Monday, November 3, 2008

Religious fundamentalism - 3

The post would be incomplete without describing the pseudo-secularism that some people practise. In India, secularism= minority patronizing, in my head secularism= i don't give two hoots about any religion, minority, majority or a non-existent one called scientology or atheism. I won't decide even the personal cases per any damn religion, any kind of religious disputes(though in case of babri masjid or any such religious institution, i personally think, a status quo is best solution, some changes in life are irreversible.. ).

Some people feel the need to talk abt all the past atrocities while condemning bomb blasts owned by a terrorist organization in the name of islam. Any life killed, is a life killed. A life killed without the proper trial of jursidication should not be allowed. You have to condemn it, unequivocally.It is not a question of 10 hindus versus 1 muslim killed or 1 hindu versus 10 muslim killed. May be putting a face instead of just quoting numbers would help. I am not sure a hindu/muslim will die happily because 10 other people of other religion was killed.

People eager to show their secular attitude, always feel a need to add atrocity done in the name of Hinduism when they condemn a bomb attack done in the name of Islam. Like these bombs are bad, so are gujarat riots/babri masjid, you can't honestly go back this way, it is highly possible in the quest of origin of this problem, you might end up all the way upto Abraham and Issac.

Congress started this. Actually Nehru started it but I honestly believe that man did it for good reasons. He assumed naively that only minority will feel insecure and they have to be protected. Over a period of time, the later congress leaders started treating them as vote banks. I am not sure of this fact, but some one told me that congress refusal to arrest terrorist because they are muslims(congress's traditional votebank) is leading to several bomb blasts today. BJP lucked out of this deal by tapping on the insecure Hindu minds. I can't deny the fact, even a lay person like me can see that raise of BJP in every state has resulted in a major riot in that state(orisssa,karnataka?). Minroities resort to bombs, majorities resort to riots.So, I don't need to go on to explain more how this appeasement of one religion over others would not work.

I look around and I don’t see any countries with such high diverse ratio without problems. The usual looking west for solution wouldn’t really work in this case. USA feels it fit to screen everyone who follow a particular religion as a suspected terrorist and openly screens for such names and subjects them to more checks. In this process, I am sure it is creating a few more terrorists. On the slightest sign of diversity,France decided to ban Headgear.

Few other countries which have religious diversities seem to have same amount of people who are ready to start for riots at the slightest sign of provocation. India’s pseudo-secular act made people from majority religion feeling insecure which lead to an eye for an eye and is slowly turning people blind.

As a nation, India should know that intolerance of any kind wouldn’t work. I see religion as a private affair and government should stay away from it. A truly secular society - shouldnt give two hoots about any religion. The section of society which is responsible for implementing this, the politicians and police should know that. Just so that they continue receiving their bribes.


  1. I so completely agree with you. Concept of religion is far older than nation-states and nation-states should not interfere in religion. It is best when the two are as separate as they can be.

    That said, in most countriess, even in the West, the two are not truly separate. So, I guess I am wishing for Utopia!

  2. I guess people at some point have to realize to live and let live.