Pak Tea House » India, Pakistan » Was Gandhi Secular ?
Was Gandhi Secular ?
Shahran Asim’s contribution for PTH
I know in our Pakistan Studies we have always read that Mahatma Gandhi was not secular and he did ‘nt want Muslim minority to have their share in the post partition scenario. When I raised these questions, someone suggested me to listen to his speeches which have been posted by an organization called Gandhi Server Foundation (www.gandhiserve.org). It is a great historical resource of information related to Mahatma Gandhi, contains his audio library , his letters to Quaid-e-Azam, Nehru and others, etc.
I have selected this speech which was addressed to Hindus but is is mostly related to create peace and harmony among the Hindus and Muslims. Please listen to Gandhi on Muslims, start from 3 mins and I would suggest to
listen it completely. How he praised the contribution of Muslims to India, Urdu, etc.
Link one: Date 10-15-1947 Delhi
Link two: Date 10-27-1947 Calcutta
Listen to this and start from 14th minute Gandhi on Quaid-e-Azam.
162 Responses to "Was Gandhi Secular ?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MA
said Hehehe, Well-said wolf. Its funny, I mean what th... - real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on...
- kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
Whatever. You and I are not going to agree completely. Let’s just leave it at that.
My feeling is that they were referring in main to Jinnah who had opposed Congress’ flirtations with the Mullahs.
Which is tickety boo, other than for the fact that at the time, Jinnah was hardly a leader of India’s Muslims—most IMs in 1920 wouldn’t even have heard of his name. As late as 1937, the man still couldn’t claim to represent anyone other than UP’s Muslims—he had no presence in the areas that now constitute Pakistan and of course Bengal.
So, again, just who did the G-man topple? Or did he just step into a vacuum?
The positives of the political system in India are owed in main to two men Nehru and Ambedkar and then to the legislators of independent India including Muslim Leagers like Mohani and Ismail. i>
You seem to think that “The positives of the political system in India” are a gift from above—Ambedkar, especially was a political nobody during his lifetime, whatever be his other towering achievements.
I disagree, of course. Not totally—India’s constitution had its role to play–but I think there’s more to it than peremptorily authoring a cut and paste of the World’s Top 10 Constitutions.
Btw, lest you be accused of hypocrisy, I’d advise not dissing Gandhi and praising Mohani in the same breath.
Fighting over whether someone was secular or not is a waste of time today. They all had their lures and allures (with no cures). They stumbled – just as we are doing today. A man’s legacy dies with him. That is the purpose of death.
Better if YLH founds his own party and starts doing what he thinks is right for his beloved Pakistan. Trying to convince indians is a lost effort. Jinnah bungled as he died and died as he bungled. Let us be merciful to him, a mere human being. With Gandhi it may have been worse. May be he too wished that his bungled-disappointed life comes to an end.
India has some real-cum-imperfect secularism and even the hindu right is held in good check by it. Let Pakistanis acknowledge the good that India has achieved as exemplary for itself – the otherway round, for India to acknowledge what good Pakistan has achieved, that is rather meagre. That is no reason to feel hurt or insulted, but a spur for better achievements. That Pakistan’s religion and religious scene will be largely a hindrance in this is now all too clear. The hindus’ religions of today seem to be more agile-progressive and less obstructive.
I wish YLH does not waste his talents and time on trying to fight down indians on the PTH. If Jinnah inspires YLH, so be it. If Gandhi brings forth only scoffs, so be it. Fighting over dead men – is this what PTH is to be about?
Dear Hayyer
I don’t doubt your claim that in their purist zeal the post Independence congress governments tried to shove Gandhian ideals down everyone’s throats. Ironically it seems that the people doing the shoving did not understand the first thing about him which was that he never insisted on doing anything by compulsion. His writings clearly came out in the favor of governance by consensus rather than by coercion; but then that is South Asia for you.
It may be very satisfying to criticize a dead man who has been dead for 60 years but does that absolve others of all responsibility? Where are we today compared to then?
The following is a report that I read a while ago somewhere on the net.
All Indians should read it and hold their head in shame after reading it.
“In the early 90s, when the Ram Mandir issue was at its peak, veteran Gandhian Dr. Sushila Nair (also Gandhi’s personal physician) went to Ayodhya to promote peace and held an interfaith prayer meeting outside the Babri Masjid. They were singing “Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram” and at the phrase “Ishwar Allah Tere Naam” some Hindu militants who had gathered tried to disrupt the meeting. Being a Gandhian, Dr. Nair peacefully went up to them and asked them “Aap aise kyon kar rahe hain? Aise mat kijiye. Hum Gandhiji ki taraf se aaye hain” and the response of the militants was “aur hum Godse ki taraf se aaye hain” (“Why are you doing this? Please don’t do this. We have come on behalf of Gandhiji”, to which the militants responded “and we have come on behalf of Godse”).”
