Is Secularism "universal", or limited and indigenous only to the WEST?

[Alam_dar]

Religious people make a lot of false accusation against secularism. One such allegation is:

On 3/11/2020 at 2:06 PM, coffee_rules said:

In theory, it is a western concept. When protestant groups and catholic groups were fighting across medieval europe, with governments of countries which had majority of a group squashing other groups, the only solution they thought was to separate church from state and said they will tolerate one another to stop all the violence. This is called secularism where the state keeps from meddling with the church and all religions "tolerate" one another.

This claim is false about both "reason of birth" of secularism, as well as the "history" of secularism. 

 

 

Reasons for the "birth" of Secularism:

 

Secularism took birth from the womb of "freethinking". 

 

Freethinking is use of human rationale/logic without the external influences of religion and culture. Thus:

(1) Freethinking is non-religious in nature. 

(2) And this "non-religious freethinking" always lands towards the "path and principles of the Secularism". 

 

Freethinkers were born themselves due to the "dissatisfaction" with the practices/laws of the religions. 

These Freethinkers then gave birth either to the "reform movements" (where role of original religion was reduced to minimum) , or to the total rebellious "atheist/agnostic movements" (where religion was totally shunned). Both of these movements ended up more or less in giving birth to the non-religious, human rationale based "Secular System", which was an alternative to their respective religious system. 

 

And as freethinking is not limited to any specific area, but it is "universal", thus secularism is also not limited and indigenous to any specific area, but it is also a "universal" phenomenon. 

 

 

History of "Secularism":

 

The departure from reliance on religious faith to reason and science marks the beginning of the secularization of education and society in history.

 

CHARVAKAS:

It was not only the West where people became "dissatisfied" with the religion, but it was also India where the "Charvakas" became dissatisfied with the Hindu Dharma. They openly blamed Vedas to be lies and human made fabrications and became total rebellious to Hindu religion. Thus, this caused them to become "freethinkers and Atheists" in the Indian society. 

 

Great BUDDAH:

Similarly, Mahatama Buddha also became "dissatisfied" from the Hindu religion. He saw that religion got the evils of caste system and other practices. Result was freethinking and moving away from the Hindu Dharma to the extent of full rebellion and forming a new set of teachings which were based upon the human rationale and reason.  

 

Thus Buddah in his teachings not only eradicated the cruel caste system, but also gave women the rights to inheritance from the parents, and right to divorce and that being widow is not an evil thing but they have the right to remarry. 

 

In short, all these teachings of Buddah were leading more towards the direction of the principles of the Secularism. 

 

Stoic school of philosophy:

Then there were  Zeno of Citium and Marcus Aurelius, whose teachings were leading towards non-religious system and leading towards the principles of Secularism. 

 

Akbar:

Akbar also dissatisfied with the teachings of Islam. He wanted to bring reforms. Thus his path was also automatically leading some what towards the principles of the Secularism.

 

How movement of modern Secularism started in Europe?

Religious people claim that secular movement started in the West only after the medieval period due to the fighting among the different sects of Christian religion.

 

But this claim is false as fighting between these sects were going much before the end of the medieval period. Why didn't then this movement started right in the beginning of this fighting? Why it had to wait for 1500 years of fighting till the start of this movement? 

 

Contrary to the false claim of fighting of the Christian sects, reality is this that movement of Secularism was born due to the "education". 

And spread of education became possible mainly due to the invention of press. 

For the first time press made it possible to challenge the teachings and powers of the Church in effective way. 

 

Thus, the invention of press became the reason for the end of the medieval period and the start of the Renaissance era . 

And this press also became the cause of rebirth and expansion of the non-religious Secular system. 

 

Modern Freethinkers and their role in spread of Secularism:

Secularism emerged in the West with the establishment of reason over religious faith as human reason was gradually liberated from unquestioned subjection to the dominion of religion and superstition. Secularism first appeared in the West in the classical philosophy and politics of ancient Greece, disappeared for a time after the fall of Greece, but resurfaced after a millennium and a half in the Renaissance and the Reformation. 

