than state intervention, we sane Indians should organise to get all that you say implemented. Middle-class organisation can be a big answer to these issues.
Abhijit

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:40:15 -0400
Subject: Majority rule

Indian/US/European 'secularism' has always been the rule of and for the majority with considerations of varying degrees for the minority. Hindu secularism had always been for equal consideration of all "Indians". I think that all this has to change so that the term now means rule of and for the majority instead of the minority as has been the case for these past 50+ years.
Shivram Iyer

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:21:16 EDT
Subject: Wait till the cow dies

Some points to note regarding cow slaughter:

1. Are you recommending cow slaughter? I think one should be extra careful in recommending this. It is not only the religious reason, but there are several other reasons why cows should not be slaughtered (as a business practice) and to satisfy human stomachs. Primarily the reasons are environmental. The implications of these are much more than that of allowing the poor bovine to live a miserable life.
2. There should be a comprehensive cow protection programme. Anyway, we are wasting many of our natural green resources on unwanted economic growth (producing newspapers with junk material, for example.) So one can consider at least some of the plantations being developed for cows. At least they give us invaluable milk in return.
3. We do not kill our mother after she has taken care of us during childhood. In the same way we cannot kill a cow after it has stopped providing milk. The negative karma of killing a cow is very bad. No one can prove the law of karma, but the rules/regulations of the law are stipulated in religious texts. And who knows the reasons for our current sufferings? In this light, I would like to mention that even rich countries will suffer very negative karmic reactions due to their programme of "cow slaughter". In fact, in a pure human society, this should be extended beyond just cows to include all animals/birds.
4. Of course, if one still wants to satisfy one's stomach by eating cow's flesh, then one can wait for the poor cow to die. Anyway, they are going to die one day. Like this, at least there will be restriction on this bad habit.

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:59:23 -0700
Subject: Only we don't have a state religion

You said Western powers, especially the US, framed their constitutions for all without differences in race, caste, creed, etc. You should not have mentioned faith. Because the US constitution guarantees Christians the right to convert, which is totally against secularism. It regards Protestant Christianity as the state religion. Secularism has no relation to this too.

Write something that does not screw up people's thinking. The Indian Constitution is nothing but a carbon copy of the British one. The only thing that is not included is the state religion.

Every country sponsors a state religion. Can you give me an example of a constitution that does not declare a state religion? I can give hundreds of contrary examples. The first one would be the US, the country people like you love and crave for. At least the Indian Constitution does not declare a state religion.
Shiva

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:28:39 +0100
Subject: Secularism and appeasement

I have heard time and time again people talking about Hajj subsidies and discriminatory Muslim laws allowing a Muslim man to have four wives. I have heard a lot of people commenting that Hindu 'sentiments' have been 'wounded' because of all this 'minority appeasement', and that is why the Hindutva brigade has taken up the 'cause' of Hinduism!

It takes guts to quote instances of majority appeasement and I am glad you have done that. The problems facing the nation cannot be solved if we brand all Muslims terrorists and anti-India and call all Hindus patriotic goody-goodies. But a very large percentage of both the Muslim and Hindu communities in India are law-abiding citizens.

I wonder whether our existing parliamentarians have the sincerity and dedication to rise above parties and vote banks and jointly confront all the communal forces ruining the nation. If these parties present a united front, maybe the Bukharis, Shahabuddins, Thackerays, Togadias and Giriraj Kishores will lose a lot of their clout and the nation can be saved.

Keep on writing, please. And point out the shortcomings in all communities.
Shanta Nair

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 03:14:31 +0800
Subject: We need such plain-speaking

This is by far one of the finest pieces on the subject I've read in recent times. Devoid of rhetoric, it goes to the heart of the matter. It is such plain-speaking that we desperately need.
Feroz Khan

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:23:05 -0700
Subject: What ban?

There is a huge difference between Hindus wanting to ban cow slaughter and actual implementation. (I don't think there is a law banning cow slaughter.)