Gandhi may have held silly personal views; he may have used his fasts as a method of teaching his errant countrymen religious pluralism, he may have even alluded to religious symbolism to make them more tolerant but no one can accuse him of inaction in the face of inhumanity; that is more than one can say for all of us and the present day secularist.
Secular\fundamentalist\bigot are but labels. One can decide to call anyone anything. It does not matter. What matters is what one does. I am not sure he would have let a Babri Masjid happen without fighting a good fight if he was alive.
And that is all that matters!
Regards
23
I am re-posting this one as it did not get posted yesterday. Hayyer, this is for you. I hope you get this.
Thanks to the moderators.
Hayyer,
“Let us not be so patronizing of the peasants. They are normal humans like us and they are just as intelligent.”
I am a farmer’s son, financially better than the variety you see in Mother India, but I guess I can qualify for a rural fellow. I have lived in a village long enough to know how the village dynamics work. People who think of villagers as ill informed, illiterate folks do so at their own peril. On an average, our villagers are politically more sophisticated than they are given credit for. I don’t need to go into further details. My comment was about the idiom that Gandhi used, as Gorki has correctly pointed out too. To a person(the villagers in my area, at least) who has been brought up on a staple diet of daily renderings of Tulsidas’s RamCharitraManas, abstract things like democracy and freedom for rights were easily explained if couched in the terms that he/she is familiar with. That doesn’t denigrate his wisdom but merely is an attempt to find a common medium for communication. Now, you can explain to them the finer points of democracy by quoting Locke, Hume,Paine etc., but I doubt you would get very far. Lest it be construed that I am speaking primarily about the Hindu audience, I would like to mention that my village has a substantial Muslim population who have taken with alacrity to the caste system and duly segregated themselves into various caste groups. Pathans form the highest echelons and, ironically, pride themselves on their Rajput ancestry. They have an interesting history. As the story goes, at the battle of Chunar, they were on the losing side(Humayun’s) and converted en masse to escape punishment from Sher Shah. 500 years hence, they still consider themselves superior to the lesser flavor of Rajputs because they belonged to the more “authentic” Parmar or Ujjainiya tribe of Rajputs. At election time, caste considerations supersede religious affiliations.They all belong to the Barelvi sect. I didn’t want to go into these prolix details but I have heard the term Hindu nation, and questions about identity bandied about quite a few times and thought I should put these details out. I am sure before Partition this scenario was not too uncommon. So, this was the audience that Gandhi was working with. I never claimed that he is responsible for all the work that has been done. The one man one vote was mentioned as an example. It required years of work to explain to the people what it really meant. I hope I have made my point clear about the Ram Rajya thing. In my view, Gandhi understood perfectly the rottenness that was at the core of our society, including our villages. That he attempted to do something about it is what I admire most. Of course, my experience is different from yours, so I can understand your point of departure.
“Harijans it is best to rely on Ambedkar. Gandhi was patronizing, as his followers still are. …”
That is an unfortunate development of our caste politics. You are damned either way. I hope you know that Gandhi himself was at the receiving end of much of the caste abuse.
“Life isn’t digital. We are more nuanced than your statement would have us.”
I agree, which is why it surprises me that you don’t accord the same standards for Gandhi. It always amuses me how people try to justify one side of a person using the other.
“I am sorry that you should have a lesser view of me than hitherto, but such is life, win some lose more.”
I know and I was quite shocked that you didn’t know that aspect of Gandhi. For most of us who have done their bachelors in India, that stuff about his sexual perversion and his views about blacks was a common knowledge. He was the favorite punching bag for all and sundry and, above all, we had more colorful vernaculars for him rather than hackneyed phrases like humanoid, etc.
Lastly, I remember you classifying me as a Kayastha. I have an inkling why you did so, but I’ll let it pass. We all have our biases.
I guess I am going to resist posting such long comments. I must say I am extremely thankful for the views that have been shared here and it’s has been a really good learning experience.
Here is a piece by Swapan Dasgupta. Quite useful to the current discussion, I think.
