Myth: Tolerance is religion’s contribution
The Sangh Parivar and it’s supporters time and again have been saying that their violence is in response to centuries long oppression that Hindus had to face from it’s foreign invaders. They say Hindus had to suffer because of the tolerant nature of Hindus. They further explain that the Mughal raj, British raj, Missionaries and conversion are all results of this centuries long tolerance and universal acceptance of Hinduism. This has gained quite some sympathy from both national and international audience and is often used to justify the brutally violent acts of Sangh Parivar. But this story of tolerance is nothing but a myth.
Love, hate, tolerance and intolerace are all human traits. Religion could either enhance it or destroy it. The choice is left to the human beings. Jesus Christ taught the message of love and forgiveness to his disciples. He asked them to spead these words whereas some of his disciples simply went after spreading the religion and setting up it’s institution in the name of spreading his words. The abuse of Christianity had resulted in wars and religious persecution. Jesus Christ was gone and a religious institution had replaced him. This abuse continues to happen as we hear US president George Bush say “God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq… And I did“.
Similarly, Hinduism is a beautiful philosophy. Many of the Hindu holy texts contain some beautiful thoughts and ideas. But by practice, Hinduism was not that universally accepting. The most celebrated “universal acceptance” of Hinduism is primarily based on our racist mentality that exists even now. I remember a couple of incidents – of how a northie wrote that “Madrasi chicks look ugly” which got the entire blogosphere in to a north-south divide discussion and then the most recent one from the first ever BlogCamp Kerala in 2008. One (and only) foreigner who attended the BlogCamp Kerala wrote this in his blog after the blog camp:
People were taking picture of me like I was a tourist attraction. 100 guys, 3 girls and one Guillaume, and everyone is interested in the Guillaume.
Yes, that happened in a so-called intellectual part of the society. Similarly, you go to an event, you see an african-american man and you don’t even feel like sitting beside him. But if he was white, you would definitely use any chance that you could talk to him and be a friend.
The above mentioned is one simple example of the racist mindset that we have. We love the color “White” or anything “foreign“. Hence we had warmly welcomed the Whites and other foreigners. This is one thing that resulted in the British Raj. The rulers of that time while they were treating their downtrodden within their social system (Dalits and poor people) like pigs, welcomed their White friends who later became their masters. Their own racist mindset resulted in all these. British Raj, Missionaries and such. And people call that racist mindset tolerance and universal acceptance. And that racist mentality is exactly what the problem behind conversion. Because it resulted in helping the foreigners, deep-rooting caste-system and poverty in it’s own society which later lead to missionaries and conversion.
If love, tolerance and acceptance were religious inventions, there wouldn’t have been atheists who are as humanitarians as some religious figures. The only difference is that such atheists (and I am not referring to some of those urban atheists who say “I am an atheist” for fashion) do not put any religion’s label in their work. So whenever you hear the Sangh’s doctrine about tolerance and universal acceptance, think again.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Related news: Maoists’ disclosure that they killed the Swami in Kandhamal may be putting an end to this whole thing soon?
What do you think Jo? Was it a confession or yet another political gimmick by all frauds involved?
Cheers,
Ajith
October 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
It was in the news today that the Congress party is likely ban organizations like Bajrang Dal….
The problem lies not in simply banning the organization. The government and the people react differently to BD than how they react to Islamic organizations of a similar sort. Banning BD would give them a martyr-like aura. And unless an action plan is put into place to ensure that future governments enforce the ban and shut down any BD sub group that exists, the ban will have no effect on anything. On the contrary, resentment would increase amongst hindus.. There are people who do not agree with BD policies and yet might have sympathy towards it following the ban due to a feeling that hindus are being repressed.
This is a country on the edge; paranoid and scared. In such a precarious time, with hindu mentality already feeling besieged in their own backyards, a ban could trigger something horrible…Religious tolerance has been the core essence of Hinduism, and Hinduism would lose its basic characteristic in absence of it.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
While your argument to de-rate Hinduism (or Dharmic religions) in comparison to Abrahamic religions is very filmsy, I believe that ‘dharma’ cannot be defended by resorting to ‘adharma’. Recent displays of shameful acts by the so-called defenders of religion is an ideology that has to be nipped in the bud.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
>> Ajith: VHP has not bought the Maoists claim, so there is very little chance to end the present situation in Kandhmal. Perhaps only if the Sangh’s top administration decides that there needs to be a mellow-down of the violence to protect the image of BJP supported Patnaik government, then only this would come to a halt.
