If Muslims insist on speaking exclusively for Muslims and do not recognise Bodo suffering then theirs is an ethnic of narcissism
This is an essay on secularism and the Indian Muslim. And I must admit the recent events have made this a difficult piece to write. Let me begin at the beginning.
I was born in Jamshedpur where I saw riot after riot triggered in urban areas. I still remember the day in school when my classmate Obidul Islam came to say goodbye. He told me sadly that his family was going back to Pakistan. Obidul was a brilliant 100-metre runner and I am still unsuccessfully racing against him.
As I grew older and watched the Mumbai 1992 riots and the Gujarat carnage of 2002, I saw with sadness how for the majority community, democracy tasted like castor oil, good for health but difficult to consume. While studying the Gujarat violence I saw how the community of Muslim survivors built a new citizenship around a community of law. I heard Mr Bandukwala, once professor of physics at Baroda University, tell the Hindus that even if you do not apologise I forgive you. Listening to all this I wondered what secularism meant.
My secular friends practised a strange kind of casteism. In the aftermath of the riots they would talk to Muslims but stay away from Hindus who had also suffered. I found secularism becoming a form of ghettoisation where one community’s suffering was privileged over others. Worse, I found secularism empty and non-dialogic. It was catechism without a theology, a form of political correctness, where the Hosannas were the sons to the minority community and truth flew out of the window.
Secularism, at least in terms of the relation of science to religion, is based on a false history. The battle between science and religion is a falsely constructed one. Tracts about the conflict between religion and science were published as a result of a struggle for power between scientists and theologians battling to control the modern university. They both wrote history backward, destroying the fact that religion and science have been reciprocally creative.
I think Indian secularism cannot not engage with religion but must create a communicative relationship with it. I am reminded of the ending of an old movie, Inherit the Wind, where the hero, Clarence Darrow, picks up Darwin’s The Origin of Species and the Bible and holds them up as great books, each inspired by a different kind of truth. Secularism as dialogue insists on critique and this is what I am going to engage in.
What happened in Mumbai, and is still happening, is atrocious. If Muslims are as rabid as Bal Thackeray, or Raj Thackeray, then one must say so. If Muslims insist on speaking exclusively for Muslims and do not recognise Bodo suffering then theirs is an ethnic of narcissism, and not a secular value. Unless Muslims realise that over a million Bodos have been displaced, the displacement of three million Muslims will make little sense. One man’s suffering cannot be the cause of another man’s celebration. This cannot be the secular way or the secular ethic.
In our society, secularism has to be defined differently. It cannot be a battle between religion and science or separation between state and religion. Secularism is the way we respond to strangers. The stranger is the other who defines us. The first law of secularism should be hospitality. We welcome the other because he is not us. The other is the reminder that we are not complete as truths, that as fragments we need each other. The second law of secularism can be formulated after the Dalai Lama’s comment that George Bush’s behaviour “brings out the Muslim in him”. Similarly, after the Gujarat carnage I can say that Narendra Modi brings out the Muslim in me. It is a way of giving secular space a meaning where we become the other in their moment of suffering. Yet, our secularism allows for boundary walls. It realises that violence might come when identities are too close and separations are not maintained. Our secularism understands difference and distance creatively because our secularism is a theory
of diversity not homogeneity.
As a human rights activist I have to be secular by definition. I cannot fight only for Hindus because I am a Hindu. But I fight for Muslims because I am a Hindu. My duty extends beyond my community because my rights also extend beyond it. The very dialogicity of this secularism demands that I challenge both Muslim fundamentalism and Hindu fanaticism. Our society has become fragile today because Muslim violence and exclusivity has become a problem. To criticise the Muslim is not to demonise them. It is to use the reciprocity of citizenship to
mirror each other. We have to realise that a few more riots can change the very nature of
politics.
I am writing this because I am concerned about the fate of democracy. The situation is tense and let’s not forget that Assam is the state with the second largest Muslim population in India. We need to understand that a coercive minoritarianism is as putrid as bully boy majoritarianism. The Muslim fanatic and the Hindu fundamentalist both threaten democracy and we need open ended democracy that challenges both. A Mulana Abdul Qadir Alvi is not an alternative to Raj Thackeray. He is merely a Muslim Modi with a skull cap. The danger is that a few riots can create an insecurity, a climate of hate that could bring a politician like Modi to power. This is a history that a secularist must seek to avoid. The current meaning of secularism is too narrow and impoverished. We have to reinvent words so that we understand the worlds we wish to live in. The pomposity of a narrow state-sponsored Western secularism is utterly useless in this new democratic battle.
