Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
It is implying that there is a God - even if its implying its the cookie monster that is a violation of secularism. Secularism mandates that the government neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of a God - for the purposes of governance, God should have no role.
You're denying the right of the atheists to state there is no God.
Apparently, you are unaware of the South Asian use of the term, quite distinct from the western (European, Anglo-American, Australasian) usage. In South Asia, secular is taken to mean all-inclusive, at the theistic level. Atheism and agnosticism have never been widely recognised as valid or given space.
This use of secular may not be pleasing. It is not one with which I personally hold, as I have made clear time and again in my posts on PTH. However, as YLH and others have explained, however faulty, this meaning of secularism is what prevails. Unfortunate.
Your questioning of Indian 'secularism' on the grounds that the national anthem refers to a deity is without merit for this reason.
Because of which, it still faces criticism, however just like any other country, their religious fundamentalists won't allow that to change.
The forces opposed to a change include the political constituency of the Indian National Congress. Whatever its faults, it can hardly be considered a gathering of religious fundamentalists.
That's just stupid rigidity. Also the petition should be to drop Tagore's poem altogether and get in a more Indian poem. Editing an existing poem would still mean that the spirit in which the original was written, is being acknowledged by Indians - praise to their colonial master, the 'Dispenser of India's destiny'.
About it being stupid rigidity, you are of course entitled to your opinion, and of course, you are entitled to free speech. PDF is remarkably refreshing in that respect. I might consider the remark stupid meddling with something that is really nothing to do with you, but then free speech is remarkably free.
Your knowledge of India and influence groups and bodies of opinion seems unusual. Perhaps it is in that spirit of blithe ignorance that you have overlooked that Tagore's father and grandfather were leaders of a monotheistic religious movement which broke away from Hinduism and stands apart as a separate religion. Considering the form in which they worshipped God, as Infinite Singularity - immanent and transcendant, Singular, Author and Preserver of Existence - He who is manifest everywhere and in everything, in the fire and in the water, in the smallest plant to the mightiest oak, interpreting the Bhagya Vidhata is also quite easy.
For the same reason, you will readily understand that religious fundamentalists - by which you presumably refer to Hindu and Muslim bigots and regressives - will not have any reason to support Tagore's God, which is so alien to anything that they worship.