About the confession of Maoists, I am not sure. On August 30th, TOI reported that anothe Maoist group had taken responsibility and now there is another group. Today, I read in Reuters that two Christians have been taken to custody by Orissa police who had links with Maoist groups. Even though the current set of revelations point to Maoists, we cannot know for sure unless there is a non-biased proper investigation report.
>> Priyank: I think you got me wrong here. My argument was not “de-rate Hinduism”. I said religion (be it Hinduism or Christianity) has some beautiful concepts, but unfortunately that is not what came in “practice”. Every religion has concepts that can be interpreted very badly and made it a practise and people use it in their own way to gain power. If I was after proving “supremacy” of Christianity over Hinduism, I wouldn’t have said this (and I have specifically mentioned about the institutionalization of Christianity. Why would I do that if my intention was to de-rate Christianity?
).
October 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Now you know why i shun religion. It has brought nothing but evil upon mankind. There may or maynot be a god , but hey why divide people over it ?
October 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
>> Aashik: Religion is one of the many reasons which is used to divide and rule. Another recent example could be regionalism (remember MNS or the underlying north-south, north-south-northeast divide?) among plenty of other tools.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
>> Sally: Nice try to prove your “secular” credentials after I have countered your ideological leanings through this blog and email.
Banning BD would give them a martyr-like aura
Did banning SIMI gave them a “martyr-like aura” except for some extremist groups?
And unless an action plan is put into place to ensure that future governments enforce the ban and shut down any BD sub group that exists, the ban will have no effect on anything.
To put an immediate action plan is not an impossible thing. We have authoritative people to take care of it. And about the effect, any terrorist organization would work underground to sustain their work, so will BD. But not to ban them on that argument would be a stupid thing to do.
On the contrary, resentment would increase amongst hindus. There are people who do not agree with BD policies and yet might have sympathy towards it following the ban due to a feeling that hindus are being repressed.
There are Muslims who feel oppressed too. So is it okay if SIMI or Indian Mujahidheen is not banned because there may be some Muslims who might have “sympathy” towards them?
October 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
[...] common sense from Jo on religion and ‘love, tolerance and acceptance’: Love, hate, tolerance and intolerace [...]
October 7th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“Nice try to prove your “secular” credentials after I have countered your ideological leanings through this blog and email.”..
Well Jo, i am not tryin to prove anything to you in the first place.. i am just speaking out my mind..
Regardin the BD.. there is every chance that they might go berserk and become gun toting, trishul bearing extremists who’ll make up a hindu sharia and enforce it along rural tracts of land where they could get support. It does cause a lot of social nuisance now, but these people have mindsets that are very nearly on the edge constantly. I am not vouching for appeasement of these groups, but rather, different tactics than using blanket bans which will serve, only the purpose of these groups, directly or indirectly. People, even in urban households are looking suspiciously at people from other religions.
and like you said, groups like BD can still exist after being banned. And banned groups have a tendency to abandon the law which they believe, abandoned them. We could have a veritable mass of underground BD extremists targeting the government, labeling them as anti-hindu and giving rise to a “persecution” complex amongst mainstream hindus that is even greater than whats happening today. The BD can easily make themselves appear as martyrs for a glorious cause and attract deluded young people who see themselves as wronged and betrayed. The besieged mentality would only grow…
October 7th, 2008 at 12:19 am
>> Sally: I see a change of tone in your comment, but I don’t know how sincere that is. The reason is the recent conversation that we had.
Anyways, on to the topic:
There is every chance that they might go berserk and become gun toting, trishul bearing extremists who’ll make up a hindu sharia and enforce it along rural tracts of land where they could get support.
It is already happening. They have armed training camps where they train people with guns. The Hindu sharia is also there already. Remember the TOI report that these folks went patrolling on the Valentine’s day and pour black oil on couple’s faces, including a foreigner? So these are not something that “would” happen, because it’s already happened. Also the people have already been attracted to their “cause”. What you say “will happen” has happened already.
I am just curious, do you share the same opinion that you expressed about the BD ban on other extremist groups like SIMI?