Gandhi, the only visionary among many patriots
By Swapan Dasgupta
March 23 was the 69th anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh. Like most sarkari occasions, the commemoration was characteristically tokenistic and would have remained confined to telecasts of “Rang de Basanti” and “Legend of Bhagat Singh” had it not been for two contrived controversies. First, there was a protest by Leftists over an official ad showing Bhagat Singh with a turban rather than his hallmark trilby; and, second, a legal notice was sent to actress Preity Zinta for allegedly hurting “sentiments of the people” by depicting the freedom fighter in a Kings XI Punjab poster.
The great Indian penchant for tamasha has not spared its hero worship. The various commemorations of freedom fighters such as Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad and Subhas Chandra Bose is invariably followed by complaints that ‘official’ India has been woefully selective in projecting the freedom movement. Soap-box orators have even hinted at a ‘conspiracy’ to reduce India’s recent past to a family history.
Suggestions of a conspiracy may be hyperbolic but there is a basis for the perception that the grand narrative of the national movement doesn’t accord due recognition to the little struggles that either complemented the Congress’ battles or followed an entirely different course. Textbook history, which aims at turning the past into a manageable package, cannot accommodate the different strands and many loose ends. In the quest for simplicity and homogeneity, rich complexity is a casualty.
That Bhagat Singh and many others have been downsized by capsuled history is undeniable. However, there is a rash temptation by many, not least those who accept celluloid and comic book versions of the past as the hidden reality, to suggest that it was the revolutionary nationalists rather than the Mahatma and his followers who really brought about Independence. This was certainly the theme of many 140-syllable interventions on Twitter just days ago. Many tweets argued that nonviolence prompted a compromise with the British Raj and prevented India from disinheriting the entire colonial legacy.
Youthful impetuosity has invariably been at odds with the ethical quirkiness of Gandhi. As impressionable undergraduates, many of us internalized the British Stalinist R P Dutt’s catchy assessment of Gandhi as “mascot of the bourgeoisie”, “that general of unbroken disasters” and the “Jonah of Revolution”. The Mahatma’s abrupt withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement after the violence at Chauri Chaura, his initial prevarication over Purna Swaraj, his settlement with Lord Irwin, his unequivocal disavowal of “Bhagat Singh worship” and his spiteful campaign against Subhas Bose in 1939 were held out as examples of Gandhi’s unwillingness to release the full tide of anti-imperialist passion. The likes of Bhagat Singh with his fervent commitment to socialism were never similarly inhibited.
Rubbishing the Mahatma has become an unofficial national pastime. Militant Hindus charge him with betraying Hindu interests and facilitating Partition; Muslim separatists always perceived him as a wily Bania; radical Marxists see him as an upholder of the status quo; and a new breed of Dalit activists accuse him of social condescension towards the community. Compared to his passionate critics, the Mahatma’s defence seems piteously proforma. No eyebrows are even raised at his transformation into an icon for selling fountain pens and tabloid newspapers. The few remaining Gandhians have painted themselves into a faddist corner, obsessed with temperance, vegetarianism and naturopathy.
Gandhi is a victim of India’s impatience with historical rigour. It is casually assumed that India was forever ready for a grand anti-colonial explosion and that Gandhi used his moral standing to derail the process. It’s a romantic proposition which, unfortunately, cannot be historically sustained.
First, it was not until the late-1930s that self-rule became an accepted goal for all Indians. This realization was itself the culmination of the many campaigns waged by Gandhi since 1918. Bhagat Singh was a fierce patriot but his belief that a few exemplary acts of violent protests would trigger a revolution was wildly optimistic, if not naïve. The young Bengalis who raided the armoury in Chittagong in 1930 shouting, ironically, “Mahatma Gandhi ki jai” made a similar miscalculation. Their spark awed India but it didn’t light a prairie fire.
Gandhi realized better than many of his colleagues that the biggest impediment to India’s self-awakening was mass passivity, even fatalism. Unlike the revolutionaries, he shied away from grand proclamations and focused on creating awareness. He knew the human costs of armed liberation struggle and consciously chose the path of a moral struggle using India’s greatest strength — its sheer numbers. He turned adversity into advantage and spared India the bitterness and inhumanity of China’s revolutionary violence. Gandhi bequeathed to independent India a stable society, not one devastated by civil war.
There were many patriots in the freedom movement but Gandhi was perhaps the only visionary. He doesn’t deserve to be mocked.
J-krishan mian is a genius. I write on a Pakistani website … But somehow I am picking fights with Indians.
I don’t need to convince people of anything. All that I have claimed has been claimed by credible historians and other authors. Therefore I am just stating it.
Karaya,
I am not in the mood to waste another 20 posts proving how what you’ve written is historically inaccurate on many counts. You may educate yourself further on all the pointless points you’ve made.