 

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Zeno of Citium and Marcus Aurelius; from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and from more recent freethinkers atheists such as Matthew W. Dillahunty, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and Christopher Hitchens. It shifts the focus from religion to other "temporal" and "this-worldly" things, with emphasis on nature, reason, science, and development.

 

Domenic Marbaniang wrote:

An increasing confidence in human capabilities, reason, and progress, that emerged during the Italian Renaissance, together with an increasing distrust in organized and state supported religion during the Reformation, was responsible for the ushering of modernity during the Enlightenment, which brought all facets of human life including religion under the purview of reason and thus became responsible for the freeing of education, society, and state from the domination of religion; in other words, the development of modern secularism.

 

Non-Religious Secular system went through "Evolution":

Not on the first day this non-religious Secular movement was able to brought rights to the slaves or women or to the LGBTs, or make world free of evils like race and colour and even fanatic nationalism.

 

It took centuries of evolution till we landed to the present form of Secularism. Women in the West got right to vote only in the last century. Same is about ending the prejudice against the black people. 

 

Modern Secularism in India: 

It is blamed that Secularism is not "native/indigenous" to India. But this claim is again false.

Secularism was also not native/indigenous to Europe either in the beginning, but it had to undergo through the process of evolution. Thus the culture of Europe also transformed completely from the Church based to secular based society. 

 

In India too, the religious based society is in the gradual process of transforming towards secularism based society. 

 

Off course, the religious elements are totally opposed to this transformation, and they want to stop it by blaming Secularism to be limited to the West only, and foreign to the traditional Indian society and it's values. 

 

Nevertheless, these religious elements are wrong. Secularism is a "universal" phenomenon. Non religious freethinking will always automatically lead people towards the principles of secularism.

 

Therefore, not only in India, but also even in the Islamic countries, the movement of Secularism is native/indigenous. 

 

The movement of "Ex-Muslims" is also secular in nature.

 

 

Blaming Secularists to be the Traitors of India and foreign Agents:

First the religious right starts with disinformation and false propaganda. And then it ends up blaming Secularists to be the traitors of India and the foreign 

agents, on the bases of their own fabricated stories. Here you can see the prime example of this attitude:

 

 

On 3/9/2020 at 6:45 PM, Manny_Pacquiao said:

Quote

 It's the same one their forefathers faced in the 1820s: accept the natural return to equilibrium or become revolutionaries and look for foreign allies.

So liberals, which foreign allies are you teaming up with?

It is not limited only to India. 

But it is exactly the same in Pakistan too. 

 

Difference is this that in  India, Secularists are blamed mainly for being the agents of the West. But the extremist Pakistan is more fanatic and thus in Pakistan Secularists are first the agents of RAW, Mosaad, and then in the last of the West. 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Alam_dar

[raki05]

43 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Akbar also dissatisfied with the teachings of Islam. He wanted to bring reforms. Thus his path was also automatically leading some what towards the principles of the Secularism

Whats up with glorifying these looters and traitors. Wasn't this traitor married to a Hindu queen where as there's nothing which suggest he endorse the idea of Muslim women marrying to Hindu guy. Basically he is the one who started conversion of Hindu to Muslim through this love jihads and most of the subcontinent Muslims are result of these conversations.

[Gollum]

No, secularism is limited, indigenous only to the Muslim world, specifically Pakistan. EOD. 

[Alam_dar]

Blaming Secularists to be the Traitors of India and foreign Agents:

First the religious right starts with disinformation and false propaganda. And then it ends up blaming Secularists to be the traitors of India and the foreign 

agents, on the bases of their own fabricated stories. Here you can see the prime example of this attitude:

 

 

On 3/9/2020 at 6:45 PM, Manny_Pacquiao said:

Quote

 It's the same one their forefathers faced in the 1820s: accept the natural return to equilibrium or become revolutionaries and look for foreign allies.

So liberals, which foreign allies are you teaming up with?

It is not limited only to India. 

But it is exactly the same in Pakistan too. 

 

Difference is this that in  India, Secularists are blamed mainly for being the agents of the West. But the extremist Pakistan is more fanatic and thus in Pakistan Secularists are first the agents of RAW, Mosaad, and then in the last of the West. 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

40 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Whats up with glorifying these looters and traitors. Wasn't this traitor married to a Hindu queen where as there's nothing which suggest he endorse the idea of Muslim women marrying to Hindu guy. Basically he is the one who started conversion of Hindu to Muslim through this love jihads and most of the subcontinent Muslims are result of these conversations.

Bro, I could only tell you that if people want to find faults in others, then they will find the faults and ignore "all" the other aspects. 

 

Yes, no human is perfect, circumstances are not perfect, but is not "justice" to judge only on the bases of the faults and neglect the whole picture. 

 

Akbar not not an angel, he was not free of making mistakes, he was not living under the ideal circumstances. But still he tried to bring reforms, based upon his (limited) freethinking. 

 

For example (link):

 

Akbar interested himself in the reform of marriage customs. He abhorred marriages before the age of puberty, and also considered marriages between near relations highly improper. He disapproved of large dowries, but admitted that they acted as a preventative to rash divorces. "Nor does His Majesty approve of everyone marrying more than one wife; for this ruins the man's health, and disturbs the peace of the home." Circumcision before the age of twelve was forbidden. The kotwals were to "forbid the restriction of personal liberty and the selling of slaves," and a woman was not to be burned on her husband's funeral pyre without giving her consent. 

 

 

These reforms are the indication of freethinking of Akbar, which was taking him away from the religion and the Islamic culture/society of his time. 

[sandeep]

Hey Fake Atheist, why are you creating separate threads on topics that already have threads.

 

@Moderator

 

[Alam_dar]

20 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Hey Fake Atheist, why are you creating separate threads on topics that already have threads.

 

@Moderator

 

While that thread was written from the point of view of the right wing religious person and already a lot of discussion was done there from their point of view. 

 

While I had to write entirely new post about this topic about the "origins" of the secularism, from the point of view of Secularists themselves.  Thus, due to the importance of this subject, and due to reviving this debate right from the beginning from the Secular point of view, I had to create a new thread. 

[Alam_dar]

27 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Hey Fake Atheist,...

 

You are welcome to blame me for being fake atheist. 

 

But I have my doubts about you that you are not a Hindu, but you are a Muslim in disguise here. While you lack the courage of present the point of view of Muslims openly, therefore, you try to spread you agenda through the use of this fake identity. 

 

Is it possible for you to swear upon Quran and Allah that you are not a Muslim? 

 

PS:

By the way, if you consider my a fake atheist, then I am wondering what is my "real ID" according to you? 

For example, I believe you are a hidden Muslim. But what is my "real ID" according to you? 

 

Moreover, I wonder that you didn't enter in a single debate with me on any of the topic. You never presented any arguments. What I only hear from you are your allegations that I am a fake atheist etc. 

 

I wish you enter into meaningful debates with others, instead of making only accusations against the others. 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Alam_dar

[raki05]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Bro, I could only tell you that if people want to find faults in others, then they will find the faults and ignore "all" the other aspects. 

 

Yes, no human is perfect, circumstances are not perfect, but is not "justice" to judge only on the bases of the faults and neglect the whole picture. 

 

Akbar not not an angel, he was not free of making mistakes, he was not living under the ideal circumstances. But still he tried to bring reforms, based upon his (limited) freethinking. 

 

For example (link):

 

Akbar interested himself in the reform of marriage customs. He abhorred marriages before the age of puberty, and also considered marriages between near relations highly improper. He disapproved of large dowries, but admitted that they acted as a preventative to rash divorces. "Nor does His Majesty approve of everyone marrying more than one wife; for this ruins the man's health, and disturbs the peace of the home." Circumcision before the age of twelve was forbidden. The kotwals were to "forbid the restriction of personal liberty and the selling of slaves," and a woman was not to be burned on her husband's funeral pyre without giving her consent. 

 

 

These reforms are the indication of freethinking of Akbar, which was taking him away from the religion and the Islamic culture/society of his time. 

Where does it answer that he was secular, and had laws to homogenize all religion together. Which laws out of these reflects that he tried to bring secularism and was different than other Muslim Invaders whose sole intention was conversion by marrying to poor and helpless.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

While that thread was written from the point of view of the right wing religious person and already a lot of discussion was done there from their point of view. 

 

While I had to write entirely new post about this topic about the "origins" of the secularism, from the point of view of Secularists themselves.  Thus, due to the importance of this subject, and due to reviving this debate right from the beginning from the Secular point of view, I had to create a new thread. 

some friendly advice:

 

attack the message, not the messenger.

 

not everything you disagree with is "right wing" or "religious", or "fascist", or "racist". if you have a counter-argument, put it out there without  prejudice.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[sandeep]

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

You are welcome to blame me for being fake atheist. 

 

But I have my doubts about you that you are not a Hindu, but you are a Muslim in disguise here. While you lack the courage of present the point of view of Muslims openly, therefore, you try to spread you agenda through the use of this fake identity. 

 

Is it possible for you to swear upon Quran and Allah that you are not a Muslim? 

 

PS:

By the way, if you consider my a fake atheist, then I am wondering what is my "real ID" according to you? 

For example, I believe you are a hidden Muslim. But what is my "real ID" according to you? 

 

Moreover, I wonder that you didn't enter in a single debate with me on any of the topic. You never presented any arguments. What I only hear from you are your allegations that I am a fake atheist etc. 

 

I wish you enter into meaningful debates with others, instead of making only accusations against the others. 

 

You are free to believe whatever you want, faker. 

[Alam_dar]

14 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Where does it answer that he was secular, and had laws to homogenize all religion together. Which laws out of these reflects that he tried to bring secularism and was different than other Muslim Invaders whose sole intention was conversion by marrying to poor and helpless.

Thank you for your input. I end the discussion about Akbar from my side in this thread, as it will derail the original topic of birth of Secularism.

 

[raki05]

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Thank you for your input. I end the discussion about Akbar from my side in this thread, as it will derail the original topic of birth of Secularism.

 

Great you should not bring those Muslims looters and traitors while discussing on secularism.

[coffee_rules]

@Alam_dar urf lame rod, do some basic research on the some neutral sites and not neutered sites like Wikipedia/Reddit. They are liberal dustbins. Don't attribute tall claims to secularism. It originated after the reformation f the church in 16th century when all the various Christian sects and branches were killing of each other, had to find a way of living. So, they wanted to keep the church from meddling state affairs, so people can live. All this attributing of free thinking   to secularism is a hogwash. Ideally, the state should be areligious as per secularism. It should not believe in any religion. Show me a state like that even in the West. THere is no state which is areligious in the whole world. Likkhe deta hoon. Secularists like to form  a egalitarian society where all are same, much like Abrahamic religions. They don't accept difference. It boasts of religious tolerance only, not respect for one another. 

 

Don't take the name of Charvaka to Secularism bucket. That philosophical group was against the ritualistic practice of Rigveda. They preached that the rituals of Vedas are not be all and end all. There is more to it, which led to explanation of the true meaning of Vedas in Upanishads and eventually Vedanta. Some of the Upanishads preached renunciation which inspired Buddha eventually. Don't mix up stuff from sanatana DHarma with  inferior concepts from the West. Rigveda speaks of inclusion of all sects, practices, and philosophies, not just of those that were victorious. That is akin to Mohd following pagan practicies in Islam after he killed all the pagans in ME. Rigveda is the text which talks of plularity (respect for all) where the concept of inclusion of all is the way for a long lasting society. It is a "Haryanvi" (the land of rigveda) concept that all of India accepted and followed.

 

Akbar had 5000 women in his harem, his concepts came from a seat of power. Even the religion he created called himself the Kalipha of Din-I ilahi!. He is not the epitome of secularism that the west (and Indian academia) is proclaiming him to be.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar urf lame rod, do some basic research on the some neutral sites and not neutered sites like Wikipedia/Reddit. They are liberal dustbins. Don't attribute tall claims to secularism. It originated after the reformation f the church in 16th century when all the various Christian sects and branches were killing of each other, had to find a way of living. So, they wanted to keep the church from meddling state affairs, so people can live. All this attributing of free thinking   to secularism is a hogwash. Ideally, the state should be areligious as per secularism. It should not believe in any religion. Show me a state like that even in the West. THere is no state which is areligious in the whole world. Likkhe deta hoon. Secularists like to form  a egalitarian society where all are same, much like Abrahamic religions. They don't accept difference. It boasts of religious tolerance only, not respect for one another. 

 

Don't take the name of Charvaka to Secularism bucket. That philosophical group was against the ritualistic practice of Rigveda. They preached that the rituals of Vedas are not be all and end all. There is more to it, which led to explanation of the true meaning of Vedas in Upanishads and eventually Vedanta. Some of the Upanishads preached renunciation which inspired Buddha eventually. Don't mix up stuff from sanatana DHarma with  inferior concepts from the West. Rigveda speaks of inclusion of all sects, practices, and philosophies, not just of those that were victorious. That is akin to Mohd following pagan practicies in Islam after he killed all the pagans in ME. Rigveda is the text which talks of plularity (respect for all) where the concept of inclusion of all is the way for a long lasting society. It is a "Haryanvi" (the land of rigveda) concept that all of India accepted and followed.

 

Akbar had 5000 women in his harem, his concepts came from a seat of power. Even the religion he created called himself the Kalipha of Din-I ilahi!. He is not the epitome of secularism that the west (and Indian academia) is proclaiming him to be.

 

This imbecile even admitted that Hindus had a social status that was "80% equal" to that of muslims during Akbar's reign!!! 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Clarke]

Meanwhile in Islamabad a terrorist blows his own house after Pakistan Government issued work from home advisory to it's Citizens 

 

He really took his work seriously!

[Laaloo]

21 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

This imbecile even admitted that Hindus had a social status that was "80% equal" to that of muslims during Akbar's reign!!! 

 

Chutiya jihadi saala trying to glorify the jihadi Murderers.

[someone]

Liberalism, secularism is all relative new concepts by the West. It's not Intrinsic as this is the same West which talked about, Do blacks have souls?, Can the woman even think to vote? On the other hand, we in India never had such debates, as respect is in-built in our culture. Sure, we had exploitation but not of discrimination , whereas many foreign forces have only exploited and discriminated us.

 

There are absolutely no takers for any Indian think-tanks talking about US human rights there, whereas our own people give VIP-treatment to these western human rights activities. There are double standards and so much is filmy things about all this secularism.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Since this thread is basically a replica of my own:

 

Time to re-load the thread with another critique of secularism and it's suitability for indian society:

 

Written back in april 2014.

Quote

https://openthemagazine.com/features/india/run-of-the-mill/

India pays lip service to a 19th century European idea that is of little relevance today

If Narendra Modi moves to Race Course Road this summer, India is set for an epic culture war. Even if he remains as cautious in office as he is being as a prime ministerial candidate, a future BJP-led government in New Delhi would chill India’s beleaguered liberals to the bone. They are already on the backfoot, since over the last ten years Congress has not shown the slightest interest in protecting, for example, the individual’s right to free speech. Nor has it reconsidered how a commitment to the separation of State and religion might be updated for the 21st century. The idea of offence and blasphemy in India remains old-fashioned, with both offenders and offended following an imported 19th century script. As the original Penal Code of 1860 states, imprisonment will be the punishment for anyone who ‘with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person’.

For decades now, the idea of personal liberty in the form of Nehruvian secularism and freedom of expression has failed to gain much popular traction. This is not to suggest any infringement of freedom of belief would ever be tolerated by India’s citizens, or that Indians lack the right to openly express an opinion in a way that remains forbidden in many countries, but rather that the current form of the debate remains elitist and abstruse, and is often confined to the English-language media. Thus a ban on a film or book may get reported around the world as an attack on freedom, but it will rarely draw an Indian crowd onto the streets. A dispute over the upkeep of the Dargah Shah-e-Mardan, on the other hand, will, for example, produce over 25,000 passionate protestors, as happened earlier this month in Delhi; but it will barely be reported in India and will be ignored internationally, as if it were of no consequence.

More than a century-and-a-half ago, when the mutineers of 1857 marched on Delhi, enraged at the injustice with which they were being ruled, John Stuart Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor were busy writing the essay On Liberty. Mill tried to get round the inconsistency of promoting liberty only in what he called ‘mature’ societies by arguing that while British rule in India was admittedly despotic, it was held to the standards of representative government by the House of Commons. Like many 19th century European thinkers, Mill’s life was fatally bound up with the elite hypocrisies of Empire; he worked for more than three decades for the East India Company in London, and the opening line of his Autobiography states that he was ‘the eldest son of James Mill, author of The History of British India’ —a voluminous and influential book whose accuracy (with its talk, for instance, of ‘a general disposition to deceit and perfidy’ in a chapter titled ‘Of The Hindus’) was undone by the fact the author had never in his life been to India.

The younger Mill was, by the standards of his time, shall we say, liberal. In a footnote in On Liberty, he denounces British evangelicals for displaying ‘the worst parts of our national character on the occasion of the sepoy insurrection’. He objected to their missionary desire to spread the Christian religion to India’s Hindus and Muslims, calling it an ‘imbecile display’ to suggest ‘all who do not believe in the divinity of Christ are beyond the pale of toleration’.

Mill’s comparative radicalism on matters of belief and personal liberty should be seen in the context of Europe’s long religious persecutions. Just two centuries earlier in England, the mutilation and slaughter of religious dissidents was still a mainstream part of state and church activity. Lollards, Unitarians, Wycliffites or Quakers might have had their tongues slit or their bodies branded with red-hot irons. In Goa during the Inquisition, heretics and apostate Catholic converts would be executed. Europe’s torturers believed they were doing God’s work: in their rigour and zeal, they were not unlike today’s Taliban, convinced of their divine righteousness.

Only in the late 17th century had an idea developed in England that members of other faiths (and specifically Jews and Muslims) could be holy. The toleration of religious minorities—a negative liberty, allowing people to be left alone—became state policy. Freedom of thought and public discussion began, tentatively.

Mill (aided by Mrs Mill, though her name does not appear on the title page) took this a stage further in the 19th century: instead of toleration meaning the right to practice an alternative, dissenting version of Christianity, he proposed the toleration of individual liberty of conscience. So people would not merely have the right to freedom of religion, but, if they so wished, freedom from religion. The concept of apostasy, which needed to be punished either by torture on earth or by damnation in eternal hell-fire, was slowly disappearing.

In one sense, this profound and emotive philosophical argument was of no relevance to the majority of Indians, who were practising their local or family variants of Dharma. Hinduism had no set of regulations from which a person could apostasise, nor a clerical hierarchy that could impose sanctions. More importantly, India had no real historical tradition of religious killing. This is not to say it never took place: the ancient conflicts between Buddhism and Brahminism, forced conversions and the destruction of Hindu and Jain temples during the early Islamic invasions, or the strictures of caste control could all be characterised as violent. But the idea of killing heretics as a matter of religious duty forms no part of Hinduism.

So while the debate going on in Europe had social and political influence on groups such as the Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj, and on kaala paani-crossing individuals like Gandhi, it meant little to those who had never thought of tormenting apostates. Like the foreign taxonomies introduced in the 18th and 19th century which obfuscated Hindu practices into a ‘religion’, with terms like ‘priesthood’ and ‘deity’ that corresponded to Christianity, the term ‘toleration’ had little resonance in India. But where it was of vital and enduring importance was in the attitude the Indian state developed towards different religions after 1857, lasting up to the present day.

 

What passes for secularism in India—which in practice is often a system whereby political parties secure Muslim votes by wooing hereditary and religious leaders—has its roots in the shift away from reform and conversion in the wake of the great rebellion.

Queen Victoria, influenced by her well-educated German husband Albert, had an aversion to Christian bishops and a great dislike for missionaries. She even objected to her children’s governess telling them to kneel while saying their prayers in the evening. Why couldn’t they just lie in bed and pray? The settlement after 1857, with power passing from the East India Company to the British Crown, was a way to maintain British power at a time of weakness, but it was also a statement of Victoria’s own beliefs.

Against the advice of her ministers, Queen Victoria made amendments to a proclamation of future government policy, stating that from now on, nobody in India would be ‘in any wise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects’. This was—in an era when Britain still had legalised discrimination against Jews and Catholics—quite a step to be taking.

Individual freedom of conscience came first: missionary organisations quickly flooded Windsor Castle with letters of complaint, but Victoria did not budge. The toleration of the Indian state was guaranteed. More than 150 years later, the royal proclamation of 1858 forms the basis of India’s policy of freedom of belief. In Pakistan, the situation reversed: the state legally discriminates against heretics.

The difficulty with the shape that toleration now takes in India is not the theory, which remains admirable, but the practice. If artists are in trouble with outraged members of a religious group, they are at risk. If a film or a book is suppressed for spurious reasons by a politician or a court order, the state will do nothing at all to protect the right to liberty of expression. If Salman Rushdie appears at a public event, no ‘secular’ leader will go near him, for fear of contagion. A supposedly representative Hindu opponent of an academic book will use outmoded and imported Christian arguments against impiety, and ignore the expansive, eclectic traditions of Hinduism—in which devotion is too intense to be troubled by the petty misrepresentations of others.

A beleaguered liberal, asked what should be done about this impasse, will generally answer that the Indian state needs to intervene legally or physically at times of threat, and securitise the right to freedom of speech—while knowing this is a political impossibility. What seems to happen remarkably rarely (and much less, I think than it used to in the post-independence years) is direct engagement between the opposing sides of such arguments. It is striking that both Hindu and Muslim traditionalists complain privately of being excluded from any opportunity to discuss what it is that offends them, and feel they suffer if their command of English is shaky.

Except for TV debates, when the participants are usually not in the same room but shout at each other from rival squares on a screen, there is little exchange of opinion or attempts to reach common ground. In most places in India, you notice people whose dress or appearance signals a religious affiliation, but it is possible to attend a book launch, a film opening or a literary festival and see nobody (Sikh men excepted) who displays their faith. A century ago, Indian intellectuals travelling abroad were obliged to look like saints and promote ‘Eastern’ thought: today, if they want attention in the West, they are obliged to appear secular. This showdown, with its rival interpretations of liberty, can sometimes seem to be as much a class war as a culture war.

 

When it comes to electoral politics, the assertion of secular values is even more skewed. Indian Muslims still suffer from social exclusion, lack of secure employment and chronic tokenism.

Earlier this year, I spent time with a Muslim leader in central India who had an iron grip on his community: he, or his family, had control of access to places at an engineering and medical college, the opportunity for individuals to stand for election, and even the chance to start a business. If an outside politician wished to hold a meeting in the local areas under his control, they had first to seek the leader’s permission. In his own view, and it was not wholly without foundation, the power he wielded was necessary to protect the minority community from hostile communal forces.

He spoke of progress. Would it not be helpful, I asked, if India had a single law that applied equally to all citizens on matters such as marriage, inheritance and the adoption of children? Absolutely not, he answered, as I had expected. But the present divided system, a leftover from earlier times, significantly weakens personal liberty by subsuming individuals into a system of control based on compulsory group identity.

Indian Muslim women, for example, can still be divorced by the utterance of the triple talaaq. In many Islamic countries, this has been prohibited as archaic. Even across the border, the triple talaaq was abolished under the Pakistani Muslim Family Laws Ordinance in more liberal times in 1961. In India, it remains firmly in place.

If any of these myriad areas of contention are to be improved, the change has to come from what in India is perhaps inaccurately called the left: secularists, progressives, liberals and former and current communists. Were a BJP-led administration headed by Narendra Modi to try installing a uniform civil code, for instance, the country would turn into a sea of protest; coalition partners would fall away, probably bringing down the government.

A new theoretical framework is needed that speaks to contemporary India. The idea of liberty promoted by John Stuart Mill had its time and place, and arose out of a religious context that today makes little sense. India pays lip service to a 19th century European idea of toleration that is of little present relevance.

 

Since this article was written, triple talaq has been abolished.

but muslims still have a certain degree of autonomy from the state, with stone-age era religious institutions falling outside purview of government.

 

UCC, while offically on the agenda, hasn't been brought in yet. many opposition parties continue to resist it, with congress openly saying that it should be "optional"...whatever the hell that means. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uniform-civil-code-cannot-be-forced-upon-people-it-has-to-be-optional-randeep-surjewala/articleshow/74241962.cms

 

the good thing is, the scenario described above, of modi losing coalition partners is less likely to play out with the BJP holding a majority in both houses of parliament. the protests, however, will almost certainly happen. but that is to be expected.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Manny_Pacquiao

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar urf lame rod, do some basic research on the some neutral sites and not neutered sites like Wikipedia/Reddit. They are liberal dustbins. Don't attribute tall claims to secularism. It originated after the reformation f the church in 16th century when all the various Christian sects and branches were killing of each other, had to find a way of living. So, they wanted to keep the church from meddling state affairs, so people can live. All this attributing of free thinking   to secularism is a hogwash.

Thank you for your input:

 

Wikipedia articles are linking the references to the work of all the major western free thinkers, who started this movement and played the key role in getting rid of the powers of the church in the Europe. 

 

As compared to the writings  of all these western freethinkers and their own testimonies, and the testimonies of all the Secularists, we have a claim by a religious person, whose whole argument is based upon this own "CONJECTURE". 

 

Therefore, it is not difficult for me to pick my choice between them. 

 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Ideally, the state should be areligious as per secularism. It should not believe in any religion. Show me a state like that even in the West. THere is no state which is areligious in the whole world.

I don't agree with your Standards that you put for a state to be non-religious. 

 

Although there is no Utopian Land present, but we have likes of Scandinavian countries and they are gradually going very close to be 100% non-religious on the state level. This is so much overwhelming that these countries are considered to non-religious. 

 

If we have to go through your Standards, then it means that there is also no "religious" state present in the world, and actually never existed ever. 

 

Therefore, for me putting this conditions only upon Secular states are sign of "Double Standards". 

 

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Likkhe deta hoon. Secularists like to form  a egalitarian society where all are same, much like Abrahamic religions.

I again completely disagree with this claim. 

This credit goes only to Secularism that it ended the slavery system, and also the like of caste systems. No religion or religious state succeeded in doing it. 

And egalitarian society ..... all are free to lead their personal life as they wish. Unlike religion and a religious society, they impose NOTHING upon the individuals.  This brings the most diverse society which has all types of colours present in it.

 

Quote

They don't accept difference. It boasts of religious tolerance only, not respect for one another. 

 

Tolerance VS Respect allegation:

I am unable to understand this strange argument. 

Tolerance is itself about "Respecting the rights" of the people to choose their own choices. 

What else do you mean by "Respect"? 

Does "respect" for others in the Vedas mean to "start following them" blindly? 

Or does "respect" in Vedas mean that others have no right to "criticise" the other idealogies? 

 

If you want to stick to your claim of Tolerance VS Respect, then make is clear first what does that all all mean to you.