October 7th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Just bcos i said that it will not do good to ban the BD does not mean that i support the BD.. what i said was that bannin the organization in this restless times is not a good way of dealin wit the issue and it will simply result in more meaningless murders..and whether u trust me or not, i am totally against killing of any sort.. the problem that our arguments came about was bcos of my harsh views on the conversion issue, which i am still very firm on.. and since it was these conversions that brought abt the whole issue in the first place, i guess i got a little carried away..
Let all terrorist organizations be banned if the govt is able to control the aftermath of it.. along with that let the following activities also be banned :
* Making unjust or uncharitable references to others’ beliefs and practices and even ridiculing them.
* Comparing two faiths by emphasizing the achievements and ideals of one, and the weaknesses and practical problems of the other.
* Using political, social and economic power as a means of winning new members for one’s own faith.
* Extending explicit or implicit offers of education, health care or material inducements or using financial resources with the intent of making converts.
* Manipulative attitudes and practices that exploit people’s needs, weaknesses or lack of education and fail to respect their freedom and human dignity.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:35 am
and i mean those above points for all religions and organizations.. not only the Christian Missionaries doing the conversions.. I mean all organizations that preach for people frm other religions to join them, including Mata Amritanandamayi, Ravi Shankar, etc.. who hav a lot of followers who hav left their religions and r going behind these God-men and God-women..
For a person to like a religion or to respect its thoughts, is it always neccessary to convert to that religion?? can’t a person stay in one’s own religion and hav respect for all religions alike?? what is the basic need for conversion?? even if one is not satisfied with one’s religion, let him pray to the other God and visit their religious places, but what is the need to abandon one’s religion and totally create disharmony in the society??
October 7th, 2008 at 12:43 am
To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t tried to paint this issue just as a Hinduism Vs Christianity or Hindus Vs Christians. My concern is about respecting the others’ culture/faith/beliefs. The tribals, agreed they may not be Hindus nor recognize themselves with Hinduism, too have their own belief system which may not make any sense to us/others. They worship nature n animals. All well. Whats wrong in that? Tell me, where’s the need to replace one myth by another myth which you “believe” to be true? If the Missionaries can help the tribals/unprivileged voluntarily AND respect their native cultures n sensibilities, then we can say that they’re spreading the TRUE LOVE of Christ. If they insist on or induce conversions, it’s not possible to see Christ’s goodness in that.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:45 am
>> Sally:
About your Comment #1:
As long as these apply to both the religions in question, Hinduism and Christianity, including the forcible re-conversions, Yes. I am all for it.
For a person to like a religion or to respect its thoughts, is it always neccessary to convert to that religion??
Here you are confusing your thoughts to be applied to others. That is not a democractic thought. We all are entitled to believe in what we want if we are convinced of it. People have different reasons to believe in other religion or it’s thought process. I have two examples to show.
The first one is, just last month, I came to know about a friend’s cousin (from my friend who is a Hindu). This lady’s son had some serious mental trouble and they went after several doctors to cure but nothing positive happened. And then they went to Potta ashram in Chalakudy and this man was cured. Then they themselves converted to Christianity and began following the Christian customs since then. The second one is (this I heard from a friend and I haven’t met the family) that another Hindu family staying in a nearby area had some similar experience. They do keep praying to their own Gods in their home and at the same time they also go to the Church. In bboth these cases experience is what drove them for a change of faith and they chose different ways to acknowledge it.
These are two examples. But here, you cannot say that only the latter is right just because that example supports your view point. The other one might have thought that one form of God did not help and they wanted to practice a separate faith. Theirs is the prime reason that we mainly see in the conversion related issues. And what I say is, no matter what “I” think is “right” or “stupid”, any individual in this country should have the freedom to choose/change his/her faith/religion at their will. With that (respecting the individual’s rights) plus the above mentioned laws that you suggested and banning the extremist groups like VHP or Bajrang Dal, there should be peace going on in India.
what is the need to abandon one’s religion and totally create disharmony in the society??
Choosing or abandoning a religion is completely up to an individual’s choice. Creating the social disharmony would be by denying him/her that choice or right.
Or if you were referring to the alleged forced conversions or religious abuses by a few protestant groups, I can agree. Make that distinction clear. 
To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t tried to paint this issue just as a Hinduism Vs Christianity or Hindus Vs Christians.
Those who had not read our personal email conversations wouldn’t know the truth in it.
