[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: physical versus economic force

Administrative Note:

Arvind: Do we add this to our list of subjects to debate on?
Also, since this seems to be the subject of discussion this
week, and there was hardly any following of the "Week's Agenda"
I wonder what is the purpose of attching this note in every
mail I forward. 

As a reminder to all, the core purpose our discussions on IP
is to frame a set of policies that, once agreed upon within us, 
can be used to govern the larger populace (diverse, opinionated 
and likely to raise several objections such as those we see here).
My point being this: we need to be results oriented in our
discussions. Pontification, philoshophy and personal opinions
must be restricted to within levels of usefulness. Even subjects
being debated must be considered in terms of their usefulness
and impact. How much do we care about what India's position 
was in 1750 or how objectively can we evaluate the intentions 
of the British empire? Thus instead of asking "why anyone should 
be tolerant" I would like to know what a government would define
tolerance to be and how it expects ALL its citizens to live
by it in a mutually beneficial way.


Week's Agenda: Economy

> However it looks as though there are a lot of underlying currents
> with regard to this issue  that are better dealt with now rather
> than later.  So I recommend that the IPI Admin team consider 
> discussion on the topic of religion  for a week and collect the 
> view points of everyone concerned. 

Sounds good to me. We need a policy on religious matters just as much as 
one on others, for this is as much a vexatious issue if not more. May I 
propose the consideration of the following:

(a) why should anyone be tolerant?
(b) what should the state's role be with regard to religion?
(c) are state-funded religious schools acceptable? Is preferential 
admission for specific religious groups OK?
(d) the basis for separate civil laws
(e) can the state require you to declare your religion?
(f) must you have a religion that falls into one of several identified 
by the government?
(g) are there religious expressions that are not permitted? 
Sati/sacrifice/war on others/ whatever?
(h) can religious expression be regulated (for example, subject to law 
and order)?
(i) Is private bias permitted - i.e., can I put up a sign on my door 
that says "No Hindus allowed"?

Inevitably religious debates end up arguing about some detail without a 
proper examination of the larger issues. A well-thrashed out religion 
policy should be able to address these and other issues.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/