From: vidynath@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyarath K Rao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Alienation of Hindus: Part 1
Summary: Secularism as a legal principle is not secular humanism as a religion
Keywords: secularism, secular humanism, freedom of religion, babari masjid
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:51:38 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu


--------------------------------DISCLAIMERS--------------------------------
My aim to discuss why some Hindus feel threatend or oppressed in India, and
not to discuss the Babari Masjid incident. The former has not been analysed
in depth either by the media or on this net.

{But every one has been jumping in on the latter, both on this net and
letters to editors, leaders etc. I feel that this may serve to simply
discredit secularism in the eyes of the average Hindu in India. A newspaper
article (either New York times or the Columbus Dispatch) that I no longer
can find said something to this effect: "The secular elite in the goverment,
media and universities has reacted [to the destruction of Babari Masjid]
with dismay and outrage. A small minority of pious Hindus feel shame. But
many Hindus do not feel either way."}

I hope that the discussion can be kept to the ideas. Ad homnium attacks,
accusations by association etc. have no place in the market place of ideas.
Nor should a free discussion be supressed 'for the sake of greater good'.
{One post on the net went so far as to suggest that the news of attacks on
and the destruction of temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh should not have
been reported by the Indian media! BBC and VOA will report them, and the
rumors that will start will do more damage than the timely release of news.
What next, UN sponsorted censorship of VOA and BBC?}

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been thinking about secularism, the reaction of the Indian elite
and the postings on the net since the attack on the Babari Masjid. I have
also attempted to see if parallels in the US polity's reactions to
"secularism" can tell us anything. I have come to the conclusion that I am
ashamed of being a secular humanist!

Let me start by defineing my terms: The Webster's New World Collegiate
Dictionary gives two definitions of secularism: (1) wordly view, especially
one that disregards or rejects any religious faith; (2) belief that
religion should not play role in goverment or (public) education.
{I am adding the word public here to conform with the majority view in US.
This will come in when I get the US reaction to secular humanism.}

To distinguish between the two, I will call the first "secular humanism"
and the second "secularism".

Secular humanism has certain other planks as well: Most important is the
determinant of good behavior. For secular humanism, it is Jeremy Bentham's
slogan "the greatest good of the greatest number". Of course, it has its
own pitfalls: Who determines what is "good"? Does it mean material goods
(pun intended) or does it take human psychology into account? What if 60%
of Indians will be happy only with a Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple? But overall,
Bentham's idea is useful in a society that lacks most basic material
neccessities.

So far, I have only mentioned the good side of secularism, the tenets that
most middle class Americans will not quarrel with. Morality would be a
sticking point, but can be glossed over, at least as long as people
generally agree on the core values and ignore sectarian bais. For example,
in India, one would have to ignore idoloatary or cow-killing. {I would
expect Americans to keep quiet about eating dogs/cats. You know, people
going hungry while cats and dogs put do death in the animal control
shelters serve no useful purpose. :-)}

But now let us turn to one incontrovertible fact: In US, which is much less
religious than India, Reagan made "secular humanism" into a dirty phrase.
This is in spite of the fact that US constitution is secular. Understanding
how this could happen, IMHO, holds lessons for Indian secularists as well.
{As this point, I should mention my visceral hostility to the "loony left"
and its propensity to dismiss various groups as the "petty bourgeiosie".
The latter is thriving. The left is not, except maybe in India, Cuba and
North Korea. Clinton doesn't count, as he delibrately defined himself as
moderate (in Indian parlance that translates to 'somewhat right of center')
and as a "New Democrat". Alledgedly (see "The New Republic", for example)
he also used Biblical language and imagery more than the last two
Democratic contenders.]

Secularists tend to be liberals, even if it is only a coincidence. Being
liberals, they tend to ignore the warts of the minority communities. Thus
the attacks of secular humanists on religion tend to be aimed at that of
the majority/dominant community. Thus Reagan and his ilk were able to
claim that the secular humanists of US attacked only Christianity. Based
only on what the public heard, Reagan was believable. Thus in US,
secular humanism came to be associated with anti-Christianity. Hence the
American public, which overwhelmingly supports religious freedom (or at
least claims to) began to distrust secular humanism. [I know one atheist (an
American of 3rd generation at least) who bemoaned that Christians in
nearby tables in restaraunts were saying grace.] If this is the case in the
US it should not surprising that Indian Hindus feel theatened by
secular humanists.

--------------------------------END of PART 1------------------------------

-- 
Vidhyanath Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:41522 soc.culture.pakistan:18549