@Nilgiri
@ps3linux
I am so glad that you 'got' the article; when I read it, it hit me like a bolt of lightning.
Both your posts demand undivided attention and a great deal of rumination. Please give me time to think about them. And please permit me to invite others into this discussion as well.
@saiyan0321
@meghdut
@itsanufy
@DalalErMaNodi
@Bilal9
@Sher Shah Awan
@sms
The article is very good for those that wish to utilize the senses and if we use the crux of the article then its not just for India. Look the very essence change is that it comes from within. From our hearts, from our minds and from our mouths. The change is entirely internal. The prophets did not preach to the kings but to peasants because the objective was to bring changes in society and change cannot be brought unless there is internal change. Look at even reformers, they do two very important things.
To become the change they wish to make
and
They preach the change to the populace.
Now tell me have the reformers ( thats what liberals think of themselves right), have they done any of the above? have they become the change they wish to bring and then preached that change from their homes to the populace. What good is an outrage on twitter when you at your home showcase the very thing you are outraging at twitter?
Now if you would notice that i placed 'to become the change you wish to wish' at first. The reason is that the very first change must be the internal change. Then and only then are you qualified for external changes. Tell me would a father hope to bring any change if he tells his son that corruption is wrong and then does corruption and cites 'Dunyadari'. This is not change. Its hypocrisy and it does more damage to the society than any other act since the lesson learned here isnt that corruption is wrong but that all wrongs can be justified and hen you justify wrongs then you start justifying theft because there is wealth equality, you justify murder because the other person crossed you as such, you justify rape because you perceived the other to be of loose moral character or because lust took over, you justify destruction of a holy place because you believe you are oppressed. The problem here is sanctimonious attitude when one is a hypocrite and that is what has happened here as well.
In Islam concept of Jihad al Nafs ( the struggle against the self) plays an important role and Hazrat Umer (R.A) is on record in highlighting the importance and dominant structure of Jihad al nafs by stating,
“Startwith your ego and wage jihad against it. Start with your ego and do battle with it.”
Hazrat Ali (R.A) is on record stating
“The first thing you will object to from your jihad is jihad against your lower selves.”
the Prophet stated according to the following tradition
Ibrahm b. Ab ‘Ablah said to some people who had just returned from a military campaign: “You have returned
from the lesser jihad. But what have you done about the greater jihad?” They asked: What is the greater jihad? He replied: “Jihad of the heart.”
The idea was to fight internally and we have set this aside by thinking that these sayings and hadith are only for drinking or immoral actions but no. They are against all forms of moral corruption and this is the problem here. There is moral corruption. Even the action of racism is moral corruption, action of back biting or action of simply looking down upon the other or even the action of grouping an entire populace through a negative lens is also a form of moral corruption because you have grouped even the innocents with the guilty.
The struggle for the self starts when we start to question whether what we see, hear or say is right. Just a question. That action of a question alone is enough to start the struggle and then with that you try to being internal change. You wish to see a more just society, then be just with your actions. Dont complain about justice and then partake in injustice. The idea in Islamic concept of Nafs along with the sufi definition was for the moral rise of society through internal combat against struggles. The author highlights that the concept of 'Indian Pluralism' was taken down brick by brick at homes of indians and yes it is true but we must ask the question on where did this action start? did it start immediately or was it always there waiting to rise up? That is a question that only you guys can answer and answer not here but in your hearts.
Now
@Nilgiri took the last line and explained it in a stellar fashion. Perhaps i can do justice with the two lines below.
First, a religious structure can’t be and shouldn’t be a site to preserve secularism.
I disagree. I have written on Indian secularism and let me reproduce it here. It will highlight why i think that this concept of western secularism of no religious attachment is simply alien to the secularism of India.
For the last decade, India and the region itself has been home to a great debate about secularism within India and whether the Republic of India was truly ever secular? With the existence of Hindu Personal Law and Muslim Personal Law patriots, located in Pakistan and in India, have argued that secularism in India was a lie and the country was religious from the start.
This argument has been used in India to justify the growing right-wing movement as well as the rising threat of Hindutva. Many have even gone as far as to say that the country was naturally tilted towards Muslims in its appeasement and rather than being secular, the Indian state was more like a front supporting Muslims and suppressing Hindus. Anybody that has taken an opposing stance to this thinking has been targeted and severely criticised.
Certificates of patriotism and declaration of traitors have become a common method in suppressing any voice of dissent that looks to criticise the above views. Needless to say that the thinking of such ideas is absolutely wrong and is not based on factual grounds.
When secularism is spoken in the western world, then it is immediately taken to be as a synonym to separation of state and religion. This doctrine is considered as the most basic and most encompassing ground in a secular state.
Examples of the ‘Establishment Clause’ in the US First Amendment is often given as the basic secular structure of a modern state. Many intellectuals that peddle the above argument highlight that secularism is exactly like the secularism witnessed in the western world and there exists no other secular concept and the moment the state undertakes religious tones, it has abandoned its secular credentials. This is indeed true for the western definition yet the region of the subcontinent had its own definition for secular.
The region of the subcontinent is home to various religions and ethnicities and historically kings could not openly declare any religion as a heretic. They could claim the superiority of their religion but they had to support other religions as well. This was especially true for large empires such as Guptas and the Mughals where even Aurangzeb is said to have built temples and provided funds for their renovation, wherever he felt necessary for his influence and power. The Guptas and Kushans patronised religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, as well and played an important role in their growth.
The region has a long history of secularism that is very different. The diversity of the region made it abundantly clear to any ruler that, if its empire is to survive for a long time, then it cannot declare other groups heretic except one nor could it separate state from religion and bring forth a singular code to be followed by all. That would only agitate the situation even more and break the empire with a religious fire. This fact was well known as the British as well, who immediately started to bring forth the concept of Personal Law.