I will say this however : Hasrat Mohani was in Indian politics before Gandhi came along. Hasrat Mohani believed in his own synthesis of Communism and Islam but he was from the Tilak camp and his famous ode to Tilak ought to be read by everyone. So people with little knowledge ought to stop claiming nonsense.
As for India’s achievements… it has a fine secular constitution safeguarded by an excellent judiciary (though they royally messed up for countries like Pakistan when Indian judiciary gave the “basic structure theory” and the judges’ appointment method) …
however on ground Indian society is as bigoted, religion-obsessed, communal, backward, poverty stricken and cut throat as Pakistani society if not more. So the achievement is indeed limited to the constitution… India was far too big a country for one army to take over. That ensured democratic continuity but all the advantages were squandered.
Even till a few weeks before her assassination at the hands of her bodyguards (which led to retaliatory massacre of the worst kind) Indira Gandhi was forced to produce a photograph of her “hindu wedding” in court. To me this is telling of the reality.
“however on ground Indian society is as bigoted, religion-obsessed, communal, backward, poverty stricken and cut throat as Pakistani society if not more. ”
True. If that gives you satisfaction, so be it. I would like to add, however, that you would have a hard time finding donation boxes for supporting bombers in Karachi, Lahore, etc., and open banners proclaiming deaths for wajib-ul-katl like nonsense. And, we do manage to get in more than 10 people to protest massacres.
In case you forgot, there was a time when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency and she was far more powerful than your tin pot generals. The so-called backward, religion obsessed country came out in full force and she had to beat a hasty retreat. And yeah, it was a Gandhian who led the revolt.
I wonder why Mohani choose to stay back in India.
“India was far too big a country for one army to take over.”
It didn’t stop the British and the country was far bigger then.
I am not in the mood to waste another 20 posts proving how what you’ve written is historically inaccurate on many counts
Quite.
On Mohani, we are obviously coming from very different directions. I for one can’t fathom how somebody who disses the Khilafat Movement left and right can sing paeans to somebody like Mohani.
As for Tilak, he’s hardly a gold standard for secular probity, my man. But even if he was, Mohani being in his “camp” (in 1907, who’s camp was Jinnah in?) means squat when you look at his politics.
Bade and chote miyan:
Thank you for the detailed post.
As a farmer’s son you well know what I am talking about but I differ with the following, as I do with Pakistanis who believe that the way out of their mess is a modified religious discourse. Read AA Ahmad’s piece on hermeneutics.
“…abstract things like democracy and freedom for rights were easily explained if couched in the terms that he/she is familiar with. That doesn’t denigrate his wisdom but merely is an attempt to find a common medium for communication. Now, you can explain to them the finer points of democracy by quoting Locke, Hume,Paine etc., but I doubt you would get very far.”
I did not mention Locke Hume and Paine, not do I think it is necessary to talk to illiterate in a religious idiom. Humans have an innate sense of justice. If you tell villagers that everyone is equal under the law and each one has one vote they will very easily understand the idea. No religious analogies are required. The idea of justice came first, religion came later. Behavioural economics has established that as have evolutionary biologists. Don’t ask me for references because I shall have to trawl the net and I have a very slow connection where I am currently.
“I would like to mention that my village has a substantial Muslim population who have taken with alacrity to the caste system and duly segregated themselves into various caste groups.”
No doubt this is the fancy fractal recursivity that Shiv was referring to.
“It required years of work to explain to the people what it really meant. I hope I have made my point clear about the Ram Rajya thing.”
I don’t think that it required years of work to make people accept the principle of one man one vote even in Bihar. The proles jumped at the chance, it was the upper class guys who were in fear of the idea, and the British were careful to restrict voting in the early years of the 20th century just to the propertied.
“In my view, Gandhi understood perfectly the rottenness that was at the core of our society, including our villages.”
I don’t think so. Gandhi idealized the village. He had no idea what it was all about.
“Life isn’t digital. We are more nuanced than your statement would have us.
I agree, which is why it surprises me that you don’t accord the same standards for Gandhi. It always amuses me how people try to justify one side of a person using the other.”
My dear Bade Miyan I do believe that Gandhi was highly nuanced, excessively so. On this thread I have only said that his views were not secular. I knew about his sexual eccentricities but I had not read much about his African days.
“Lastly, I remember you classifying me as a Kayastha. I have an inkling why you did so, but I’ll let it pass. We all have our biases.”