In IIT Madras, no less, they used to serve beef. In Hyderabad, cow carcasses are openly carted around on bicycles. All examples you gave of 'Hindu appeasement' are weak.

Also, you have not stated the glaring example of money from rich Hindu temples being usurped by the government, which in turn subsidises Hajj trips spending enormous amounts of money. A more devious example would be hard to find on this planet.

And lastly, does a community, which has a majority, always have to be treated as an equal to other communities? Does a nation's culture have to be cast aside to appease the minorities?
Anand

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:05:14 +0530
Subject: Hajj subsidy must go

You are right, one should vigorously demand the abolition of subsidy for Hajj pilgrims. In fact I remember Syed Shahabuddin a few years ago in a write-up in The Pioneer had also demanded an end to this concession.

As per the Holy Quran, Hajj is an obligation for those who can afford it and have resources to travel and stay in the Holy Land. Amongst the five basic principles in Islam, the Hajj and the zakat are for rich so that their money remains in circulation.

Normally a trip to Mecca cost almost Rs 100,000 per pilgrim. I fail to understand why a pilgrim who can pay Rs 100,000 can't pay another Rs 20,000, the amount of the subsidy?

It would have been much, much better if the government decided to withdraw itself from the Hajj operations. The present Hajj Committee should be converted into a corporation and handed over to professional people, experts in travel and tour administration. The corporation should be allowed to invite bids from international airlines to ferry passengers from India to Jeddah. One lakh assured passengers can lure any international carrier to provide reasonable rates.
Iftikhar Gilani

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:10:50 -0400
Subject: Does the government have the courage?

This was a very balanced article. What about the Kumbh Mela or any of the pilgrimages over icy slopes? Should government resources be used to organise any of these? Does that not fall in the same category as subsidizing the Hajj?

Will the government step in and say the Ganga is not all that holy, and can we at least keep it pure by not burning bodies on its banks and throwing half-baked corpses into it? Who will have the courage to stop this outdated practice which is so environmentally unsound?

I have never heard of anything so laughable as asking Muslims to give up beef as a goodwill gesture either! On the other hand, the worship of larger-than-life images and their subsequent visarjan (immersion) is spreading to other cities like Madras as well. More is the pity!
Vijay

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:03:04 +0800
Subject: Please enlighten us

While there is no doubting the noble intentions underlining your drive to apply a common code for all, it appears that you have carried the 'majority appeasement' torch a bit too far. The only one example you have cited of a law specially in favour of Hindus is the one of cow slaughter.

Then again, you err when you say, "...why are so many Hindus hell-bent on ensuring that cow slaughter is banned?"

The truth is Hindus have hardly been saying anything as Hindus, in one voice, up until now. Had this law been abolished a few years back, a majority of them would have accepted it just as calmly as they accepted the abolition of sati, several decades ago. Today is a different matter, though; passions are aroused and things are not going to be so easy.

Also, you mention that "the tragedy with the call to stop minority appeasement is that 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." But you mentioned just one (cow slaughter). What are these 'so many' others? Please enlighten us.
Pradeep Lad

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:55:35 -0400
Subject: Who appeases Hindus?

Please identify the political party that appeases Hindus and what that party has done 'exclusively' for Hindus. Many Hindus would like to know this and vote for that party!

The so-called pro-Hindutva parties like the Shiv Sena and BJP have not done anything exclusively for Hindus. If you think they did something for Hindus alone that other governments did not do, please elaborate. Also, please explain how many movements have Hindus run for cow protection since the last three decades.

I can understand the compulsion of many pen-pushers to talk against Hindus to balance their articles and retain the label of being secular. Sorry, but your article sucks.
Mukund M Kute

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:54:24 -0400
Subject: Indian First

I liked this column very much. India really should have a common code for all. No one should be identified as Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. Instead everyone should be identified as Indian. Anyone who says he is Hindu or Muslim first shouldn't have a place in India.
Sushil Kumar

More feedback