The writer is a social science nomad
Comments
Mr Vishwanathan, yours is a
Sandeep Phukan
09 Sep 2012 - 12:32
Mr Vishwanathan, yours is a well argued piece and I completely
agree with your analysis about the deficiency of our current definition of secularism. Secularism means to speak up for Muslims and not
for the Hindus, secularism means speak up for the minority and not for the majority. I remember Raj Kamal Jha writing a piece in The Indian Express saying why articulates his secularism to speak for the minorities. The essence of his argument is that there are many to speak for the Hindus but may not be too many to speak for Muslims. Perhaps true. Perhaps your argument is right that I must speak for the other community. BUT I DO FEEL THERE IS ONE PROLEM THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. The counter productive reaction that appeasement generates and the sense of alienation. My own formulation is that whether I am a Hindu or a Muslim, I should be able to articulate what's the truth, unmindful of the need to constantly balance out. Criticize Hindus if you want to criticize Muslims. This is hypocritical, problematic and polarizing.
Finally, in Assam, the issue is not about Hindus and Muslims as it is about insider-outsider debate
Secularism, if forcing a
ArjenK
03 Sep 2012 - 02:54
Secularism, if forcing a hindu to call a muslim and christian his brother, but then allowing the muslim and christian religious rights to call him a kafir and heathen. What is secularism, its a product of abrahamic commercialism, which is to dilute, deny, whitewash the genocidal chapters of christianity and islam, their is over 1000years of it, on every land from africa, to india, china, america and australia. Secularism is pushed by western capitalists, who need to change soceity they do that by changing the history of the people. So in order to convert, a secularist has to dilute issues of the past, islamic and christian slavery, genocide of kafir and heathens, in other words its covering up the past and then claiming to be the righteous. So india a materialistic soceity needs to be changed into a materialistic soceity how does one do that?..Soft conversion, or education, they first attack religous rootes, aka aryan theory, which was created by the abrahamic muslim and christians to support the story of Noah and his three son lineage of the world. Second is to distort the history books, so they attacked the vedas to show meat eating is allowed, WHOLLY financed by the meat industry, third is to push a western education system, in india, to teach NOTHING of indian history but miseducate with christian and islamic history, which includes a complete whitewash of the 700years of Genocide throughout india by muslims and christians, if this writer thinks its an RSS chapter, was the christian slave trade in africa, india, america, south america, or the islamic slave trade in north africa, india, central asia, the genocide of jews is this WRITER REALLY saying that it was MODI?...lol.....These SECULARIST have been educated with the COLONIAL MISSIONARY handbook, in other words THEY HAVE NO IDEA about what they talk of!, Why dont they you ask, its called a FALSE colonial english educaiton system, a child is a blank slate just likethis writer was, and then he was PROCESSED through english colonial school, with a biased history and teachings, and then this writer then creates an article called troubled secularist, when it should read TROUBLED COLONIALIST. Its his VERY education that has warped his logic, how can a person not be aware of 18,000 islamic attacks since 2002?...How can he be not aware of the genocide that takes place in african muslims lands, or in middle east, or the arab spring where muslims kill each others children., the reason he is not aware is BECAUSE HE IS A MACAULEYITE.....educated form Birth into a colonial framed educaiton system, one laced with christian and islamic agendas throughout.
