Are we secular?

Earlier this afternoon, a link was posted on my facebook wall by a friend. Here's that link.

My first instinct on reading the note was to dismiss it like I dismiss a lot of such trash everyday. Then, after sincere afterthought, I decided to engage with it constructively, since this discussion is happening within my own community and it becomes a duty of sorts for me to do so. Now, I'm writing without any inhibitions - from the perspective of a mature adult human to a group that I'm presuming to be one of mature adult humans. A lot of what I write might come across as irreverent and maybe even disrespectful to some people, though I wish to clarify right now that no disrespect is meant to any individual. My scorn here is 100% dedicated to thought processes & specific thoughts. This note would be open for everyone to read and comment on. However, I shall moderate the comments fiercely and will not tolerate anything that contravenes these ground rules.

(a) No personal attacks. I don't know you & you don't know me. So, please don't make any assumptions or observations about what I (or anybody else) am (is) & what I (or anybody else) do(es).

(b) Keep the discussion to the point. The point being made here is on the secular nature of India with some arguments & counter-arguments. Getting individuals & specific political parties into it is illegit.

(c) If you're stating something as a fact (as opposed to an argument based on opinion), a source would be desirable. In the absence of a credible source, please be prepared to accept your argument as based on opinion.

I've numbered the points made in the original article, as a lot of my responses would be referencing other responses in the same post. Numbering makes it easier for the reader to follow. So, here goes...



1. There are about 52 Muslim countries worldwide. Point at just one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.

--> Totally agree. But let's talk about us & only us. We shouldn't bother ourselves with whether other countries do it or not. The question should be...whether India should provide Hajj subsidies or not. My take is...it shouldn't. Neither should it provide any for Amarnath, Kailash-Mansarovar, Kumbh etc. With the multitude of faiths followed in our country, its practically & economically impossible for the government to provide subsidies for pilgrimages of all faiths. So, they should be provided to none.


2. Show one Muslim country where Hindus are extended the special rights that Muslims are accorded in India?

--> Why should Muslim countries be the benchmarks for what a secular country ought to do? Isn't that a twisted argument by itself? I was irritated the first time I encountered it, I'm peeved now. And this question is extremely vague otherwise. What special rights are we talking about? I'd rather engage with something specific than undergo the futility of assumption.


3. Show one country where the population with a whooping 85% majority panders to the indulgence of the 15% minority.

---> Again...very vague & incendiary. Specifics please...what pandering? What indulgence?


4. Show one Muslim country, where a non-Muslim has ever been its President or Prime Minister.

--> First instance - irritated. Second instance - peeved. Third instance - my patience is being tested.


5. Show one Mullah or Maulvi who has issued a 'fatwa' against terrorists.

--> Ask Google. They'll show you many.


6. Hindu-majority Maharashtra, Bihar, Kerala, Pondicherry, etc. have in the past elected Muslims as its Chief Minister. But can you ever imagine a Hindu becoming the CM of the Muslim majority J&K?

--> Yes. I can imagine. Kashmiris are far more secular than we give them credit for. Its just fringe groups (on both sides, interestingly) that display religious intolerance. If you want, I can have both Hindu & Muslim Kashmiris to substantiate my claims. Now, ask yourself if you can imagine Hindu majority Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh to have a Muslim CM.

My rhetorical question was asked with a fairly different intention than the one it was in response to. While the original question was aimed at projecting Muslims as intolerant & Hindus as all-encompassing, my response was to prove the original question to be of a rhetorical nature.


7. In 1947, when India was partitioned, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%.Today it it barely accounts for even 1%.

--> And the point is?


8. In 1947, the Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was 30%. Today it is about 7%.

--> Again...the point is?


9. In contrast, in India, Muslim population has gone up from 10.4% in 1951 to about 16% today; whereas the Hindu population has come down from 87.2% in 1951 to 85% today.

--> Why in contrast? What's the relevance? Now, if I were to look at these figures as a standalone, there might be some inferences that can be drawn from it...but none that could relate to the secular nature of India. If there is any, please enlighten me. :)


10. In India today the Hindus account for 85% of the total population. If Hindus were intolerant, how come Masjids and Madrasas are thriving? How come Muslims are allowed to offer Namaz on the roads? How come Muslims are permitted to proclaim five times in a day on public address systems that there is no other God except Allah?

--> Nobody claims that Hindus are intolerant. Blanket generalisations are the product of an unscientific mindset, something which seems to be inherent in the person asking these questions. Yes...there is a fringe element amongst Hindus that is hugely intolerant. And if they were to have their way, Masjids & Madarsas wouldn't have thrived; Muslims wouldn't have been able to offer the namaz on the road and P.A. systems wouldn't have been blaring the azaan.


