SECULARISM- "India Style"

[BJP*]

seems some one do not know the difference between hindu and hinduism and way of life

here is an interesting story, plz read carefully

WHY U R A HINDU....!​

Four years ago,
I was flying from JFK NY Airport to SFO to attend a meeting at Monterey ,
CA An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat.
It indeed was a long journey - it would take nearly seven hours.

I was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time
she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.I told her that I am from India

Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' I didn't understand the question.

'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'

'No!' I replied, 'I am neither Christian nor Muslim'.
Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' 'I am a Hindu', I said.

She looked at me as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what I was talking about.

A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading
religions of the world today. But a Hindu, what?

I explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.

'Who is your prophet?' she asked.

'We don't have a prophet,' I replied.
0A

'What's your Holy Book?'

'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' I replied.

'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'

'What do you mean by that?'

'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'

I thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world
and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.

According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet,
one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that
anything else is not acceptable. I understood her perception and concept about faith. You can't compare
Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of god..

I tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one god and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple
deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in god at all,
still you can be a Hindu. An atheist can also be a Hindu.'

This sounded very crazy to her.. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving
for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.

'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'
What can I tell to this American girl?

I said: 'I do not go to temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of
the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes.'

'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'

'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'

She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'

'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me
from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively,
without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force,but choice.' I told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of
beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianityor Islam because it is not founded by any one person
or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added.
There is no institution or authority. 'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.

'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis –
Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there.
But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'

'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'

'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of
secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or
punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him
or fear him.' I told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies,
adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal gods.
The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too.


The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.

'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'

'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu.. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'

'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'

'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Peace, Peace, Peace..'

'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed.

'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its
roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal
God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'

'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'

'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices.
Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single authority
or organization either to accept it or to reject it or to oppose it on behalf of Hinduism.'

I told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next.

For a real seeker, I told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded
her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.

Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God)
is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere.
Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.

Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life.
The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas.-
It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms.
For them, God is timeless and formless entity.
Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone
who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this
an organized religion like others.. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion.

I said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the
market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception'

I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' - Non violence
is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't conditions my mind with any faith system.
A man/ woman who change 's his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does
not value his/her morals, culture and values in life.

 

[Swati Shukla]

It will take a few more decades for Indians to achieve the sort of "secularism" , there is in the west . Till such time as our burgeoning middle class becomes an absolute majority of our population , we will have trouble implementing Ideas like a Uniform civil code .

As far as the problem of complete integration of Kashmir is concerned , its quite easy to be implemented , just elect the BJP with an absolute majority in the next parliamentary elections and no-one can stop it from happening .

Congress and the Left surprisingly advocate no change in this policy and this is one of the biggest issues which irk many ardent patriots - congress and left engaging in minority appeasement is still tolerable, but engaging in it at the cost of National integrity should make any Indian's blood boil.

Agree with your views sir. we should thank mukherjee ji, father of bjp, otherwise we need to take visa for visiting kashmir..! shame on this sickular congress.

 

[Swati Shukla]

@bjp- thanks for sharing this bjp. u described it in a great way. any person who disrespects others religion and faith can never be hindu. any person who is not secular is not hindu.

 

[acetophenol]

This article is one of my favourites..Cho sir has used his usual sarcastic tone to mock the Indian brand of secularism.We can not dispute any of his points..even after 13 years of this article's publication,each point is true even now..







Author: Cho S Ramaswamy
Publication: The Times of India
Date: February 6, 1998



As a citizen of India, I am terribly agitated. The Marxists warn
me that the nation is facing the risk of turning communal. Sonia
Gandhi reminds me about the secular traditions of this country
and alerts me to the dangerous prospect of seeing it wrecked. All
the regional, district and municipal parties owing allegiance to
the front that was once united, have tipped me off about the
peril posed by Hindu fundamentalism which is perched on the
threshold of power at the centre.


