SUJATA RAJPAL writes: I often marvel at those who have the knack of identifying the religion/ region of a person just by looking at their attire, name, surname, or even accent.
I always goof up.
All Indians—Tamilians, Muslims, Malayalis, Punjabis, Parsis, Christians—all look the same to me. Of course, I can identify a turbaned Sikh from a non-Sikh, but that’s about how far I can get.
While growing up, we were told to focus on the inner quality of people, not their external features. We were told it was bad form to probe a person’s religion or language. We were told not to tease or taunt or make fun of their customs and traditions. Such sage advice now belongs to another world, another era.
That was then.
In “modern”, “new-age”, 21st century India, our politicians, irrespective of their political lineage, are falling over each other to remind us of who we are. And, more importantly, of who we are not.
The media is gladly playing along, and “We, the People” too no longer seem squeamish about joining in.
How many times in a day do we hear or read words that are predicated on our region, religion, language, caste? And what effect is such unconscious consciousness of who we are (and who we are not) having on us?
And our children?
And our society?
And our nation?
In the inter-religion vocabulary, the opposite of Hindu has become Muslim, and vice-versa. In the intra-country vocabulary, the opposite of Hindu has become non–Hindu.
The opposite of love has become hate.
Sanity has taken a backseat.
Be it the “struggle” for Kannada supremacy in Karnataka or for the precedence of the Marathi manoos in Maharashtra or the Assamese in Assam; be it the attack by the Sri Rama Sena on girls in Mangalore or Varun Gandhi‘s hate speech in Pilibhit; be it the ban on books or the burning of libraries; Kandhamal or Malegaon, the contours of our public discourse is now so clearly defined by language, region and religion that it boggles the mind.
All this passes muster in the name of protecting what is “ours”—our land, our language, our region, our religion, our culture, our this, our that.
But, hey, can even an overdose of Ganga jal be toxic?
As per our Constitution—a document few of these hate-peddlers, venom-spewers, nuisance-mongers can be troubled by any longer—India is a “secular” State; a word that has now been turned into a pejorative.
It was inserted into the preamble by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the Emergency, and it does not mean what it has come to mean. It implies equality of all religions—and religious tolerance.
Every person has the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion they choose. The government must not favour or discriminate against any religion. It must treat all religions with equal respect. All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of law.
But it fails to state that every Indian has the liberty to form and practice his own definition of a religion and no one has the right to preach to others what Hinduism or any other religion is.
33 years later, we only seem to observe secularism in the breach.
The first lesson in Hinduism or Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion is tolerance and respect towards all religions and fellow human beings. How secular are we? Like many other things in life, the definition of “secular State” in our Constitution has become obsolete and needs modification.
Those who claim to fight for the protection of Hindu culture perhaps do not even really understand what Hindu culture stands for or else they would not be preaching others.
In these elections, the issues which threaten the very existence of India as one united nation like terrorism, growing intolerance towards people of other faiths, mounting crime rate, growing water scarcity, rising corruption in society, etc, have been summarily marginalized.
Our parties are happy to score over brownie points over each other on who is a true Hindu.
And who is not.
It is shameful that our politicians are trying to divide the country in the name of religion but it is even more distressing that we are allowing ourselves to be fooled by them.
Before 1947, it was British who tried to divide the country in the name of religion and they succeeded. The Britishers left but sixty years later their legacy lives on, happily but sadly.
Perhaps it all started with caste reservation for jobs.Now it is dividing and subdividing
Istead if we had started with reservations in job for intercaste and inter religion marriages? Which our great saint, social reformer Sri Basveshwara started long back
This entire Liberal lament is about how horrible Hindus and their Hinduism is.
Anything that does not suite or fall within the ‘likes list” of the Secular-Liberal tribe, is set aside as insane.
I’m not surprised that there is so much hate for Hindus and their Civilizational progress, their aspirations; amongst Liberals.
But I will be very surprised if any Hindu who retains any self respect speaks again of a “pseudo” variety of Secularism. He should know that it’s poison, just the way it is.
***
This is something I’ve always maintained.
For Secular-Liberalism with its Multi-Culturalism to flourish in any land, the National Majority must lose its identity. Else Liberals cannot claim complete equality for all religions and complete non-discrimination amongst their adherents.
Our National Majority, Hindu, is manifested in our various Regional and Pan India cultures and civilization; languages, dresses, Castes etc etc. I am proud of these because it is these that bring continuity in our civilization. It gives us strength in the present and hope for the future.
Take away any or all of these from the Hindu and what you’re left with is an empty shell not worth defending.