In your email you had said the following:
======================
I feel that the provocation given for it by the missionaries was even worse and that everybody forgot to mention that in the sympathy that followed the killings..
I had mentioned in my previous communication several times that I do not support any attempts to abuse someone else’s faith. Some missionary groups like New Life Church have done that. But is violence the answer? If I foul mouth you, would you come and kill me? Or burn my house? You think that the provocation (foul mouthing Gods) is worse than murdering someone! That is so inhuman to say the least.
I feel that Christians also would have gone about doing the same if Hindu’s brought out pamphlets condeming Christianity as false or telling that Christ is no actual Son of God..
That’s what “YOU feel”. Not the truth. Has anybody gone after the young artist of Vadodara after he made a sculpture that showed Jesus’ penis hanging out from the cross? The protest was in the most peaceful manner. But when the same fellow, in the same exhibition depicted Hindu Gods, Sanghis got flared up and beaten up the poor chap. And if any Christian does that in the future I would condemn that in the same level. I wouldn’t say “provocation was worse than killing”. That is so inhuman to say the least.
There are Sangh supporters who desparately trying to prove that “Jesus Christ was a myth” when the existence of any God (Jesus, Rama or Krishna or Allah for that matter) cannot be proved and faith is just that – Faith. Not proven.
We all know what a big hue and cry “The Da Vinci Code” created even though it was called a work of fiction
Did anybody kill anyone in the protest against the film? And similarly have you seen the latest comedy of Mike Myers, The Love Guru? Just go through the Wikipedia page of that film and read this portion:
Do you see any difference between what happened about The Love Guru or The Da Vinci Code”?
======================
Now I would let the other readers to decide if you were not actually trying to paint this issue just as a Hinduism Vs Christianity.
They worship nature n animals. All well. Whats wrong in that? Tell me, where’s the need to replace one myth by another myth which you “believe” to be true?
Now you are talking to me as if I am in to this conversion business. You should be asking this to them or to the people who get converted.
I had said that faith is just that – “Faith”. Not proven. Faith is also based on a person’s experience. People who don’t find some of these experience in one religion or God might find that in another religion or God. So they obviously think the more convincing experience is the real form of God and that is the kind of faith they need to follow. Then happen conversions. And this apply not only to Christianity but Hinduism as well.
Talking about tribes, and “one myth replacing the other”, how about VHP’s conversion programs among tribals and also the “ghar wapasi” programmes?
If the Missionaries can help the tribals/unprivileged voluntarily AND respect their native cultures n sensibilities, then we can say that they’re spreading the TRUE LOVE of Christ. If they insist on or induce conversions, it’s not possible to see Christ’s goodness in that.
I do agree with that too. And not all missionaries are after forcible conversions. There are so many of them who does social work as part of their spiritual life. You cannot club them altogether and say everything that missionaries do are based on religious conversions. It would be like saying all swamis are frauds, just because there are some Santhosh Madhavans.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Jo..again you go about missing my point and again trying to start arguments..
Jo>> And this apply not only to Christianity but Hinduism as well. Talking about tribes, and “one myth replacing the other”, how about VHP’s conversion programs among tribals and also the “ghar wapasi” programmes?
I know that very well.. that’s y i had said:
“and i mean those above points for all religions and organizations.. not only the Christian Missionaries doing the conversions.. I mean all organizations that preach for people frm other religions to join them, including Mata Amritanandamayi, Ravi Shankar, etc.. who hav a lot of followers who hav left their religions and r going behind these God-men and God-women..”
I had mentioned t last post about the tribals and the Chrsitans coz that was the main issue here in the first place..is not this whole debate and topics in this blog an aftermath of the recent happenings in Karnataka.. and that was concerning the conversions done by the Christian missionaries..so i talked more about them.. If this whole issue was started due to conversions that were done by the Sangh or conversions by the VHP and that had resulted in the killing spree, i wud have written bad about them accusing them for what they did.. Y do you go on telling that I am against Christianity and asking your readers to decide on it?? It is my habit to question things and I will do that for every religion, be it Chrsitanity, Hinduism, or Islam.. (I wud like any of your friends to read all these comments and reply to me in an unbiased way and tell me their opinion of what all I have written in ur posts…)
I myself am a Hindu who knows much more about Christianity than about my own religion..that maybe frm my convent education or my close association to christian friends.. but I am not blaming that on my educators or my friends.. I cud hav taken more trouble to learn more about Hinduism and i did not do it.. I is solely my fault..I go to temples and I visit churches also… I feel that this is the main failure of Hinduism..more and more people hav stopped truely knowing about Hinduism and that is the main reason y people are ready to go to another religon when prompted to do so (forcebly or by some miracle or healing they hav seen, like in the case of ur friend..)..