11. When Hindus gave away to the Muslims 30% of Bharat along with seed-money in 1947, why should Hindus now have to plead to that community for their sacred places at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi?

--> The question exhibits a complete lack of knowledge regarding the events sorrounding the independence & partition (I use that word for the lack of a better one). First of all, Hindus didn't give away anything. Second, the division was one of land and not faith. Any further response would be giving undue importance to an insulting question.


12. Gandhiji objected to the decision of the then Cabinet of Ministers and insisted that Somnath Temple should be reconstructed out of public funds and not government funds. Why then in January 1948 did Gandhiji pressurize Nehru and Patel to carry out renovation of the Mosques of Delhi at government expenses?

--> That question could have been better answered by Gandhi. Unfortunately, he's no longer amongst us.


13. Why did Gandhi support the Khilafat Movement which had nothing to do with our freedom movement and what did he get in exchange?

--> Quoting the Wikipedia entry for the Khilafat Movement...

In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement — a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle.

14. If Muslims and Christians are minorities in Maharashtra, UP, Bihar some other States, are Hindus not minorities in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, etc? Why are Hindus denied minority rights in these states?

--> So you agree that certain rights should be accorded to minorities. Or don't you? Your first few points say they shouldn't. Make up your mind as to where you stand. Decrying something when it doesn't suit you & celebrating the same when it does - last I knew, its called opportunism.


15. When Haj pilgrims are given subsidy, why is a similar facility not extended to Hindu pilgrims to Amarnath, Sabarimalai and Kailash Mansarovar?

--> Refer to my response to point # 1.


16. When Christian and Muslim schools can teach Bible and Quran, why Hindus cannot teach the Gita or the Ramayan in Hindu managed schools?

--> Why are you so enamoured with two wrongs making one right? IMO, philosophy & comparitive religion should be taught in schools & colleges as an elective subject and all these texts, along with those for Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. should be made part of it.


17. Do you recognise that Hindus do have problems that need to be addressed? Or do you think that some of those who call themselves Hindus are themselves the problem?

--> I'll answer the second part of the question first. Some people who call themselves Hindus, and often the saviours of Hindus too, are the problem. Now, the first part. That's a really devious question. Generally speaking, Hindus do not have problems on account of being a Hindu. If someone who's a Hindu has a certain problem, the same problem would be faced by people following other faiths too. Does that put it in perspective?


18. Why incidents in Godhra are blown out of proportion repeatedly, when no-one talks of the ethnic cleansing of four lakh Hindu Pandits from Kashmir?

--> Again...an ill-informed question. "Blown out of proportion" is a subjective term. As for the "ethnic cleansing", here's something that'll puncture that argument.


19. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT:

* Sanskrit is communal and Urdu is secular
* Mandir is communal and Masjid is secular
* Sadhu is communal and Imam is secular
* BJP is communal and Muslim League is secular
* Praveen Togadia is anti-national and Bhukari is secular and a patriot
* Vande Matharam is communal and Allah-O-Akbar is secular
* Shriman is communal and Mian is secular
* Hinduism is communal and Islam is secular
* Hindutva is communal and Jihadism is secular

--> I was waiting to see something like this. A classic propaganda tool, False Choice has been employed in these points. They don't deserve a response.


20. Why Temple funds are spent for the welfare of Muslims and Christians, when those communities are free to spend their money in any way they like?

--> Now that's a joke. First of all, I wonder about the veracity of the claim that temple funds have been used for the welfare of Muslims & Christians. Now, even if I assume that, purely for the sake of argument, it still remains the private business & prerogative of the temple trust that has used the funds in that manner. Why should it bother me or you? Moreover, it just proves the secular nature of India and the anti-secular nature of the person asking this question.


21. Why is there no Uniform Civil Code for all citizens?

--> The first sensible question in this long list. Its a no-brainer that we need a Uniform Civil Code.


22. In what way, J&K is different from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh, to enjoy the benefits of Article 370?

--> Grant that too. Article 370 is a blot on our democracy.


23. Abdul Rehman Antulay was in the past made a trustee of the renowned Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Prabhadevi, Mumbai. Will a Hindu, say Mulayam or Laloo, ever be ever made a trustee of a Masjid or Madrasa?

--> Refer to my response for point # 6.


24. Praveen Togadia and other Hindu leaders has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. Has the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi or Ahmed Bhukari have ever been arrested for claiming to be an ISI agent and advocating partition of our nation?

--> On Togadia, yes...he has been arrested many times on flimsy grounds. I just hope he's arrested once for what he really is (a communal jerk) and locked up for life.