If I did it must have been because you hinted it somewhere in one of your earlier posts on some other thread. If I misunderstood I apologize. Actually all the Biharis I know happen to be Kayasthas or Bhumihars. I also knew a Rajput and a Muslim. Besides the literary classes of Bihar tend to be Kayastha. There is certainly no bias. As they say, one of my best friends is a kayastha. My niece married a kayastha from Bihar.
I wont discuss Swapan Das Gupta’s article, because it is very long, there is nothing new in it, and because it has nothing to do with the thread. There are Gandhians and there are non Gandhians. I find Gandhi rather creepy.
Swapan Das Gupta a BJP apologist, represents those born again Gandhians that have taken over the icon only to selectively burnish their own tarnished credentials.
On the rotten villages:
Panchayat elections were held in Haryana last week. In one neighbouring village the Sarpanch spent one lakh to get elected. He got 108 votes and won by seven. In two neighbouring villages which are considerably larger the Sarpanches spent 20-40 lakhs each.
What on you may ask? It was chicken and whiskey and beer for a whole month and a half, and thanda for the ladies. In some villages the demand was Rs 5000 for a vote.
Things are not quite so bad for elections to the state legislature, and even better for Parliamentary elections; but it should give an idea of the noble villager’s order of priorities.
Karaya
July 14, 2010 at 9:04 am
As for Tilak, he’s hardly a gold standard for secular probity, my man. But even if he was, Mohani being in his “camp” (in 1907, who’s camp was Jinnah in?) means squat when you look at his politics.
In 1907, afaik, Jinnah was aligned with Gokhale, not with Tilak; I hope you weren’t implying that Jinnah was ever a member of the ‘garam party’.
Happy Bastille Day, btw.
@Bade Miyan
July 14, 2010 at 8:11 am
“India was far too big a country for one army to take over.”
It didn’t stop the British and the country was far bigger then.
An outright conquest, and an internal take-over through a coup d’etat are two different animals. I hope you are not seriously equating the two?
bade miyan…
Yes… but then in Pakistan, not even the most bigoted of Mullahs would get to contest elections and then win after claiming “we will cut off the heads of ____” … not even against Ahmadis who are the most victimized community in all of South Asia. That happens in secular India though. Varun Gandhi, grandson of Indira, great grandson of Nehru, great great grandson of Motilal ji… is an MP.
Karaya mian…
Read a good book on Hasrat Mohani. Read about his role in Communist Party. In any event… I am not singing “paens” to Mohani… simply pointing out his contribution to the Indian constitution.
On Tilak… I suggest you read a bit about him. Tilak was – whatever people might say- someone willing to allow a unity at the top permeate down to the bottom. That was the most important thing.
Anyway kindly don’t respond anymore. I don’t have time for this nonsense.
I suggest everyone reads A.I.R. 1916 Bom 9 whoever can access it.
Yasser: thanks for a robust debate. May I suggest that you post the links to your pieces on PTH instead of answering to people who have pre-conceived notions and who believe in one version of history ignoring that there are many histories!!!
Sent from my BlackBerry® Smartphone. Typos are regretted
We should not be surprised that Pakistani and Indian societies have very similar problems to do with the far right, xenophobic nationalism and religious extremism.
The difference as YLH has said is that India has made constitutional safeguards and has a judiciary. Apart from that corruption is endemic in India, and many of my Indian friends have similar complaints as Pakistanis have about their nation and the tribal mindsets which dominate the political discourses.
Frequently India in the Corruption Index and Rankings wallows below the 3 point mark or is just on it which indicates ”severe corruption”.
Furthermore very interesting documentary on Dispatches a British investigation documentary on the endemic discrimination filmed on camera which occurs against Muslims and those in the caste system till this day.
Type in ”Dispatches: The Indian Miracle?”, where prominent British Indian journalist Guru Murthy uncovers epic discrimination in India. India does have a great constitution, but it faces the same challenge as Pakistan in applying to society.
We all have our demons, and God knows the only thing worse is to deny there are demons in your own backyard……
Here is the description of the dispatches documentary:
The new India has a high-tech, highly-skilled economy. The country’s universities are churning out thousands of highly qualified science and computer graduates working in software, biotechnology and engineering firms in metropolitan India.
But in rural India, where more than three-quarters of the population live, Guru-Murthy discovers the story could not be more different. He meets some of the thousands of widows of farmers who have committed suicide after being driven to despair by debt. More than seven hundred million people depend on farming to make a living but the cost of buying tractors, fertilisers and irrigation pumps for small farmers has left some in debt and with no way out.