He is an Educated Fool. And no one should take anything he states as serious OTHER THAN the serious matter how people can be FOOLED BY MISEDUCATION. I would not be surprised if he thinks the aryan invasion was true, i would be surprised if he quotes such events in the past, i would not be surprised that he talks about caste, YET DOES not talk about the 80% of wealth stolen from india under christian rule, during the last 200years. For him not talking about the pludner of wealth, the drain of wealth from india HAS NO RELEVANCE TO SOCEITY..........yet in america, if GDP falls by a mere 3% it means massive job losses andd closures, but to this macauleyite, He can see NO LINK between plunder of a nation and the results on soceity. THIS IS WHY india is a mess, because the VERY EDUCATION SYSTEM is a hybrid of colonial chrisitan and islamic elite agendas.
in today's secular india, to
nc
01 Sep 2012 - 09:07
in today's secular india, to criticize muslims you should also criticize hindus. yes muslims are wrong, but we are also wrong. without saying the latter you cannot say the former in our english media.
in rediff sometime back, a muslim igp clearly noted that hindu fundamentalism is clearly a retaliatory phenomenon - spurred by islamic fundamentalism. in assam, the problem is bangladeshi illegals.
as long as secularists do not have the courage to be clear about facts, how will there be a resolution? as seneca said : if the destination is not clear, no wind is favorable.
secularists can say whatever they want, but the people know better and will always act based on what they believe. so unless secularists become honest, they cannot really contribute to a solution. just endless blind muddling.
in today's secular india, to
nc
01 Sep 2012 - 09:03
in today's secular india, to criticize muslims you should also criticize hindus. yes muslims are wrong, but we are also wrong. without saying the latter you cannot say the former in our english media.
in rediff sometime back, a muslim igp clearly noted that hindu fundamentalism is clearly a retaliatory phenomenon - spurred by islamic fundamentalism. in assam, the problem is bangladeshi illegals.
as long as secularists do not have the courage to be clear about facts, how will there be a resolution? as seneca said : if the destination is not clear, no wind is favorable.
secularists can say whatever they want, but the people know better and will always act based on what they believe. so unless secularists become honest, they cannot really contribute to a solution. just endless blind muddling.
The Author calls himself a
Akaula Kaula
01 Sep 2012 - 07:57
The Author calls himself a social nomad. By the article he writes, he should call himself ignorant nomad.
He somehow imagines secularism some how providing a relationship (non-existent) between science and religion. One can not imagine a more ignorant statement. He needs to study the protestant reformation movement and its driving forces like John Lock, Luther and many many western thinkers of that period. He needs to understand Secularism is soft form of protestant theology. Secular means to break to divide to separate. The secularism expect world in which the sacred can be separated from the temporal/sinful and profane. To the sacred are applicable laws of God as revealed in Sacred book of religion and to all else laws of Man are to be applied.
Ask what is the assumed nature of Man so that Secularism is even applicable. Secularism assumes external world to be dualistic to be applicable. It divides the world in (1) Sacred that belongs to the domain of God, where Gods laws apply (2) Temporal, profane world of Satan, where Mans laws are applicable.
In the Protestant world view only the soul being to the domain of God and the laws of God apply to it. The domain of Temporal is all else, since all else has no soul, hence profane, sinful. And only to the Mans laws can apply. Thus in protestant wold view there is clear distinction internally provided by the theology as where religious laws are applicable and where Mans laws are applicable. This what separates the two domains of sacred and Temporal. And that is what secularism is all about. It has nothing to do with science what so ever. It is only uneducated in India who mix science in it.
In Dharma tradition there is no such clean break between the sacred and profane. Either all is sacred or all is profane. The nature of the world according to Hindus is not dividable in these two artificial halves. Hence secularism can not be applied to it.
Like the author, Indian media and so called intellectuals are ignorant and lazy to do serious study. So their Secularism is as meaning less as their education.
Akaula
The Author calls himself a
Akaula Kaula
01 Sep 2012 - 07:57
The Author calls himself a social nomad. By the article he writes, he should call himself ignorant nomad.
He somehow imagines secularism some how providing a relationship (non-existent) between science and religion. One can not imagine a more ignorant statement. He needs to study the protestant reformation movement and its driving forces like John Lock, Luther and many many western thinkers of that period. He needs to understand Secularism is soft form of protestant theology. Secular means to break to divide to separate. The secularism expect world in which the sacred can be separated from the temporal/sinful and profane. To the sacred are applicable laws of God as revealed in Sacred book of religion and to all else laws of Man are to be applied.
Ask what is the assumed nature of Man so that Secularism is even applicable. Secularism assumes external world to be dualistic to be applicable. It divides the world in (1) Sacred that belongs to the domain of God, where Gods laws apply (2) Temporal, profane world of Satan, where Mans laws are applicable.