It will make Secular-Liberals very happy if Hindus stop defending because then they will be free to indulge their pastime of giving in to Minorities as logical conclusion of their Multi-Cultural fetish. Why? Because their self-alienation has snatched them away from their own. When you have nothing to defend, you will also not feel loss.
Is there any wonder that this entire article is focused on Hindus and them and theirs being so lowly and bad? Because that’s what it really says. If a Hindu comes away feeling elevated or enlightened after reading such tripe, he must have very low self-esteem.
Stuff like this gets Hindus on the defensive very quickly and we immediately start to say…”Hey look…it’s not so bad. We have this and we have that…etc etc.”
Let us guard against our excessive mildness and tolerance of mis-guided or intentional anti-Hindus. Let us take actual pride in the true and real manifestations of our civilization.
Yaa
may be britishers are far better than these bufoons….
“The government must not favour or discriminate against any religion.”…
What BS…
Who said “muslims have first right over resources” ? British?
You rembember Malegaon..Philibit….conveniently forget Kashmir, Godhra..
***
this is true secular journalism in action…the website daijiworld is
run by Christians. They have the honesty to tell both side of the
story…
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=57924
Does Churumuri have the guts to be unbiased as these folks ? Do any
of the CNN-Ibn…does NDTV..does The Hindu..does the The Times of India ?
Typical 5th standard essay!!
“All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of law”
Absolutely not – Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Marriage Act etc proves otherwise.
Fact – All major, developed or developing countries has one primary religion that the nation follows (except China, of course!).
People from all other religious faiths are welcomed in most of these countries, but always as secondary and tertiary religions. Not only it was a moronic act of the nth order to declare that India will not have any religion, it was so hypocritical! All the navy ships, heavy artileries (tankers etc), satellites have Hindu names. Till date no non-hindu prime minister! Yet, most of us become paranoid about being a Hindu whenever attrocities are committed against people of other religious faiths.
One is either a Conservative or a Liberal Hindu, Liberal’s thougts are different from Conservative’s but still both are Hindus & niether of them are against the Hindu culture!! Because religion does not have culture its the region!!!!!!
What is there to marvel about the ability of identifying a person about his language, or religion. The paper-writer seems to be naive. Either the person does not speak local language though he has lived there for many years, or the person cannot get rid of original accent. Of course, neither are crimes by any measure, but they do give away a person’s origin. So also about religious identity: it would be foolish of the columnist to expect people to ignore religious identity when men go around sporting hefty beards and ware Fez cap, and women are clad in Burkha from head to toe! Does this columnist expect public to studiously ignore such glaring and visible signs of religious identities?
Secularists have a lot to explain, when it comes to rule-by-division:
1. Why do they always align themselves with minority communalism? People like Syed Shahabuddin and Shahi Abdullah Bukhari were promoted as spoken persons for minorities by none other than the secularists of India.
2. Why did the secular parties support ban on Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? What kind of secularism was it?
3. The Secularists sow wind, and the country is now reaping the whirlwind. In the name of encouraging linguistic and religious minorities to maintaining their distinction and identity the secularists have encouraged separatism on all conceivable grounds, by raising the bogie that the minorities would be swallowed up by the majority, be it linguistic or religious. Without articles 25 and 30 of the constitution of India, did not religions and languages survive and thrive in pre-independence India? This oxygen tent was quite unnecessary.
4. Even after the formation of linguistic states, the border between languages is seamless. Inspite of political borders, it is not possible to determine where one language ends and the other language begins. You find Telugu speaking people extensively in the Karnataka border, just as you see Kannada speaking people on the other side in places like Hindupur and Ananthapur. One finds kannada speaking (albeit being a tamil vesion) upto Erode in Tamil Nadu, not to speak of Tamil speaking people spread all over southern Karnataka. In a place like Nilgiris, one finds almost everyone speaks Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam. Apparently, people have no problem with languages and religious identities.
Only columnists and political leaders seem to have problems with lack of unity and divisiveness. Leave these issues to people to manage on their own, rather than give them wrong ideas about identitarianism.
After a long time, I am reading an unbiased, thoughtful and insightful article from a sane person. Definitely, it is a food for thought. But the disappointing thing is that there is no solution appears to be anywhere near to the problems, nor does anybody seem to be bothered about it really.
What about media? Does not media divide?
Look out today’s TOI survey. Crimes against SCs and Crimes against STs have been marked. Why cant ‘we’ in all include Scs/STs? Why are we keeping a sector of our society separate?
Why does media add ‘Muslim’ President?
So, dividing is in our blood. Media, common man or politicians are not exceptions. Please stop using the division to come to limelight or getting tagged as ‘intellect’. None of these intellects practice what they preach. Never they do something for the uplift of any lagging group.(Socially, economically, culturally or whatever sense on earth. For me, they all same.)