October 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
and also..
“Do you see any difference between what happened about The Love Guru or The Da Vinci Code”?”
what was the difference Jo?? Rajan Zed is a Hindu fanatic, a crazy guy who wanted to hav the movie screened bfor its release to see if it hurt hindu sentiments.. Does what he had to say really endorse all Hindu sentiments.. i am sure when the movie was screened more hindus wud hav enjoyed it rather than all other communities.. and like u asked, i dont think anyone was killed over the Love Guru either.. I did not mean Da Vinci Code caused killings.. i just mentioned the hue and cry it created, which it surely did.. t book was also about to be banned in India(which thankfully it did not, bcoz apart frm the religious comments in it, it is an exceptionally well written work)..
October 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Jo, have you heard abt this story of Gandhiji?? He was approached numerous times to convert to Christianity when he was studying in England and when he was practicing in South Africa. He was attracted towards Christianity. But he thought that before he converted to Christianity, he must understand why he was he giving up Hinduism. So, he started studying Hinduism, and found that all good things were in Hinduism also. Therefore, finally, he did not convert, but practiced a lot from his learning from the Bible and practiced that in his daily life…
Now don’t go starting to argue that since Gandhiji did it, y is it neccessary that we all must do it and to each his wish, etc.. I just pointed out something that I read and found beautiful..
October 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Jo>>If I foul mouth you, would you come and kill me? Or burn my house? You think that the provocation (foul mouthing Gods) is worse than murdering someone! That is so inhuman to say the least.”
If you foul mouth me, would I come and kill you??? Or burn my house?? Of course not Jo.. I hav already told u a hundred times that I am against killing of any sort and i hav no intention at all in murdering you..
and burning ur new house?? Of course not for that too.. I know how hard it is to build a new house these days, since i am in the same process myself.. I do not believe in destructing property also.. 
“You think that the provocation (foul mouthing Gods) is worse than murdering someone!??” Of course not for that too Jo.. I dont think that foul mouthing Gods is worse than murdering.. In that case, i dont think anything is worse than murdering someone…What I said was, if the same foul mouthing was done in the vice-versa case, that is a Hindu foul mouthing a Chrstian God or a Hindu foul mouthing Islam in print.. or leaving out the hindu, if it was a Chrsitian foul mouthing Islam in print, the case wud have been different.. you can take the case of Salman Rushdie for an example, then, the murderings wud have been worse.. I was not justifyin the murder, i was just accusing the provocations.. (in this case, the pamphlets released accusing the Hindu gods to be false Gods)..
October 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
y jo, u did not post the comments that i wrote today?? the one i told u to delete, u posted..
u r aching for a fight wit me naa??
October 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Sally, I have a day job that pays me to do the works assigned to me, not for blogging.
So do not expect me to publish your comments as soon as you post them.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I will reply to you in a short while.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I had mentioned t last post about the tribals and the Chrsitans coz that was the main issue here in the first place
Sally, like I always told you, dig a bit deeper. You cannot blame the root cause on Christian proselytism (that doesn’t give the conversion business a clean chit though), because digging about the present situation (which made it easy for Missionaries to bank upon poor and Dalits) would show something else. Why do you keep on ignoring that? If you were looking for the main issue at the first place, you have to dig to the root and that is what I did in this post. Perhaps some of those facts hurt you.
=========
“Do you see any difference between what happened about The Love Guru or The Da Vinci Code”?” – what was the difference Jo??
LOL, Sally, my intention was to imply that there is NO difference between the two.
Since you seemed to have worried only about the Christian protests about Da Vinci Code, I had to bring the Love Guru incident to your attention to prove that there is absolutely no difference between the fanatics in either religion.