Naturally, I am worried. I am anxious to convince all leaders of
secular parties that I too am secular. I believe that the state,
in the process of decision making, should rely only on worldly
criteria and not on religious doctrines or ecclesiastical
dictates. The administration should not be a monastic practice
but a temporal exercise holding the scales even between all men
to whichever persuasion they may belong. But I realise that this
faith of mine based on the concept of secularism as accepted the
world over is not going to convince the leaders of the various
parties whose secularism is an indigenous product.



Indian secularism demands more of me. I have to accept certain
postulates to get certified as a secular person by the Marxists,
the Congressmen and the constituents of the Front which was once
united. Let me in an honest attempt to accept this agenda, first
try to understand it.



The first item on the Indian secular agenda is the prevention of
the construction of a temple for Ram at Ayodhya. A temple where
there was a temple, is not as secular a concept as a mosque where
there was no mosque. Hence anyone who says that he would attempt
persuasion and all other legal and constitutional means to get a
temple built at Ayodhya is a fanatic out to destroy the unity of
the country.



The Indian secular agenda tackles next, the suggestion for a
common civil code. The idea that there could be one law governing
all citizens of the country is sure to divide the people. The
chapter on directive principles of the Constitution which
commands the state to endeavour to bring about a common civil
code should not be taken seriously. At best the directive
principles are a joke and at worst a fraud. To be secular one
should insist on different laws for different communities and
hence the idea of a common civil code should be jettisoned in
favour of a communal civil code.




Item 3 on the Indian secular agenda is the question of Article
370 of the Constitution. A secular person should be able to
appreciate the argument that continuing the special status given
to one state and treating it differently from all other. states
is the best way of ensuring the unity of the country. The very
fact that the framers of the Constitution termed Article 370 a
temporary provision should be enough to confirm it as a permanent
feature. Only a communalist would refuse to see the force of
logic in the argument that since Kashmir is part of India it
cannot be treated on par with other states.




Having tackled the temple, the law and the Constitution, the
secular agenda next takes on the Supreme Court. The highest court
in the land might have held that Hindutva is a way of life and
not a method of worship and ruled that it is not inconsistent
with secularism. But the Indian secular agenda overrules the
Supreme Court and holds the concept of Hindutva to be an
obnoxious idea. Christian values, Islamic ideals and Buddhist
ethics could at different times be secular concepts but Hindutva
is an out and out communal idea.




And to give the final touch the secular platform condemns the
slogan "justice for all, appeasement of none" as a perfidious
attempt to deny equality to the minorities. Appeasement of a few
and justice for none is a more secular programme than justice for
all and appeasement of none.



It is a formidable agenda indeed. I cannot hope to be certified
as a secular person unless I am going to agree on all these
points. But can I?


I have to forget tradition to oppose the claim that Ayodhya is
the birth place of Ram, bury the idea of an integrated nation to
condemn the calls for abrogation of Article 370 of the
Constitution, dispense with the concept of equality to protest
against a common civil code, develop contempt for the highest
judiciary of the land to hold Hindutva to be a communal idea and
sacrifice common sense to curse the slogan "justice for all" as
an attempt to deprive people of their rights.



It is a tall order. To be accepted as a secular Indian, by the
certifying authorities for secularism, the Marxists, the
Congressmen and the regional parties I have to practice
hypocrisy.

"No, I would rather be just an Indian. And I would
still be secular."

i thinnk i am too young for this article

 

[Break the Silence]

@ bjp... you have expressed views of "me like" guys... Please add thouysand in front of my thank..

 

[rubyjackass]

It ends with Ayodhya.