This article is too pessimistic. Perhaps, the author spends too much time watching the 24-hour news channels.
Things ain’t so bad. Dividing people on the basis of religion/castes and stuff have been going on for decades.
A couple of examples to show things were worse:
Cricket in Bombay in the 1930’s, 40’s were played completely on religious lines (source: Ramachandra Guha’s “Corner of a Foreign Field”). Now you don’t see those things, right? (IPL is just notionally region-wise).
Yusuf Khan had to change his name to “Dilip Kumar” to avoid discrimination in the 1950s. Now a “Dileep Kumar” changes his religion and name to AR Rehman and still he is the most admired and feted Film personality.
Things aren’t as bad as they seem. As the Freakonomics book says, though statistically the crime rates in the US is going down, in public perception it is going up because every small crime is overdosed by the media.
@ Shanoi
“It all started with caste based reservation for jobs”
Have you ever heard the name of B.S.Ambedkar ? If yes,read any one of his books ? Have you heard the name of Khairlanji ?
You people want this so called “Lower caste” people to be your slaves for ever.Your Hindu religion (sanathana dharma) has no place for dalits.You have covenveniently forgotton the untouchability practiced by upper caste Hindus.Today you cant digest the reality and you have been paid back in the same coin.
@VAlale SUbbanna
“Have you heard the name of Khairlanji ?”
Regarding Khairlanji – People belonging to the Kunbi OBC caste murdered a dalit family in cold blood. Both the parties belong to the Reservation category (SC and OBC). Jai ho to your reservation policy.
Who doesnt want free sops like reservation. Primarily it is an undemocratic policy created by unthinking politicians.
“Today you cant digest the reality and you have been paid back in the same coin.”
So you agree it is a strategy of revenge. How can a democratic polity which stands for eqaulity institutionalize vengence. And how can a new young generation be punished for what some of their ancestors did many generations ago. And now that the reservation policy is in force since 60 years we have three generation of people who have had a nice jolly ride on this. Obviously they want it to continue for ever. Cases of atrocities like Khairlanji is non-sequitar argument for reservation. But who said these people who argue like these have reason.
VAlale SUbbanna – I have read all of Ambedkar’s books.
What about Khairlanji? Do you know who was responsible for that crime?
What about Dalits in TN? Do you know who is responsible for their miserable condition there?
What do you mean by, “Your Hindu religion (sanathana dharma) has no place for dalits.”? I am proud to be Hindu and a Brahmin and I support reservations for Dalits including the Creamy Layer.
Shanoi has spoken for inter-Caste marraiges. That is more than you can think after…anyways.
Good day!
Most of the comments made show that the columnist is right in her observations on how our netas have succeeded in dividing us in the process of ruling us.
It is unfortunate that when the malady is at least seen by many, no remedy is suggested.
At least in some places we can make a good beginning. Can media stop reporting any news item using religious, caste and ethnic affiliations? When any one is hurt in the name of religion or caste or ethnicity, we should feel that the entire society is responsible for it. Therefore we should stop highlighting their affiliations.
Second let the media also stop analysing election from the point of view of religion and caste. I realize that it is difficult to do since all our netas have their speeches/programs are centered around caste and religious issues. But let us make a beginning and start talking about more important issues of how they are going to wipe off poverty, supply potable water, continuous power supply, improve education system, fight corruption at all levels etc and not caste and religious issues.
I wish to narrate something amazing from my experiences.
Till the people whom I work with discovered my caste/ religion I was fine. I was an unbiased person who treated everyone equally in the true sense a leader.
Once it was discovered the way I was looked at by others changed. Is it in our minds or all?
Till we understand that we should not discriminate, we will suffer like frogs in a bowl. If a frog tries to move up, the other pull its legs, and not a single frog props out.
What Bhamy suggests is a dangerous “dumbing down” of our people. Ostrich’s head in the sand types.
Typical Secular-Liberal escapism. Has been tried and has not worked. Let’s not go back. Instead face realities and resolve. Or admit you cannot and allow others to try.
Abhijit, I have from the very beginning of my career, worked in mixed groups.
Everybody has known of my caste and till date, I cannot lay claim to a comparable incident. Caste and religion and language and the rest are part of us and our lives and our Civilization. How can any normal person disown his own body?
“Till we understand that we should not discriminate” – What made you say this?
Funnily enough, I experienced something today that adds to the general theme here….
I met someone in my office here who had a very Kannadiga last name. After our meeting I asked her if she spoke Kannada, and we had a good chat. Turns out the lady is from Mysuru. She then asks me in Kannada, “nim hesaru nOdi gottaaglilla, neevu yaav jana?”