“I don’t know what we are going to eat now. When my father was alive – he used to provide for us. Now I don’t know what we will do,” says the 10-year-old son of a farmer from Punjab. His father killed himself by dousing himself in kerosene and setting himself alight. And as India’s economic boom powers ahead, farmers’ land on the edge of the expanding metropolises is being seized to make way for yet more factories. Unskilled farmers are finding themselves without land and without a hope of working in the new factories in what’s becoming a hidden disaster of epic proportions
MS Swaminathan, the founder of India’s original green revolution in the 1960′s fears a different kind of revolution if the problems of rural India are not tackled. “Any society which transgresses from the principle of social equity beyond a point then you have an explosive situation,” says Swaminathan. “If you want a country of 500 million landless labourers – then the country will be completely ruined. It will be social chaos of unimaginable dimensions.”
In Mumbai, India’s financial capital, Guru-Murthy investigates the renewed support for Hindu nationalism which many argue is resulting in widespread discrimination against India’s 150 million-strong Muslim minority. He finds discrimination is excluding Muslims from the new prosperity as they struggle to find employment and buy property. Going undercover in one housing complex in Mumbai, Guru-Murthy is told by security guards that Muslims are not allowed to buy or rent property there. “I feel insulted. I feel humiliated”, says Muslim businessman Salim who has spent the last four years being refused the opportunity to buy property in the complex.
In Delhi, the country’s capital, Guru-Murthy examines the way in which Indian society also discriminates against huge swathes of the majority Hindu population via the caste system. The Indian government is supposedly trying to tackle this age-old social stratification system which defines the jobs people do through a programme of affirmative action policies in education and employment. The notion of ‘untouchability’ – which defines those at the bottom of the caste system who carry out the most menial jobs and have no physical contact with upper-caste Hindus – was meant to be banned 60 years ago.
But Guru-Murthy discovers that the caste system is still alive and well and forces those at the bottom of the ladder, dalits, to do jobs like clearing up human excrement. Satish Kumar belongs to the low caste Valmiki community, his job is to clean sewers and toilets, he says: “When my children ask me why I do this and tell me it is dirty, I tell them I do it to feed them. If I don’t they will die of hunger.”
India’s economy is powering ahead, growing at an incredible nine per-cent a year. But Guru-Murthy argues it is merely widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The ultra rich are now able to live behind electrified fences in entire self-contained cities away from the degradation, poverty and despair of the rest of India.”
Secularity does not come into play here but developing a popular kind of liberal humanism which I believe can only be grounded in the religious discourse (in Pakistan anyway). It would be helpful for an enlightened religiosity fighting against the Caste system and other discriminatory Hindu practices (I believe associated with socio-historical factors rather than the Hindu scriptures per se).
Ylh,
“Varun Gandhi, grandson of Indira, great grandson of Nehru, great great grandson of Motilal ji… is an MP. ”
I agree. That is, along with the Modi’s rule, a very shameful episode. I cannot offer any excuse. The only thing I can say is that Varun Gandhi was excoriated across the spectrum and had a criminal case filed against him. To balance the skulduggery, we had an Samajwadi MP who is a Muslim openly declare a bounty on the Dutch cartoonist’s head. With respect to Modi, we can only wait and watch. As you may know, he is a virtual “untouchable” in political circles outside Gujarat. Democracy has its pitfalls. You can see it unraveling in Europe too. By the way, I am quite shocked by your unbridled praise for the judiciary in India. Having been involved with a few court cases, I doubt if anything can be worse than our judicial system. It stinks!
Hayyer,
I shall write more later.
Vajra,
I admit I was lazy in conflating the two. I have no idea why the army has such a hold in Pakistan. I guess they got the taste of power very early on and it’s hard to wean them away now. Pakistan is not alone in that. Turkey is only now beginning to sideline the army.
Hayyer,
I shall write more later.
Vajra,
I admit I was lazy in conflating the two. I have no idea why the army has such a hold in Pakistan. I guess they got the taste of power very early on and it’s hard to wean them away now. Pakistan is not alone in that. Turkey is only now beginning to sideline the army.
Khalid,
Those are well known stories. Thing are changing, however, and at a really fast pace. If you took a random sample of municipal workers in Delhi, you would find a whole spectrum of castes, not just Dalits.
””’Those are well known stories. Thing are changing, however, and at a really fast pace. If you took a random sample of municipal workers in Delhi, you would find a whole spectrum of castes, not just Dalits.””’