The British rule, if seen from the definition of Western secularism, was not secular at all since they have adopted multitudes of religious laws rather than implement a single secular code which neither established nor favoured any religion. In 1947, the Indian leadership was well aware of two very important things. That religion cannot be ignored from state affairs nor can state display the religious indifference found in the western world. If that is done then events like the partition would be repeated in India yet India could not become a religious state, since unlike Pakistan, it had sizable minorities of Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists, and many other religions that demanded their own personal laws and their separate legal code.
To put one legal code based on a single religious tone would have broken the country or would have led to riots similar to the partition violence. The state could not bring forth an indifferent legal code born with concepts of natural justice and natural law, which again would have been seen as an act against all religions and the results would have been the same.
This great debate saw India adopt another form of secularism. This form was the exact opposite of Western secularism and it focused on the state taking the burden of all religions. Rather than indifference, the Indian state decided to treat all religions equally and pass their relevant laws and answer their concerns to create religious harmony where the state would patronise all religions and through that create equality as well as formulate the state as an important part in the lives of the people.
It looked to bridge the gap between state and people and it bridged the gap between all religions. This was a monumental task, taken by a nascent country but it had to be done. There was no other away available to the founding fathers of India. This form of secularism crushed the state under the burden of religion and allowed for a situation where nobody was happy by the state’s effort and the right-wing which had repeatedly, in fiery speeches, told the populace of how the state has suppressed Hindus, saw a great opportunity to gain power by highlighting the religious nature of the state and how it was making overtures to Muslims whilst conveniently ignoring how it had also codified Hindu dharmic law, something which was not seen in the region ever.
The beauty of these regions is the diversity and how states produced their own definition of secularism and became some of the largest and most prosperous nations in history and frankly, this definition of secularism, where state looks after all religions, is far superior to the western definition. Whether India continues to stand with this secularism, or bow down to the whims of the extremists, that is for the future to decide but it can be stated that if such failure is witnessed then it would be a sad chapter to write in the pages of history.
The thing is, we need to give credit to the founding fathers of India that they were not blundering idiots but, like all leaders, they knew what they were doing. They saw that India was a diverse nation and the concept of irreligious government that would not involve itself into religious doctrine of the masses would only lead to fissures and fractures that would break the very essence of the country. If they had approached the situation through the lens of western secularism then i am certain the country would not have lasted anywhere near as long as it is doing and would have been home to severe divides which would have led to blood baths. Those divides exist today as well but the burden the government took upon itself that it will look after the religious needs of each and every group, that bandaged the country. It kept it together and formed the glue. We see Pakistanis tease Indian muslims as cowards or dont have the guts or you should have came to Pakistan but what we fail to understand is that they are loyal to India not because they believed that there would be some form of western secularism but because of the exact opposite. They believed that the government of India will employ the ground secularism of the region where the states treated all groups to their needs and desires. They believed and they witnessed ( atleast a period) where the state took on this herculean task and they saw not themselves being treated alone as such because if they had seen it just them then they would have ran to Pakistan because all favors end one day. They witnessed a government that made active effort to do that for all groups. They tried and that was the bond that glued India together. We from Pakistan differed on this and we still do and that is our right just as their belief in that ground secularism is their right. We went our separate ways because we thought it wont work and wanted our own destiny as was our right and we are here and they are there. We are loyal to our country and our ideology and they are loyal to theirs and their ideology and both have the right to fight for it.
So no. I disagree with this sentence. A religious sites in India are a brand of Indian secularism. All diverse Indian laws are a brand of Indian secularism.
Second, and more importantly, many Hindus, over generations, had been taught to view the mosque as a site of historical humiliation.
Do you remember that amazing speech by the great Quaid e Azam in Lahore in 1940? when he brought forth the resolution of Pakistan. Do you remember what he said?
Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap
Do you believe he said it because it sounded cool? No. The titan spoke with absolute determination, knowing exactly what each word meant. This statement highlights the very essence of the sentence i have quoted. The reason is because the centuries of history has come to see muslims as evil that looked to conquer and kill and pillage and many of those that teach their children, may indeed have suffered. Medieval warfare was not daisy and roses. They were brutal affairs so the vilification by both sides sees merit and to go to a muslim, whose ancestor suffered at the hands of a hindu or to go to a hindu, whose ancestors suffered at the hand of a muslim, and then to tell them to give it all up, is a task that is very difficult in nature. This is a monumental task especially considering the secularism of India as i have mentioned. Its like being stuck between a rock and a hard place and alot of actions that were taken to unite India i.e the Nehru speech when India attained independence where he states that a nation occupied for thousand years is now finally free. What message do you think that would have sent? That the british and the muslim were occupiers and in a nation where the fight was between three major groups i.e. hindu, muslim and british ( that was what was done for the 50 years before 1947 that Hindu and Muslims are brothers against the third force called the british). So in that speech where the dawn of a thousand year enslaved nation happened, every hindu felt that yes that now India will be for hindus. That Muslim were occupiers and British were occupiers so now hindu will rule as hindus want to rule. The state then employed the Indian secularism to glue the nation together but there must have been many who felt that this is wrong and India, the free nation should be ruled for hindus. They questioned muslims and 'Otherized' them. Their parents may have taken great pride in Indian secularism but at home they questioned any appeasement to muslims and it all burst forth one day as the dam broke and babri masjid was the result. The bricks werent being taken down joe. They were being built up slowly but the construction was flawed and broken eventually the structured could not stand because the ground was not fertile. You know how a house is built right? they first dig the base and build it. India didnt build the base thus the 'Pluralism' just didnt last.