The last that I knew, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid & Bukhari were the same person. And I never knew he'd claimed to be an ISI agent or had advocated partition. Can I be pointed to some credible source for that? Anyways, he's a communal jerk just like Togadia & should be locked up for life.


25. We have had a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Christian Defence Minister so why do still need to prove our secularism every now and then?

--> Who's asking us to prove our secularism? Except for articles like these?


26. Can this happen anywhere, except in a HINDU NATION - BHARATH?

--> We're not a "Hindu Nation". If that's what you desire to live in, Nepal's just next door. Please leave. We can do better without your likes.

I'm against corruption but I'm not with Anna Hazare

I've been keenly following the current debate on our current political scenario through television & the internet (including online editions of several newspapers & magazines) ever since a "nation-wide" struggle against "corruption" broke out in late march. I used quotes on two words in the previous sentence because these words are key to the movement in question, but in my opinion (painstakingly contemplated, if I may claim so), are either debatable or vague or both...though the point of this piece is not to debate or define them. That has been done extensively and yet yielded no result (the debate remaining just as polarised and the definitions just as vague). What I'm attempting to do here is to dig a little deeper into the larger debate and put forward a new perspective to it. I suppose it goes without saying that this piece, in its entirety, is my opinion stemming forth from my world-view and does not claim to be the absolute truth. However, what I write here is something I strongly believe in and am willing to debate it constructively within the rules of civil debate.

The most damning characteristic of the debate has been its oversimplification. True to our nature as a people, we have royally ignored the shades of grey in this debate and have looked only at the black and white. To the extent that even grey has been slotted into black or white according to the commenter's perspective. Voices dissenting against the specific stand of the self-appropriated "civil society representation" have been labelled cynical beyond redemption or in some extreme cases, even pro-corruption. This rigid & exclusive nature of our movements has again spawned a cacophony of fragmented voices speaking in unison and as a result, losing all coherence. What's truly shocking is the standard of debate amongst the urban elite, especially the corporate crowd - exposing their naivete & complete lack of political awareness. Everybody has a stand on corruption, in some cases, even extreme (full support for capital punishment in cases of corruption), but hardly anyone has stood up to impeccable values himself. The disgustingly self-righteous (and I have no qualms in accepting that I myself was a part of this group till not so long ago) sneer at the police constable pocketing a petty bribe but casually go about procuring fake bills from the local chemist towards the end of the financial year in order to save a few hundred in taxes. And in the face of an argument to rationalize (not condone) the behaviour of the constable on the basis of his paltry income, they assume a moral high ground questioning the constable's desire to get his children educated in a good school. Sad part is that they aren't even remotely aware of their double standards, leave alone confront them.

Corruption is deeply ingrained into our moral fibre and it would need much more than mere legislation for us to get rid of it. The media-driven mass hysteria over the Lokpal bill has catapulted a majority of our population into a zone of complacence that the bill would be a panacea to our sufferings. Suddenly, issues such as whether the PM & Judiciary should be brought under the ambit of the Lokpal (which IMO are secondary) have become matters of prime importance for us. Let me go back a couple of years and talk about the Lokayukta institution in Karnataka. Justice N.Santosh Hegde (a "civil society representative" member of the Joint committee on the Lokpal bill), as the then Lokayukta had taken a strong stand against illegal mining in the Bellary district. The kingpins of this mining operation were MLA's belonging to the ruling party in the state and they continued with their misdeeds, undeterred by the Lokayukta's stand. After much drama that included Justice Hegde's resignation & subsequent U-turn, ironically at the behest of the president of the same ruling party, the Bellary brothers still continue their mining operations, untouched by law. A case that laid bare the toothlessness of the institution of the Ombudsman when faced with government & bureaucratic apathy. And from a certain extreme perspective, even raised questions about the integrity of the incumbent.

Today's youth shuns politics, understandably so. Civil activist Arvind Kejriwal, on a TV interview with Karan Thapar, quipped, "What if I don't want to contest elections?" to a question as to why he took the route of agitation instead of making his voice heard through parliament. And while I understand his cynicism, I certainly don't approve of it. For IMO, our constitution provides for a certain system of legislation, the current dictating of terms by the "civil society representatives" is setting a dangerous precedent by subverting the constitutional mechanism for legislation. In fact, I would even go back a few steps and disapprove of the government allowing this self-appropriated group to join the process of legislation though inclusion in a joint drafting committee (the constitution allows for the civil society voice to be heard through the Standing Committee). Just as much as I disapprove of the National Advisory Council. My point of discontent is not against individual members of the NAC or the "civil society representation" (I hold quite a few of them in high regard), but its rather against their extra-constitutional say in legislation.