In the Protestant world view only the soul being to the domain of God and the laws of God apply to it. The domain of Temporal is all else, since all else has no soul, hence profane, sinful. And only to the Mans laws can apply. Thus in protestant wold view there is clear distinction internally provided by the theology as where religious laws are applicable and where Mans laws are applicable. This what separates the two domains of sacred and Temporal. And that is what secularism is all about. It has nothing to do with science what so ever. It is only uneducated in India who mix science in it.
In Dharma tradition there is no such clean break between the sacred and profane. Either all is sacred or all is profane. The nature of the world according to Hindus is not dividable in these two artificial halves. Hence secularism can not be applied to it.
Like the author, Indian media and so called intellectuals are ignorant and lazy to do serious study. So their Secularism is as meaning less as their education.
Akaula
Sri Visvanatan ji, I hope you
Suresh Vyas
31 Aug 2012 - 22:13
Sri Visvanatan ji,
I hope you understand below facts and change some of your views.
1. The Hindu or the Vedic dharma is universal religion for mankind. It is called dharma because of its universality. It gives the complete science of spirituality as is given in Bhagavad Gita. The vedic dharma and sanskriti are inherently tolerant of all the tolerant faiths. For this reason we the Vedics in Bhaarat do not need "secularism" that is a foreign medicine against their Christianity problem.
2. Bhaarat is the cradle of the Vedic dharma and civilization. The Vedic dharma is the oldest in the world. At one time some 3-4 thousand years ago it was spread almost all over the world. Anti it was spread by free will, not by forcible conversions. Hindus never convert anyone by force or enticement. This cannot be said if Islaam or Christianity.
3. The messages of Koran are not compatible with the messages of Bhagavad Gita. Islaam is not tolerant of any other faith per koran and as is seen in the full 1400 years of history of Islaam. This was the reason that in 1947 Jinnha demanded separate Pakistan, per the agenda of Islaam. It was Islaam that caused the partition of Bhaarat.
4. Islaam has invaded in Bhaarat by force 1000 years ago, and it does not belong in Bhaarat. 1000 yearss long history of Bhaarat tells that it is not possible to assimilate this barbaric Islaam into the Vedic culture. Now it is time to stop assimilation efforts. Islaam has to go out of Bhaarat if peace is required in Bhaarat.
5. The ancestors of all the Muslims of Bhaarat sub continent were Hindus a few hundred years ago. They were forced to accept Islaam. Now there is no force on the Muslims. They need to give up Islaam or go out of Bhaarat.
6. There are non-violent ways to purge Islaam out of Bhaarat; but violence is the last resort per the Vedic dharma. Some no need to act as cowards for the Vedics when time demands violence. Per the Vedic dharma, violence has also it proper and good use. That is the reason Krishna said Arjun to fight when Arjun said he does not want to fight. Gandhi failed to understand this dharma. Per Koran, violence is the first choice to settle with the kafirs. If you want to know quotes from Koran, let me know and I will share with you. They you will know how barbaric Islaam is. It does not help to praise Islaam or favor Islaam. There is no good in favoring any cancer cell in the body.
If you need to understand the Vedic dharma, I could help.
Botto line: There cannot be peace where there is Islaam.
jai sri krishna!
Suresh Vyas
skanda987@gmail.com
Did he not notice Hindus
Virat
31 Aug 2012 - 22:08
Did he not notice Hindus being killed in Punjab, Hindus killed in Kashmir?
Secular - beautiful word, now they abused it so much that it has become a gali.
mr.visvanathan you are really
rajesh
31 Aug 2012 - 18:51
mr.visvanathan you are really confused. the kindness and tolerance of hindus is considered a weakness by some in the minority communities. tolerance has a limit beyond which it breaks. also the so called secularists are in a world of illusion. for example instead of holding both rushdie and hussain wrong they blamed the former and supported the latter. it is high time so called secularists are clear about what they really want!!
@ghulam mohammood.....Muslims
martin
31 Aug 2012 - 08:47
@ghulam mohammood.....Muslims has been given a place called Pak. they all can go and live with thier blood brothers there happily.. don't be here and support the idiots there. so go back to the country which was given to you, in the name of minority your religion is trying to get the khalifa rule in India or Bharath. that won't happen get ready to pack and go.
Post new comment