That is optimistic of you. I still do not know of a single Hindu scholar opposing the caste system in uncertain terms living in India. Where are the Hindu reformists, who advocate a reform in religious traditions? Its fine to advocate reforms in secular constitutions, but to really get through to the Hindu majority where are the liberal Hindu theologians?
Indeed I regularly read reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN about human rights issues not only in Pakistan but also for India, and on both sides of the border the abuses are harrowing and shocking.
To my mind in this respect India still suffers, and progress though is being made (which cannot be said for Pakistan in the same respect) is extremely slow and not effective in the legislative arena.
Since 1996 the Government of India has also argued that caste falls outside the scope of the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Still they insist upon this and its shocking. India still refuses to acknowledge the inherent discriminatory and racist aspects of the caste system hence their refusal to discuss the issue at the UN.
Having said that, Pakistan too is a repeat offender when it comes to minorities.
”uncertain terms ”’
should read ”certain terms”.
So long you think caste system is a result of some conspiracy (by the brahmins) you are not going to understand this phenomenon. You will not be able to explain why there is a caste system in every complicated society (leave alone the likes of Iceland or Fiji).
Postulating equality between humans is only for propaganda purposes. It is populism. It has no basis in material, economic, genetic or cultural reality. Some religions and ideologies have inflated their demographic numbers by making sweet-false promises only – promises which they do not, will not and cannot fulfill.
I think I have been very gracious not to equivocate the caste system to the spirit of the Hindu religion, I have said it is the result of socio-historical factors imposed on Hindu scriptures.
This is a very forgiving position, many scholars would say the opposite but I believe in intellectual empathy.
So grow up and stop making excuses for the caste system……..
You must really hate the American Declaration of Independence Krishnan when it opens with the powerful and beautiful words:
”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”’
That must make you sooo mad! Ridiculous what planet are you living on Krishnan, arguing against equality……….
Nothing makes me mad in this world anymore.
I know many declarations.
230 years after this declaration – where is USAmerica today on the scale?
Muslim countries refused to sign the universal declaration of human rights because of the postulate of freedom to practise or preach any religion whatsoever. They could not allow non-islamic missionaries coming into muslim lands. They opposed the abolition of the death penalty also. etc.
Nature argues against equality – and you think you are a better holier human being by accusing me of it (as if I am the creator of this mess) and showing-off pious anger at me. USA or muslim leaders or any other humanists can declare what they want (populism!) – nature has its own uncompromising harshness. And God, if he be, has his own separate unpredictable harshness too.
Read a bit of Nietzsche also. Human beings can manage their life on the earth better if they stop being sentimental.
In India today there is a huge propaganda against brahmins, they are vilified and ridiculed at every step. Simultaneously India has sunk into worse corruption and filth than ever before. Poor behave foolishly and the blame for their added sufferings is then put (by our professional bleeding-heart socialists) on the rich. If someone goes to the poor and tells them that they suffer because of their own foolishness then he will be lynched by them.
You can’t manage human society like that.
Where is USA on the scale?
In a damn better position than Pakistan or India mate……..
The behaviour of Muslim states you cite is disgraceful and wrong. I have always argued against this rather than make excuses for like you do for Hindu right wing nationalism.
Nietchze? Give me a break, he was senile and mentally disturbed. His writings are controversial to say the least connected with misogyny, fascism, anti-semitism and anarchism. Read a real philosopher not someone who spews out absurd rantings…..
Read Machiavell or Hobbes if you want to understand the futile nature of human beings working in a political context…….something sensible and less vulgar.
”’nature has its own uncompromising harshness”’
I am tired of your futile social darwinism, if you want to live as if you are in a jungle then do so, and reject humanity’s innate capacity to do good…….
No wonder Krishnan your views are absurd, you have been reading Nietchze after all, and it seems taken him close to your heart…….
Khalid mian, what Krishnan says in his posts is absolutely true. Nature is predisposed against equality; you see examples of such inequality just about everywhere. Not all of it is perpetrated by one man on another. However, we as human beings who have been given the faculty to think and excercise discretion, must strive towards it. That is the innate goodness of humanity you are talking about.
”Nature is predisposed against equality; you see examples of such inequality just about everywhere. ””
Yes nature might be because animals do not have a sense of reason or any intelligible free will. Human beings have moral autonomy and conscience, hence we cannot attribute our evil to nature.
That’s shifting responsbility, which Krishnan has been doing a lot of………
Humanity’s innate capacity to do “good” is being demonstrated in Pakistan. 20 – 100 being killed per week in terrorist attacks and honor killings since last few years. And the killers absolutely believe that they will be in some god’s heaven soon after. Cowardly judges have even joined ranks with them. In Sweden (a very advanced society?!) there was a case of a man eating his own friend. He killed him and stored his flesh in his refrigerator. In Germany a homosexual man raped and killed a girl of 14 and later said he just wanted to try it out once with a woman.