Because the constitution (Places of Worship Act 1991) guarantees the status-quo of all religious sites as they stood on Aug 15 1947, except Ayodhya,which is constitutionally recognized as a disputed site..



http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/bills/1991/1991-37.htm

SO you are saying the constitution and in extension the supreme court would have accepted or ordered the destruction of Babri Masjid? The Places of Worship act is illogical let alone constitutional. So if I could prove tomorrow that so and so temple X was built over a sacred mosque, and if Babri was demolished legally, X will not be because I discovered this fact after 1991?!! Only morons and blind religious zealots subscribe to this logic. Take your pick. The fact that there is such an act shows that governments recognised that already existing archaeology should not be touched. What they are also afraid of is touching the Ayodhya issue, so as to not anger the Hindu majority.

I don't know who this Cho guy is. But what he wants is as follows:
1) Ayodhya be demolished legally and a temple over it(if 'legal'). This will tear apart India no doubt about it.
2) Remove article 370A. This will no doubt anger Kashmiri nationalists. May be suggests some measures to makes them accept the idea of being in India. He is calling for another 1989.
3) Uniform civil code. This is not an issue for me but may it is impractical. But the idea of marriage in different religions is different in India. Many couples don't have marriage certificates but just accepted as married based on certain practises. For example 'Hindu wedding' is a term that constitutes those practises for Hindus. So for certain things like this civil code should allow for certain differences at least in some cases.

I am so annoyed by his suggestions that I could not focus on his gift for sarcasm that many of the author's fan boys seem to appreciate. So I cannot comment on that. But I will give him the benefit of doubt on whether he is a saffronist. May be he is just too naive. He wants India to be a textbook western secularism and he wants India to revel in its secular glory(as much as I do) by the simplest(read most naive) ways possible.

For those who loved this article:
I do not take my definition of secularism from what Sonia says. But when I see karsevaks destroying the Babri mosque, I can tell this is not. When I hear a court judgement saying 'jo ho gaya, ho gaya. ab masjid ki zameen baant lo', I can tell this is not secularism. The same judge could not have ordered the demolition of the mosque if it were still standing there. And Mr. Cho, may be you are right in taking shots at Congress for trying to 'define' secularism, but the Communists?! plzz you are barking up the wrong tree.

You guys are a greater danger to this country than the saffronists. Atleast people can tell those guys have to be shunned. But people like you trying to present 'reason' can create confusion and make people vote for a guy who can call for more karseva by making him sound more pleasant.

 

[rubyjackass]

@bjp- thanks for sharing this bjp. u described it in a great way. any person who disrespects others religion and faith can never be hindu. any person who is not secular is not hindu.

How close you sound to the Pakistani mullahs?!

 

[StingRoy]

How close you sound to the Pakistani mullahs?!

Whats wrong in her statement? Maybe you misunderstood. Read it again.

 

[rubyjackass]

The highest court
in the land might have held that Hindutva is a way of life and
not a method of worship and ruled that it is not inconsistent
with secularism. But the Indian secular agenda overrules the
Supreme Court and holds the concept of Hindutva to be an
obnoxious idea. Christian values, Islamic ideals and Buddhist
ethics could at different times be secular concepts but Hindutva
is an out and out communal idea.

No they are not secular concepts. But then no party could ever rally support to form a national government with these concepts on their agenda. Only Hindutva could do that. hence it is the most direct and obvious evil we should avoid.

 

[rubyjackass]

Whats wrong in her statement? Maybe you misunderstood. Read it again.

The urban mullahs who have to secure following among urban masses propogate this idea saying true islam protects all religions and that their prophet had ordered it.(Technically it is true and also is what would attract a modern educated guy). On the background they teach people how to be 'good muslims', a part of training which require them to protect islamic ethos by 'any means'. And if some religious zealot of the same class kills muslims or some christians when he feels they are not muslim enough or they disrespected Islam, the mullahs will declare them as not muslim as a true muslim would never commit such an act.

May be we should name this phenomenon as something.

On second thought, may be you are right. She may not be wrong. She is just naive.

 

[Swati Shukla]

How close you sound to the Pakistani mullahs?!

And how close you Sound to Digvijay Singh..?!