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

Re: apology needed from Mr Vajpayee for betraying his Oath of Office



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Krishnan Kandasamy wrote:
 By secularism I meant that the state doesn't have a religion...

Or it could mean, for PRACTICAL purposes, for POLITICAL purposes, that it
has *all* the religions (you might thus see why only philospher kings can
form a great government for such a case!).

 STATE= Government Instituations, that govern the people has to be secular, 
 without religion. People can have whatever they want and endorse what ever 
 religion they want. Nobody is aganist a person being spritual or religious. 
 That is not the state business to interfere.

Governmental institutions should be faithful *in* all religions, just so
that people can DO with whatever religiousity they wish to and yet expect
the same interface with the government. Governance is about affirmation,
not about denial. If it's about denial then we should be using the word,
dictatorship for it. We might debate on the pros and cons about
dictatorship, but all of us here are given to freedom of the spirit first
and foremost, so we can safely sidestep that I guess.
 
 Communalism is using religion for purposes other than being religious, like 
 winning votes, breaking in to other person property just because he belongs 
 to a different religion and claiming it to be a moral right of the majority. 
 Imposing "Hindutva" on people who belong to other religion.

Quite right. Communalism is *USING* religion for... It doesn't contrast
with Secularism, which is about *HAVING*. Communalism can exist perfectly
within a secular state. If 50% or more of the population wants to vote for
a party or screw a judge or whatever *legally*, there is no reason, logic
or whatever, for the rest to do anything other than contest it legally.
The secular state only guarantees equality for the 55% and the 20% before
the law and no more. At the hustings, if 55 is greater than 20 and we
can't accept that, we ought to think up another real-number-line maybe.
Let me reiterate: the solution doesn't lie in asking for an INDIFFERENT
state, it lies in asking for a TOLERANT state. Indifference is not caring,
tolerance is caring at its height. They will meet, I am sure, when
religiousity is planted within spirituality, but I don't think it helps to
dismiss the stages so early. In anycase, I am no one to comment on
another's 'stage' in thought. 
 
 While RSS/BJP and others claim to safeguarding India by targetting India, 
 they are actually causing greater damange to it. There is no other reason 
 but to gain votes of illiterate, misguided folks, who falls for their 
 antics.
 
'illiterate', 'misguided', Yes. RELATIVELY. Of course there are two views
about this too.

 I am interested in a state called India that treats its citizens equally and 
 protects its citizens no matter, what religion they belong to.
 
Great. Ask for tolerance and not indifference.

 Unfortunately people like Bal Thackery are bigots and narrow minded 
 hooligans, who are aganist any boby who don't pay them the hafta.
 
This is not relevant. 
 
 
 >From: "Raju Agarwal" <krantikari@hotmail.com>
 >Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
 >To: debate@indiapolicy.org
 >Subject: Re: apology needed from Mr Vajpayee for betraying his Oath of 
 >Office
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:33:55 -0800 (PST)
 >
 >Dear Krishnan,
 >
 >You have not answered my question asking you to define secularism and
 >communalism.  The problem that I have with secularism is that it negates
 >(rather than affirming) the role of spirituality as the center of society.
 >Recently, a new concept, called "Pluralism" has started gaining popularity
 >in Academic circles in America.  This idea not only permits the peaceful
 >coexistence of diverse spiritual belief systems but it also affirms the
 >central role or spirituality in man's existence.
 >
 >I don't think that the concept of Secularism should be implemented in 
 >India,
 >because unlike other countries that have implemented this idea, Indian
 >spiritual belief systems are not based on the concept of exclusivity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------