@ AA Khalid
To my mind Islam is focussed on trying to tame the ego (as are other religions in their essence). Ego and evil are different things. We may not be by nature pre-disposed to evil but we all have differing capacities to resist it. It may be that the stronger the ego, the lesser one’s ability to have empathy and to be humane and the greater the tolerance for inequality.
@Tilsim
I totally agree. By nature human beings are predisposed to do good, we have the choice (Free Will) to do good or to do bad, we cannot blame nature or anyother external factor since responsibility for our actions lies with us.
@ AA Khalid
At it’s core, it seems an epic struggle for mankind. J Krishnan and others appear to have bought the argument that one’s ego cannot be effectively quelled. However, I would like to think that the broad thrust of history suggests that mankind is on the whole getting better at it and is deploying different means to achieve the same aim. The challenge though is indeed immense.
It may be that the stronger the ego, the lesser one’s ability to have empathy and to be humane and the greater the tolerance for inequality.
Tilsim, it is also the ego that drives man towards striving for equality. The refusal to accept inequality for oneself and also others also has its genesis in the ego. That is the “good” ego. When it is “I, me, and myself”, it becomes the “bad” ego.
@ Voldemort
“The refusal to accept inequality for oneself and also others also has its genesis in the ego. That is the “good” ego. When it is “I, me, and myself”, it becomes the “bad” ego.”
Yes that makes sense to me.
J. Krishnan:”Postulating equality between humans is only for propaganda purposes. It is populism. ”
No, it is an ideal to be practised/enforced by living humans. There is no natural tendency for fairness and equality in nature (in line with Darwin’s principles), but such a principle is required in human populations at this time to make the notion of a nation-state work.
“There is no natural tendency for fairness and equality in nature (in line with Darwin’s principles),”
However there is remarkable interdependency in nature. Extinction of species is also caused by the loss of balance. I think the same holds true for human ego.
Well said Tilism.
“Extinction of species is also caused by the loss of balance. I think the same holds true for human ego.”
Firstly Balance is Human Idea , constructed by our mind which seeks pattern
Secondly from our perspective ,Nature never looses its balance , extinction is a part of natural selection . Thats why we human construct culture , in order to protect the meek .
@ AA Khalid
“We should not be surprised that Pakistani and Indian societies have very similar problems to do with the far right, xenophobic nationalism and religious extremism.”
India and Pakistan don’t have similar problems .
In India Criminals are problem , in Pakistan the Problem is Law and the Society which makes that law .
In Pakistan the society and the Law encourages the criminals ( for eg Blasphemy Law )
@Raj
“Firstly Balance is Human Idea , constructed by our mind which seeks pattern”
Really? Forget observational, philosophical or hypothetical arguments about nature, is that what the scientific evidence tells us from a study of biology, chemistry or physics?
@ Raj
Ijust use statistics, studies and reports conducted by reputable organizations and basing my conclusions on that.
@ Tilism
Science doesn’t talk about mind .. Science can only talk about brain
@AA Khalid
So do I
Vengaayam wrote:
“No, it is an ideal to be practised/enforced by living humans.”
If it has to be enforced then it is going to end up creating many hypocrisies and subtle and not-so-subtle subversions.
Furthermore: to treat equals as unequals is unjust, but to treat unequals as equals is even more unjust.
Taming the ego (intelligently and wisely) is a way of being happy, content and relaxed. It has nothing to do with any equality among human beings. Equality has to be enforced through a totalitarian system containing many hypocrisies. Even in religions it is that same story.
Don’t mix up things merely because you wish to capture them politically and then make capital out of it.
To raj
Pakistanis have developed this habit of saying “India has the same problems as Pakistan”. That satisfies their ego mightily. It makes them feel better. {EDITED}
””””””’Pakistanis have developed this habit of saying “India has the same problems as Pakistan”. That satisfies their ego mightily. It makes them feel better. So they will equate hindu violence (the defender’s violence) with muslim violence (the aggressor’s violence) also. The kuran explicitly allows muslims violence when muslims are the defenders. When non-muslims use violence to defend their lands or regain their lands then kuran seems to disallow it. So much about fairness in the kuran! Does the kuran allow defensive violence to the non-muslims also?””””””””
You’re confused and talking rubbish. How can you portray xenophobic nationalism and fanatacism as ”self defense”?