I was dumbstruck since this was the first time any Indian had asked me this question in the US.
Dear ProTon,
There is no Muslim Marriage Act! Muslim Nikha are governed by the Law given by the Prophet. It is a contract. There is of course a law governing rights of Muslim women upon divorce, made by Rajiv Gandhi soon after Shah Bano case. Under this law, if the former husband and other relations refuse to maintain divorced Muslim women, they are required to be maintained by the Waqfs! Knowing how mis-managed the waqfs are, it is as good as abandoning the divorced muslim women to the benevolent and merciful Lord! But, liberal bleeding hearts and women’s libbers have nothing to say about this discriminatory treatment of Muslim women.
Christians and Hindus are better off. Their marriages and divorces are governed by more civilized laws. This is the reason why, jurnos must try to bring the communities together by pushing for uniform laws for all Indian citizens. But, anyone who talks of uniform civil laws is branded as a lackey of the BJP!
@Anil Kumar:Reservation is not free sop,its their birth right for the injustice meted out for centuries.
Its not the policy of revenge but of rectification.
@Palahally: you are a Brahmin/Hindu thats non issue for me,anyway Im happy that you support reservation.
“But, anyone who talks of uniform civil laws is branded as a lackey of the BJP!”
I push for uniform civil laws more than anyone else on this forum, and yet I am called a ‘sickularist’, ‘commie’ and all kinds of crap. And just because I hate all the sundry bastard Senas. On this forum most of the true ‘BJP lackeys’ are confused and are full of hate and shit.
Gururaj – The UCC is not a Hindu agenda. It is a Secular agenda that has been adopted by the BJP.
I don’t think anybody who supports the UCC is a BJP fellow.
VAlale SUbbanna – Has it become a non-issue just because I support Dalit Reservations?
Don’t you think this means you are a blind hater of Hinduism?
bjp has started an IT CELL eyeing their votes in bangalore. they are trying to constitute an IT VOTE BANK. what is this politics about.
a politician or an organization speaking for kannada,kannadiga supremacy in karnataka or for marathi supremacy should not be branded as divisiness, it is a fight for a just cause.
after initial hullaboo over obama, hope, reform etc etc ,he was forced to protect interests of americans over others ,it is his duty.
dr ramesh – There is nothing wrong with campaigning for Kannada’s cause during elections. It is not divisive at all. I agree with you.
Ramesh,
Yen swamy maatadtira. Half or the IT folks will be non-kannadiga, most wont even have voter id cards. IT vote bank antiralla. :)
In fact, if I were to take Dr Ramesh’s point further, I should say that issues concerning Kannada and/or Kannadigas should not be the problem of the Loka Sabha MP but that of the Rajya Sabha MP.
The duty of the RS MP is to represent “His State” issues. He is not supposed to be “Party Partisan”. He is supposed to be “State Partisan”.
This is the reason the practice of nominating/having-elected; RS MPs from out-of-state as in the case of MM Singh, is frowned upon.
Dear Palahalli,
No doubt at all that UCC is a secular agenda. Directive principles of the State Policy in the constitution of India enjoins it. But, it has been reduced in real-politik to a communal agenda. Any talk of equality in terms of abolition of Article 370 or bringing in UCC is labeled as communal by the secularists, who are same as protagonists of minority communalism.
@Palahalli:Lets not pass the judgement,in my earlier posts I have categorically stated Im neither with P.Muthalik nor with S.Shahabuddin.I have differences with both so called secular & non-secular people/outfits.
VAlale SUbbanna – Sir, in you’re post of the 26 March 2009 at 3:16 pm, you made some very sweeping and factually incorrect statements that sounded to me, an anti-Hinduism stance.
Post rebuttals, you seem to have simply ignored the matter.
All of this points to a person who hates Hinduism blindly, ie. hatred not based on solid evidence. Please note, I am not against the expression of hate..but it must have reasonable basis and you haven’t shown it in this case.
Having differences with Muthalik and Shahabuddin means little. What is of relevance is you’re own position. What are you bringing to the table?
*******
Gururaj – No doubt Secular-Liberals have manipulated against the UCC agenda when they should have, per their own ideology, been the greatest proponents of it. (Assuming of course, that the UCC is a bunch of Secular Codes)
They do this because they see the BJP taking it on. Secular-Liberal argument is that the BJP is trying to impose the Hindu Code in the name of the UCC. Frankly, no one till date has defined the UCC for us to say it is Hindu Code or a bunch of Secular Codes.
All this is very confusing.
I cannot understand why the BJP is supporting the UCC without defining what it is. To me, our laws must reflect our traditional continuity. Else people will simply not buy into “strange” laws. They should not also.
If the UCC has basis in the Hindu Code and/or if it is the same, I am fine with it to the extent that Minorities are ready to accept it voluntarily. But if the argument is to abolish Personal laws and impose the UCC, it will not work.
That is why I say we must allow Islamic and Christian Personal laws full play. For instance, let Muslims decide if they rather want to get their limbs chopped off than spend time in jail.
At this point and if their choice is the latter, let them convert and declare that they will not be ruled by Shar’ia.
Please let me know what you think.
The case of Art 370 is different altogether.
“The first lesson in Hinduism or Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion is tolerance and respect towards all religions and fellow human beings.”
Sujata Rajpal should read the first surah “Al Fatihah” of Koran: It says “Praise be to Allah…., the owner of the day of judgement…. Thee alone we worship”. Does that show tolerance of worshippers of other deities?
Follow it up with II.163: “Your God is one God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficient, the merciful”.
She should also read Al Baqra, the second surah, 2.161: “Lo! those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers; on them is the curse of Allah and of angels and of men combined”
II.165: “Yet of mankind are some who take unto themselves (objects of worship which they set as) rivals to Allah, loving them with a love like (that which is due) of Allah (only) – Those who believe are stauncher in their love for Allah – Oh, that those who do evil had but known, (on the day) when they behold the doom, that power belongeth wholly to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment!”
There is more where it comes from. One has to take pains to read scriptures, before citing what is the first lesson.
Evidently, Sujata Rajpal has not read scriptures either of Hinduism or of other religions. Teacher, learn thy lessons!
(Extracts from Koran based on the translation of Holy Koran from Mohhammed Marmaduke Picthall, published by Universal Book Stall, 5, Ansari Road, New Delhi – 110002.
@Palahalli:Difference with Muthalik & Shahabuddin may mean little but difference with the ideology they claim to represent matters most.I would love to see word “anger” instead of “hatred”.
Gururaj B.N
I dont understand what are you objecting about, by quoting the verses of the Holy Quran. The fact that Muslims beleive in One Allmighty is pestering you, or the fact that Muslims oppose idol worship? Be precise.
There is another verse in Quran saying, La-Ikraha fiddeen, meaning there is no compulsion in relegion. Nobody can be forced to follow any relegion.
So as a practicing muslim, I can tell you about my relegion, give you the Holy Book for referring, but cannot force you to follow its preachings.
Dear Palahalli,
Hindu laws is a case in instance. Now, on all important matters, the personal affairs of the Hindus are governed by the Hindu Marriages Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act. The achievement of these laws was that they brought about uniformity amongst the Hindus throughout the country. Whereas, under the traditional smriti based law, each state and sometimes, each region had its own peculiar practices. Hindu code also gave right of divorce to women, and right of property to women. Bigamy became illegal.
Earlier, women could only hold stridhan and nothing more. Their rights were known as reversioinary rights. That is, upon death, the property would revert to the male successors up the line. In some States, women have been given coparcenary right: that is, right to demand partition of joint family property. Hindu society has not been any the worse within last fifty years, though number of divorce cases have been climbing up steadily.
On the other hand, amongst Muslims, there is no concept of joint family or joint family property. Women’s right of property is also limited to half the share of men.
Similarly, in the matter of guardianship of minorities, adoption also, Hindu code has brought about uniformity. No disaster hit the Hindu society, although there was highly vocal opposition in the early and mid fifties.
Christian succession is governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and comes with some peculiar restrictions, which need not be gone into here. Christian divorce is extremely difficult to obtain. Even after a trial court decrees divorce, it has to be confirmed by a three judge Bench of the jursidictional High Court. Therefore, suffice it to know that Hindu code is the most equitable statute law when compared to others’ personal laws.
UCC simply means that in all personal affairs, uniform law would apply to all citizens, irrespective of their religions. UCC has nothing to do with religious beliefs, and practices. Its scope is limited to temporal matters and does not extend to spiritual affairs. UCC does not require anyone to lose their religion or become apostate. Be it BJP or congress or third front, none can do anything more with UCC. Ultimately, all laws have to pass the muster of constitutional validity. Supreme Court is the guardian of constitution and will ensure that no discriminatory laws can be made even if the ruling party enjoys brute majority in the Parliament.
I am quite certain that no community, other than Muslims would have opposition to UCC. Two reasons can be cited: One, men lose their hegemony and overlordship over women. The right of polygamy, right of instant divorce, right to retain higher share of property would have to be sacrificed. The inequitious nature of Muslim personal law has to be studied to be believed. Second reason is of course, Muslims believe that everything written in Koran and the Sunnah of the prophet are immutable and are the last word. None of the Indian muslims would want to change their personal law. The miniscule liberals amongst the Muslims are a weak and scared lot.
It is not as if muslim countries do not have civil laws to govern such personal affairs. Egypt and Turkey are the best examples. Probably, Indonesia also follows suit, although I am slightly uncertain.
In this respect, I would say that India is more Islamic than most muslim countries, barring Middle east, and Pakistan.
Dear King Khan,
My objection is not at all to your religion or your practices.
It is a point addressed to the inaccurate or ignorant statement made by the columnist that all religions preach tolerance as first lesson. I have cited certain passages, which ex facie, do not seem very tolerant. I have read plain English translation of your scriputre.
If my reading of the verses is wrong, enlighten me and tell me what is the correct meaning of the passages cited.
Dear Palahalli,
I missed a point in your comment. There is no christian personal law. Christ did not give law to his people as did the prophet of Islam. At present, Christians are governed by the Indian Succession Act, Christian marriage Act, and the Indian Divorce Act.
Secondly, only muslim personal law has been recognised in India, not fortunately, the Islamic penal law. Irrespective of the offender’s religion, a person committing offence in India is punished according to IPC, Cr.PC and other laws which define offences. Therefore, there can be no question of stoning people to death or chopping off limbs! Fortunately, the British did this favour to us by abolishing traditional penal laws over a century and a half ago. Had it been independent secularist India, our liberals, marxists and secularists would have demanded that even muslim penal law be continued, all in the name of maintaining the pluralistic characteristic of Indian society!
The only exception to this statement is that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. under which a person is bound to pay money to support the abandoned parents or wife or children does not apply to Muslims in the context of abandoned wives, thanks to the Congress government under Rajiv Gandhi overturning Shah Bano judgement of the Supreme Court in the late eighties.
Gururaj – I’m sure you will enjoy the attached link.
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/64A1.%20On%20The%20Hindu%20Code%20Bill.htm
I’m not sure if the Hindu Code has nothing to do with traditional Hindu Laws. The beautiful thing about Hinduism is that it has recourse to so many traditions and can choose the best from amongst those.
Ambedkar himself refers to the Dayabhaga system as preferable to the Mitakshara. But I will leave you to comment on this since you seem to be more learned in this area. I enjoyed you’re posts!
You also seem to vouche for the UCC as not different from Hindu Code.
My position is that Muslims in India will oppose it. You agree with this position.
But you also feel that Muslims will eventually reconcile just like Hindus did post the Hindu Code.
Now, my brief study tells me that the HC was passed after major amendments. In fact, Ambedkar resigned in protest because it was not the bill he wanted. Not entirely at least.
Be that as it may, more amendments that would have pleased the spirit of Ambedkar, have been passed since that day in 1951. There have been no protests by Hindus.
But then, did the Hindu Code Bill as envisaged by Ambedkar stray too far from our various Hindu traditions? I will again leave this for you to comment upon.
Coming back to the point of Muslims eventually reconciling with the UCC, my point is that the UCC will be so different from Shar’ia and will not have the sanction of the Quran/Mohammed, that it will stand ever in opposition to their religious aspirations.
On the Islamic Penal Code, I don’t think Muslims will oppose it’s implementation. Why should they oppose anything Islamic?
As to you’re fears of them (Islamic Penal law) being barbaric, I must brush it aside. They may seem barbaric to you. They are not, to Muslims.
***
VAlale SUbbanna – So, what are you’re differences with Hindutva?
Dear Palahalli,
I don’t think I said that Muslims will eventually reconcile to UCC. On the other hand, I have given two strong reasons why Muslims, especially the men, will oppose UCC. I certinly agree with you that Muslims would oppose UCC.
As far as Islamic penal law is concerned, leave it alone! It is buried one hundred and fifty years deep! If this law were to be brought into force, to begin with, one would have to prove his religion before proving his innocence. In our corrupt police system, one can easily be framed as a muslim offender, so that the petty thief who did not take care of the police at the time of aerest will lose his limb!
UCC need not be equated to Hindu Code, though Hindu Code is substantially secular enough to be applied fairly to followers of other religions also. To treat Hindu Code as UCC would be asking too much from our secular political community.
The burden of my song is that adopting to UCC does not mean that Muslims have to lose the faith in their religion. The core beliefs of any religion in India would remain outside the scope of UCC. Muslims would have to compromise on sharia only to the extent of personal affairs, not religious affairs.
khan,
you never replied to reservation and govt help for madrassas.
I dont understand what are you objecting about, by quoting the verses of the Holy Quran. The fact that Muslims beleive in One Allmighty is pestering you, or the fact that Muslims oppose idol worship? Be precise.
i have a similar dual question. are muslims concerned that others believe in multiple super mighties and are not opposed to idol worship. you can believe in what you want, but so should i, right? actually, what i am really interested is in why you are personally opposed to idol worship. dont quote/paraphrase other people. i want your reasons.
aurangajeb is one of the characters who wanted the entire country to believe in what he believed in. he killed those who did not believe in what he said. he was a fascist, right? for a while our own sultan also did the same thing. and he too killed people based on this. he too was a fascist, right?
we all can believe what we want. but before that we have to mutually agree that everybody has a right to believe what we want. which means ahmediyyas and idol worshippers and others, with other beliefs, have the same rights as everybody else, no?
just like you want your freedom to believe that my mode of sajda – idol worship – as haram, i too must have the freedom to believe that the quran may not be holy right? if i believe that the injunction against picturizing allah and mohhamad as irrational, do i have the right to write about and pictures of mohhamad and allah, according to my own beliefs?
@Palahalli:First of all,Iwould like to know :1.What is your Hindutva? 2.Who you think is the real representative of it ?(likes of Pejavar,modi, Vajapeyi etc)
3.Is the Hindutva you are propagating has anything to do with castism,religious fanaticism,untouchability and all other evils practices of Hinduism ?4.Is Hindutva = Brahmanism ?
VAlale SUbbanna – I will answer all you’re questions but before that, please answer just one question of mine.
Were you till now, actually angry with something you have not even tried to understand ?
It not fair to include language in the list of divisive forces. Indian union has been formed based on the linguistic states and that is the only reason why India exists even today. Languages have evolved over long periods of time well before man invented castes and religions. Languages are very secular in nature. Language should be treated like natural resources and all effort to made to preserve them for future generations.
Any attempt by one linguistic group to marginalize the other language group can never be accepted/tolerated and which will eventually divide the country. (Now how union government is imposing Hindi at the cost of other language like Kannada). It is better to preserve the languages now rather than doing it when they become almost extinct.
We are Kannadigas from 4000 years and Indians from only past 60 years. Language is much stronger binding force than caste or religion. We see most of the stable and developed countries that exist today or based on languages. Even Bangla Desh got separated from Pakistan for the same reason.
Main problem today which in all likelihood will split the country is the uncontrolled migration. Migrating population do not care about the local culture and language. Unlike citizenship which can changed easily at any point of time (lot of our family members and friend have done that), it is impossible to change ones language allegiances. In line with article 370 and Anandpur Sahib resolution all states must be granted maximum autonomy to preserve the Indian Union otherwise it is bound to go Soviet way. Languages are the only uniting force and we have leverage that strength to build a strong Indian Union.
Dear Palahalli,
I have read in the link given by you, the parliamentary debate which preceded the passing of Hindu Code. Without actually studying the differences beween the Bill and the Act, I am unable to comment.
Be that as it may, under Hindu Marriage Act, for the validity of marriage as customary Hindu marriage, performance according to custom was sufficient, without regard to caste, gotra or pravara. This has certainly liberated the Hindu society.
Unfortunately, the broad definition of Hindu (as a person who cannot prove that he is not covered by the Hindu law) in the Hindu Marriage Act is not followed for other purposes. The government, media et all always treat Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Lingayats and tribals as “not Hindus”. The founders of first four Indic religions have not given law to their followers. Hence, they have always been governed by the Hindu Customary Law. But, even the Government itself treats these communities as though they are not Hindus, when it comes to matters of giving government largesse. There is a tendency to dismember Hindu society by treating each sect as better than the whole, or as different from the whole.
In the matter of properties, Hindu code did play some havoc. Property held within a family is a form of saving for rainy day. The traditional law ensured that property of a family remained within the family, as understood as male lineage. When wife, daugther, grand daugther et al were covered as Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, meriting equal share of Joint Family property in case of intestate succession, the share which fell to daughters went out of the family which had worked hard to build and preserve the property. This problem was further aggravated when some States, (now 2005 amendment to Hindu succesion Act) gives coparcenary rights to Hindu women. Large chunks of property will go to another family to which Hindu women belong after marriage, even though that family has done very little to save and build up the property. This is a major issue which caused great deal of heart burn.
But, the biggest onslaught on the Hindu society is from Article 25 and Article 30 of the Constitution, which gives right of practice of religion and propagation of religion to all; right to conserve their language and culture. Article 25 became a licence for Christian Missionaries to propagate christianity agressively amongst the lower castes of Hindus and Tribals. Though technically, Hinduism was also free to propagate itself, not being a missionary religion, Hinduis lost more on account of this provision.
Article 30 protects minority institutions and they cannot be taken over by the governments. But, the Institutions managed by the Hindus can be taken over, as they are not protected by Article 30. That was how, Ramakrishan Mission, in order to save its educational institutions from Marxist take over, went to the extent of pleading that it was not a Hindu sect, but Ramakrishaism, a minority denomination! Such have been the travails of Hinduism in independent India, the only country of the Hindus on this planet.
But, then Hindu society has braved all these changes and has survived. Hopefully, it will continue to survive in the foreseeable future.
Gururaj – It appears it is the Hindu who opposes the Shari’a Penal law more than the Muslim. This is wrong. It is quite unnecessary for the Hindu to come in the way of Muslim progress.
I also find it hard to digest you’re assertion that the UCC will not impinge on Islamic Law/religion. It would be great if you could draw up a short list of parallels.
I found myself in agreement with you’re post of 30 March 2009 at 7:57 pm.
Thanks Gururaj.
@Palahalli:All I understood from the Hindutva of Modi,Muthalik etc is just
“HATE”.
gururaj thanks for your posts. do you have any thoughts on how 25 & 30 could have been written alternately, without violating their spirit?
i think jeevarathna can write about it with more insight, but whoever wrote that, wrote that with keeping a greater principle in mind.
now, in hindsight, we realize that these rules attempt to arbitrate between a non-proselytizing and a proselytizing thought and because of the logic involved are heavily biased in favour of proselytizing ideas.
i think the simplest solution is to remove the artificial injunctions against hindus. i firmly believe all this altruism is basically rooted in the material benefits involved. this ‘service for the poor and the deprived’ and other nonsense is all window dressing. if you truely open the market and everything falls in place – atleast on the average.
VAlale SUbbanna – Allright. You say you found “hate” in PM and Modi.
Did you also find “castism,religious fanaticism,untouchability and all other evils practices of Hinduism including Brahmanism” ?
Please remember that I’m not playing with you’re posts. All I’m trying to do is understand you’re “anger” toward Hindutva.
Dear Tarlesubba,
In fact, there was proposal to amend the said two articles, of all the people, from Syed Shahbuddin, the arch self-proclaimed muslim communalist. But, when LS was dissolved in or about 1989, the bill lapsed. Thereafter, none has revived it. The amendment simply proposed right of protection of religion, culture and language to all. Even that would go a long way. Under the present regime, Hindu institutions do not need extra protection. If they are given same degree of protection as is given to other minorities (both linguistic and religious) that would be great boon.
Dear Hoysala,
Language was indeed a highly divisive force in India, in the late forties and entire fifties. Justice Party and its successor Dravida kazhagam wanted to breakaway from India. However, the 1962 drubbing that India received from China some how roused the nationalistic spirits to such heights, that eventually, this demand withered away. The demand for Punjabi Suba in the sixties almost resulted in separation of Punjab from India, though it was not wholly a linguistic issue. But, with Sikhs, language and religion are inseparable.
As far as Kannada is concerned, none of the protagonists from Ma.Ramamurthy, AnaKru till the present day karave have demanded separate statehood. Generally, we have been happy to be a part of Inida, for much longer than 60 years. The Poet Sung: Jaya Bharata Janiniya Tanujate, Jaya He Karnataka mate! Haven’t we been doing pilgrimage to all parts of the country? Don’t Indians from other parts of country visit pilgrimage places like Shravana belagola and Udupi? Doesn’t that show cultural unity of Karnataka with India? Rajasshekara, the Poetics author of 9th century recognizes the special talent of Karnataka people in reading poetry as “Karnatakah thankarottara pathihah”, Karnataka people read poetry with ringing voice!
aadarniya raj saheb,
mi tumacha khup khup abhari aho karan geli 50 varsha amacha maharashtra ani mumbai vegali jhali pan keval matachya rajkaranasathi amhi techi vatole kele shivay jya 105 hutatmani apale andolan dile ani delhichya takhtavarati aple rajya kele tya shiv chhatrapati shivaji maharajana sudha visaralo. khare sangu shiv rayana sudha ata watat asel ki me kashala ya marathi kulat janma khetala jar marathila yevate vait divas yenar astil tar dnyaneshwarapasun p l deshpande paryant sarvach lokana apala janma vaya gela achech vatet asel
punha ekada raje shivrayanchi garaj astana amhi keval ani keval shivray mhanun tumachayakade pahaote ahe. tumachaya ya marathi andolanat ame sampurnapane apalya pathishi ahot. matachya rajkaranasathi udar hindutwa patkarnapeksha me kevel marathi and maharashtriya mhanun maran patkarnyas tayar aho
punha ekda apanas shubhecchya
jai hind jay maharashtra, jay marathi