=========
But he thought that before he converted to Christianity, he must understand why he was he giving up Hinduism. So, he started studying Hinduism, and found that all good things were in Hinduism also. Therefore, finally, he did not convert, but practiced a lot from his learning from the Bible and practiced that in his daily life
I think Gandhiji is right. I would do the same thing too. Because I believe every religious text has some beautiful ideas and concepts which, if understood properly, could help a person to live a good life and if it is interpreted wrongly, can cause a lot of social troubles. So I wouldn’t change my religion for the same reason that you stated here. But one’s own personal opinion cannot be imposed on other people. So if a person, based on his own conviction want to change to another religion (for the reasons of his own), he should have the freedom to do that. We are talking of a free country here. I am saying this for the nth time, but you still don’t get it. You seem to be implicitly asking that “why can’t people follow what I think?”. That is a fascist thought.
=========
PS: If you want to ask me about my personal matters, email me. I do not prefer to have this blog to discuss whether I had a good sleep yesterday or if my dad visited any hospital.
So stick on to the topic and personal comments would not be published here.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
October 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Jo, I just want an answer for one question.
What is meant by the word ‘secular’ and as a consequence, ‘secularism’?
If all Indians can agree on one definition, we are home safe. Please find it for us.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
>> Rummsuser: Secularism is the separation of religion and state as we all know. Now why did you bring up that question?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I brought that about here, because, if that definition is acceptable, and is implemented in letter and spirit, this entire post and the comments on it would not have been necessary.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
That will help but I am not sure if it is the final solution. Another solution could be more and more people be agnostic. But am not sure even about that. Because there are agnostics who support the fanatic elements in all religions just because they are part of the community. So breaking such community cocoons is what we need the more. People should live and mingle with other communities – not only different in religion, but also in linguistic, regional differences. A friend once said “Globalization is the solution for today’s communal issues. Because that will displace people and will force them for more acceptance”. I know part of it is indeed sad (being displaced and belonging to no roots etc) but that seems like a good solution, but am not sure if it is possible.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Long chain of arguments. But this old man has an advice on textual communication – anything beyond few paragraphs leads to misunderstanding. period.
I find these claims of ‘miraculous cure if you come to us’ both hilarious and saddening. Lets say God X had such healing power. God X will cure only people who follow his religion. Non believers can go to hell (or Mumbai, lol). This makes X a biased, racist and unjust ‘god’. Consequently, he ceases to be a God. There you go. The ‘babas’ and ‘matas’ and ‘saviors’ should go smoke some weed. QED
October 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Priyank, sometimes a long chain of arguments would definitely help to learn so many things. People needs to get beaten up, intellectually, to make them think about where they stand.
Happened and happening with me, and that is how I learn, and how I progress as a human being. But sometimes, yes, there are simple solutions to bigger problems, only if we all understood that.
This makes X a biased, racist and unjust ‘god’. Consequently, he ceases to be a God.
And the fact is that no body knows if it is the God who is the real racist or if it is his agents who interpret God.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Jo, My father is a Tamilian, my mother was a Malayali, both Hindus and they met and got married in Mumbai where I was born. My wife’s father was a Bengali, her mother a Telugu, both Christians. What does that make my son?
We live in Maharashtra and I speak Marathi fluently, yet, I am still considered as an outsider.
This is not strange. Even in the most agnostic or atheistic places, like say the old USSR or the present Europe, such an Utopian existence has not been possible.
The answer is only one hundred percent implementation of a truly secular state. Everyone, given exactly the same treatment as per one law. Religions should have no place for anything in the public sphere.
This way, there will be not vote banks, no caste based or relgion based politics. If you dig deep enough, the root cause of all present problems is politics. So, what is the remedy other than my suggestion?
October 10th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Stricter implementation of a secular state would definitely help to solve such problems to a level, but not fully. Exploitation of religion was there long back, even before the vote bank politics had taken shape, wouldn’t you agree? Only the state remains secular in a secular democracy, but the communal elements remains intact. France is a stricter secular country, but they are also not free from communal riots etc.
So a more stricter implementation of secularism is one solution but not final. How about globalization like a friend suggested?
do you think that would help? I see from your example that a cosmopolitan atmosphere has helped you and your family to get rid of the religious hassles (other than personal qualities of course).
October 13th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Globalization as it is popularly understood, is not the answer either. Globalization as dreamt by The Rev. Martin Luther King, yes. Till we reach that kind of a mental frame of mind, universally, let us do our bit and get on with life.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Yes, let us do our bit and make efforts to have communal harmony instead of communal violence…