From: vidynath@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyarath K Rao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Alienation of Hindus: Part 2
Summary: A secular state must not impose the religion of secular humanism
Keywords: secularism, secular humanism, religious freedom, babari masjid
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:53:37 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu


--------------------------------PART 2-------------------------------------

Let me now collect a few quotes which have influenced me in these thoughts.

ck@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Chandrasekhar Kambhampati) writes:

>[...] But enlightenment struck, in the form of Mr Javed Ahmed Khan. He
>says in another thread, and I quote him "The highly publicised so called
>'appeasement'  of muslims resulted in a disenchantment of the Hindu vote
>bank with the Congress(I). The BJP-RSS-VHP cashed in on this nascent
>disenchantment and they helped crystalize it into a sense of 'injustice'
>and gave it solid shape during the days of the Shahbano case and finally
>galvanised the Hindu public opinion in UP with the BM-RJB issue."

Chandrasekhar does not go into the whys of this disenchantment. I missed
the article(s) of Javed; so I am not sure what else he said on this. But
I will argue latter that muslims were not 'appeased', but were exempted
from the forceful imposition of "secular humanism" on Indians. Muslims
did not seem to come to the defense of Hindus; this fueled the
anti-Muslim hositility. A cooperative outlook when religious freedoms are
threatened, as has happned in the US in the 'peyote case' from Oregon and
the 'animal sacrifice case' from Florida would have reduced such friction.

RIPBC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu (Rohit Parikh) writes:

>Thus the destruction of the Babri Masjid must not be seen as a Hindu
>attack on Islam.  It is rather a re-assertion of Hinduism against the
>secular, liberal, Western values that have governed India since the
>prime-ministership of the Western educated dynasty of the Nehru family.
>[...] A truly  Indian civilization [must be one] in which all religions are
>allowed to flourish, but which retains the spirit of the ancient Indian
>Hindu-Buddhist-Jain traditions [which] MUST be allowed to flourish. The
>survival and spiritual  prosperity of an enlightened form of Hinduism is
>just as important as the survival of Islam as a way of life.

The first sentence is hard to swollow. I would rather have BJP fight the
self-styled "secular left" which would make India one of the triumvarate of
communist countries, with Cuba and North Korea (what glorious company!).
I would like to see the various religious groups in India defend the
religious freedom of everyone, as has happened in US in the 'peyote case' or
in the current 'animal sacrifice case' from Florida. Babari Masjid will only
delay that. But I agree with the other statements.

On the other hand, the "secular left" propagandizes that the majority
(Hindus) must be opressed to have freedom of others. Unfortunately, Muslims
seem to believe it. I have no idea of how to get around this problem.

A recent thread in groups discussed the action of communists in West Bengal
vis-a-vis religious institutions and their educational activities (such as
that of Rama Krishna Mutt). The claim was that the religious and educational
activities of Hindus were attacked but not that of Muslims. This prompted
me to review my knowledge of what the Indian Constituion says on this
matter (I have no access to the case law on this. Some of what I write is
from memory.) This might throw some light on why Hindus feel 'oppressed'.

Protection of fundemental rights (as listed in the US Bill of Rights, for
example) by the Indian constitution is notoriously weak. This is not
offset by socital expectations or by case law. {I will not discuss why this
happened. I will also refrain from blaming "Fabian Socilists" and
"supporters of a powerful goverment" for this state of affairs.} This
naturally alarmed minority interests. To assuage their fears, seperate
clauses were added to protect the rights of minority groups. The majority
religion was thus less well protected than the minority religions. It was
apparently felt in the early fifties that this was no great loss.

{Tangential questions: (1) What did Dr. Ambetkar and other like him said
about this? (2) For a while, Sikhs were not listed as a seperate group.
Did the lack of protection of Sikh institutions, to the same level as
accorded to Muslims say, have any effect on Sikh alienation? (In 1982, I
had befriended a rabid Sikh. At that time, his major complaint, to which
I could not answer, was: 'Why grant special protection to Muslims, but not
to Sikhs or Hindus, for that matter. It was especailly the Sikhs who bore
the brunt of the costs of partition.')}

Now we come to what I think is the crux of the matter. When communists or
athesists or "secular humanists" came to power in various states and
attempted to impose their own views on religion using govermental power,
they were able to affect only Hindu institutions. Consitituiton protected
minorities but not Hinduism. This led to the view that Muslims were
"pampered" or "appeased". Instead of blaming the perpetrators, Hindus began
to blame the beneficieries. That Muslims seemed to consider the attacks on
Hindu institutions as irrelevant to themselves (Muslims) added to the
feeling. The 'Shao Bano case' and the clumsy attempts by some to defend the
forced marriage of a minor to an Arab reinforced this tendency.

Of course, it is probable that the attack by the secular left on Hinduism
was limited to a few states (such as West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu).
Places such as UP or Madya Pradesh might not have felt the same effect. But
the national integration of India meant that this distinction had little
effect. {This might explain why the recent events had a muted effect in
Tamil Nadu.} Hindus there were also in a position to react more vigorously.
The average person reacts more strongly to concrete symbols than to
abstract principles. Thus 'Ram Janma Bhoomi', Kasi temple and Mathura
came to dominate the agenda.

This sums up my current impressions. As I pleaded in Part 1, confine your
comments to ideas only.

-------------------------------------END-----------------------------------



-- 
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:41177 soc.culture.pakistan:18362