From: raman@cs.utexas.edu (Raman Rajagopalan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: NEED OF A PERIYAR . . .
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:04:01 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cascade.cs.utexas.edu

In article <wfMiUEC00iUy420aAx@andrew.cmu.edu> Ranjith Ravindiran Suresh <thundayal+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Bapcha writes:
>>I never make statements with regard to countries - I call people like
>EVR and y
>>ou
>>shitheads.... which you prove to me again and again with your myopic stupidity
>
>
>How did you forget your myopic stupidity? Your penchant to glorify the
>'Hindutva' lot and the related scum? Are you doling money for those
>scums back there? Hell, you could be busy shipping to India copies of
>'Vedic Mathematics.'
>RSS murdered Mahathma Gandhi. Now, the BJP/RSS/SS rot want to turn India
>back into dark ages along the lines of Hindu fundamentalism. And
>thousands of 'Bapchas', 'Narayanas' and 'Vermas' trying to sell the
>garbage to us! Its not as many have forgetten the orginal name of BJP
>and its purpose. 
>
>Bapcha the oxymoron says it all.   
>


I have one question for you..  how do you define a secular state?

To me, a "secular" state is one that does not discriminate on the
basis of religion; that all persons shall be allowed to practice
the religion of his/her choice without interference from the state.

In India, "secular" has been extended to "actively assist the minority
groups, even if it is at the expense of the majority".  This is what
the BJP and its affiliated groups object to.  To change these "non-secular"
laws is one of the primary motives of the BJP.


for example,

Hindu institutions have to pay income taxes while non-hindu institutions
are exempt.  Why should "freedom of religion" equal "freedom of taxes"
if you happen to be a minority?  In the US, for example, there is a common
law/code, not based on religion, that defines the concept of a non-profit 
organization, and ANY institution that satisfies the code may be granted
tax-exempt status.

Apparently, the muslim religion doesn't allow for alimony for the
wife in cases of divorce.  If muslims want to follow this custom as
part of practicing their religion, it could be argued that it is their 
priviledge.  However, the Indian government has now created a board, funded 
with public tax money, to pay the divorced muslim woman alimony.

This is again a case of bending over backwards in the name of
"secularism".  Why should my tax dollars (okay, my uncle's tax rupees :-) )
be used to pay for this woman's livelyhood???  

These are the kinds of things that BJP PRIMARILY wants to change.  Why
should there be a different civil code for different groups?  A secular
state should have a common set of laws, not based on religion, that apply
equally to all groups.

- raman
-------------------

p.s. I will observe that there do exist some grey areas.  For example,
     the islamic religion allows polygamy.  The state of India does not.
     Should the priviledge of polygamy be extended to Muslims? The US
     does not allow this.  However, arguments can be made favoring both
     sides.

     Similarly, should Sikhs be allowed to carry daggars on board
     aircraft?
 
     With the wide variety of religions being practiced in India, a common
     social code for all will likely have some features that will offend
     some group somewhere.  These issues will take time to negotiate and
     resolve.  The ACLU in the US is constantly busy exploring these
     kinds of special cases.

     However, different tax status based on religion, or having the
     state pay the alimony of divorced muslim woman because the religion
     does not require the HUSBAND to pay it are clear examples of the
     non-secular nature of the existing laws in India.







Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil