These two terms – ‘Secularism’ and ‘Tolerance’ have been thrown up in the air on more occasions than one like speed breakers on our road to progress. Using these two words an attempt is being made by the sponsored media to create a rift in our society. That is the reason why I am of the opinion that these two terms have to be understood unambiguously by us. Irrespective of the fact that who is in power Indians are secular as this is in our DNA. We embrace pluralism and celebrate excellence in all spheres of life from all Indians without ever bothering about their religious preferences. So a century by Mohd. Azharuddin receives the same applause as one from Sachin Tendulkar and a movie hit from Sharukh Khan gets the same recognition as one from Ranbeer Kapoor. Smt. Najma Heptulla is as respected as Smt. Sumitra Mahajan and Ustad Bismilla Khan is as revered as Smt. Lata Mangeshwar.
The left and left of centre thinkdom (LLCT) in our country is of the belief that just like Islam and Christianity, Hinduism too is a religion. This is simply not true because had it been so one would not have had the liberty to mock it and abuse it at will in books and in celluloid. Hinduism is a way of life and so is open to such criticism. Can Mr. Amir Khan think of making fun of Islam in his next movie without getting the fatwa that was served on Salman Rushdie? Till today our secularists, the LLCT, have succeeded in sustaining their relevance as the protectors of the interests of the Minority. But these secularists have never tried to teach secularism to Muslims. As a result of this, today some of the Hindus are trying to convert Hinduism into Islam by becoming more and more intolerant. The LLCT have an agenda of keeping only the Hindus tolerant. So, chopping off the hand of a teacher in Kerala or murder, rape and persecution of Kashmiri Pandits is not intolerance. In fact, the perpetrators of these acts have a right to be intolerant by the virtue of their religion! The fact that their religion never teaches all this never crosses their mind.
Even the LLCT has on rare moments of sanity challenged the ‘secular’ theory. Demand for common civil code becomes cultural politics or an attack on pluralism, especially when the demand is put forward by the Sangh Parivar. But when Romila Thapar says that common civil code is a necessity in a secular country, the LLCT maintain an embarrassing silence. Amartya Sen says that if Muslim women suffer because of Muslim personal law, it should not bother Hindus. Why not? Why when the Sachar Committee blames the society, or in other words the majority community Hindus– for not giving access to Muslims. If almost 50 per cent of the population -that is to say women- of one community are not encouraged to work outside in the name of religion, how can the economic condition of such a community improve? And why does a Nobel Laureate in Economics fail to gather this bit?
Now let me discuss the term ‘tolerance’ in some detail. Right at the outset let me tell you, this is not a good word and one need not be proud of it. Thinkers like Swami Vivekananda and Ananda Coomaraswamy have deliberated on the problem in the concept of tolerance. Ananda Coomaraswamy says: “..the word (tolerance) is not a pretty one; to tolerate is to put up with, endure or suffer the existence of what are or appear to be other ways of thinking than our own; and it is neither very pleasant merely ‘to put up with’ our neighbors and fellow guests, nor very pleasant to feel that one’s own deepest institutions and belief are being patiently endured”. So how can tolerance be a virtue? How does accepting others with pain (tolerating) become a great virtue if you believe that other faiths also have equal right to exist?
If we simply tolerate the minority community and not celebrate their existence in our midst we are being hypocrites. Thankfully despite provocations by the terrorists, the jihadists and the religious goons on one hand and a bunch of rumor mongering journalists and unscrupulous politicians on the other, we in India don’t just tolerate the minorities but celebrate their existence. The question today is do they do the same? They failed the litmus test in Kashmir where they were in majority and have time and time again sided with the LLCT despite being cheated by them repeatedly. And Hindus blundered in Babri for asserting needless dominance,
I find particularly interesting when the LLCT uses the terms secularism and tolerance as synonyms. Nothing can be far from truth. There are many examples of tolerant religious countries and intolerant secular ones. The recent rise in Islamophobia in the West highlights the fact that a secular society does not equate to a more tolerant one. The ban on the burqa in France, the ban on making minarets within Switzerland, and the movement in the US to ban Sharia law (whatever that means) are all indicative of intolerant secular societies. On the flip side, you have examples of tolerant Muslim countries, such as Malaysia where people are seen eating in public during Ramadan, women roaming in miniskirts and alcohol being served openly in bars in Penang. While all of these are superficial indicators, they strongly go against Muslim sensibilities. Our neighbors, Pakistan and Bangladesh are perfect examples of non-secular and intolerant countries. They have all misconstrue the term secularism and interpret it as atheism and hence unacceptable to their Islamic foundations.
After years of French controversies over headscarves, pork has become another battleground in the nation’s uneasy debate over national identity and the place of Islam. Bacon and sausage school dinners are being used by rightwing politicians to hammer home what it means to be French. They are sending a message to Muslim or Jewish children that to be truly French, they must eat roast pork. Sociologist François Dubet recently warned that “talking about secularism has now become a way to claim a white Christian France, where everyone shares the same values and traditions, a way to say we don’t want Muslims”. No wonder Paris has seen communal unrest of the worst type, but they are in no mood to give in to religious terror. But then again, is terror versus terror OK?
Canadian state of Ontario has made the prayer of Lord Jesus compulsory for all school children, much to the displeasure of the Muslims and the legendary Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard had in fact given marching orders to all Muslims who felt uncomfortable with the Australian way of life!
I’m not an enemy of religion, but to me, religious belief is private and the public service should be secular and neutral……..not pseudo-secular but truly secular. Intolerance of a very small group can cause conflict in a large society and we need to find a mature and strict way of handling this issue. Imagine somebody saying that he or she does not want to live in the country if Mr. ‘X’ becomes the Prime Minister even if he is democratically elected! Isn’t this intolerance? Do they not have faith in democracy? An increasingly literate electorate after the largest electoral exercise in the world has thrown up a majority government and thrown out a corrupt and inefficient one. Now instead of assuming Nation building responsibilities of an opposition they choose to be intolerant and recalcitrant obstructionists. But that is how the LLCT has always been – it is their way or the highway!
No comments:
Post a Comment