A counter-argument to my point in the paragraph above, often used in recent times by the "civil society representatives", is that it is a constitutional right of the people to question their elected representatives during their term. Rightly so. But remember, we're just talking a right to question here. Nowhere does our constitution allow for groups to muscle their way into the legislative process. The right begins and ends at questioning the representatives. What good would that do, one may ask, if we can't take any action against the wrongdoings of the elected representatives? The answer to that is simple - we don't vote that person or party during the next election. This is what the constitution allows us. That's a whole lot of power, though we've grossly underused it over the decades. And today, if we have the most corrupt government we've ever seen, its because we never questioned. As they say, in a democracy, we get the government we deserve.

Even if I were to look beyond that as technical mumbo-jumbo, my larger disillusionment from this movement stems from its lack of clarity & coherence. I wonder whether its a movement against corruption because a crushing majority of the people on the streets are there due to their frustration with a hugely dysfunctional system. And that does gladden my heart like never before. It shows that we're not apathetic beasts of circumstance, but human beings who have suddenly risen from dormancy. But then, I'm confronted with the leadership of this movement (Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi & the Bhushans) and trust me, its a killjoy. For they seem to have just a single point agenda - getting "their version" of the Lokpal Bill passed on the floor of the house. Their silence & dismissiveness towards anything other than their draft of the bill smacks of a certain shallowness, shortsightedness & a tendency to play to the galleries. I often wonder- what next? There's no answer coming forth from the leadership of this movement. And with the stage gradually filling up with members of the existing political class that's already bereft of any ideology, it becomes as elementary as the quip directed at Dr.Watson that the momentum arising out of the groundswell of public engagement will eventually be appropriated by the very system that the common man abhors.

I thought of giving the leadership of the movement a further benefit of doubt by assuming a substantial stand against corruption on their part. And that's when I hit a roadblock in the form of their specific agenda itself. Why do we need a Lokpal in the first place? And my thoughts on this have been very succintly articulated (far better than I myself could) by Nitin Pai here.

Let's face it, we are a country of paradoxes. One of the most glaring being our ambitions & allusions of becoming an economic superpower co-existing with the massive scale of poverty. Our democracy has invariably been victim to these imbalances, whether we like it or not. These imbalances have brought about unwanted factors like religion, caste, money and muscle-power into our politics, thus resulting in the demise of positive political will towards governance.

Now, I'm not being completely cynical and saying that corruption can't be weeded out of our system. What I am saying is that I wonder if we 30-somethings will ever get to see the end of this malaise in our lifetimes. For we're currently languishing in a system not different from the Augean Stables. The question facing us 30-somethings (and others too, for that matter) is whether we're ready to soil ourselves in order to clean the system. To begin with, we need to revitalize our political space with something it has been lacking since decades - idealism & ideology. My debut as a voter was during the 1996 general elections and I remember voting with a bubbling enthusiasm. But I haven't let the ballot ink touch my nails ever since then, despite the monumental efforts of the powers that be to present my right to vote as a duty. Not because I was amongst the millions of my generation who were apathetic towards politics but because not once have I seen a political party match the eloquence of its election manifesto with equally eloquent action. Not once have I heard an election campaign being delivered from an ideological plank. Rhetoric & personal insinuations remain the bulwark of every single election campaign, irrespective of the political party it belongs to.

The bottomline? There's no denying the need for urgency in the fight against corruption. But we should understand two core aspects of this fight very clearly before we plunge into the fight. One, the urgency is for action and not for a solution. The problem is a systemic one and we all are a part of the problem. So, there can be no quick fix to this. It'll take years, maybe even decades if we are to reduce our corruption levels to residual and manageable. Two, this fight would involve huge sacrifices on our part. It's easy to say that we won't bribe a traffic cop if caught or the 100 rupees bakshish for birth/death certificates. But a tough stand against corruption goes beyond that. Remember, we would have to refuse donations for our children's admissions to a good school and as a result, our children might be forced to go to schools that we normally wouldn't want them to study in. Or we would have to refuse to work for a corrupt organisation, thereby reducing our incomes considerably or even putting us into unemployment. We would have to refuse to buy products & services from corrupt organisations, thereby hitting our cozy lifestyles. And these are just some examples. This fight will be a tough one indeed.

Updates : For those who might've felt this piece incomplete, there are more to follow. And did anyone notice howcorporate India has been piggy-backing on this movement already? You haven't? Oh well...I've seen tonnes of ads promoting Anna Hazare merchandise on various blogs & social media. And they say this is a pristine movement untouched by corruption of any kinds.