Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I dont see what the giveaway is. The original motion set by the CRI
folks was this: Secularism Is Important to a Modern India. My critique
has adhered to this motion: Ive consistently argued that secularism is a
concept alien to India and that even if we do adopt true secularism as
is understood by the West, we will still be imposing values derived from
a Christian worldview in the guise of secularism. Curiously, he accepts
the chain of my argument examining the origins etc of secularism,
Hinduism as a religion not in the Abrahamic sense, etc, yet claims that I
havent critiqued true secularism. Equally puzzling is his claim that he
was still not clear where my opponent stood on the actual motion. This
becomes clear when we examine his understanding of the motion. To
quote: the role of the Indian state in a citizens life, especially seen
through the prism of religious identity. This wasnt the actual and
complete import of the original motion. Harshs understanding of the
motion is therefore partial.
Next, Harsh asks us to move beyond semantics and explore policy
disagreements. This is a tad problematic because if we accept the fact
that every word is an idea, we must take extreme care and caution to first
clarify semanticsa poorly or ill-defined word causes immense
problems. More so in the realm of policy, politics, the state, the
individuals relationship with the state and so on. A classic case is the
word itself that generated this debate in the first place: secularism.
Therefore, unless Harsh clarifies his position on semantics, I see no
reason to move forward.
However, in what follows, Harsh seems to have picked up Hinduspecific and specific Hindu grievances to make his case in the form of a
series of questions. Although these stem from the aforementioned faulty
premises, some answers are in order. Harshs questions and my answers
will I hope, serve to illustrate the vast worldview-differences.
To answer his questions about a state guided by Dharmashastras,
conversions, beef etc, I would again point him to my earlier articles
where I had specifically elaborated on the nature of Abrahamic religions
that separates an India still rooted in her traditions and an India that
understands her own country through a primarily Western prism. This
Western prism is also what poses questions like the one Harsh asks
about drawing Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude. There are
thousands of nude art done by Hindus themselves since time
immemorial. Far from burning or defiling them, even the most devout
Hindus worship such art. I leave it to Harshs intelligence to discern the
reason why say, M.F. Hussains art evokes such anger while the former
evokes reverence. Questions of punishment etc wont even arise once
that reason is discerned.
When we next look at Harshs critiques on caste, statecraft and related
areas, we find that he quotes selectivelydespite his claim to the
contraryand provides no context for those quotes.
For this reason, I will not attempt to respond simply because the
examples he quotes, the texts he refers to, and his understanding thereof
is way off the mark and is eerily similar to what we find in Marxist
expositions on the subject. Just a couple of lines on the issue: Why does
Harsh use Vishnu Smriti to talk about caste while pretty much all
Smritis have detailed and variegated expositions on caste? Equally,
Manu Smriti is not applicable to Kaliyuga. But more fundamentally,
there is no equivalent word in Sanskrit or in any Indian language for
caste. The word Varna cannot be translated as caste. Whats also
disappointing is the fact that Harsh seems to think that his thesis is
somehow valid because some Hindu holy men echo his own biases
without telling us what the credentials of these holy men are that qualify
them as experts on the subject.
Next, of all the things in Arthashastra, Harsh finds just one prescription
and brands it as inane without going into the context of why such a
prescription was necessary. Of course, one could look at the laws of any
country and find plenty of such inane prescriptions. Itd suffice to point
Harsh to http://www.dumblaws.com, an encyclopedic site that lists
allerdumb laws in the United States classified by state, city and
county. Equally, why doesnt Harsh talk about the same Arthashastra,
which provides elaborate safeguards to protect elephants, and rare flora
and fauna. Indeed, every Indian states forest department has an
equivalent of whats called an Abhayaranya, a concept that was first
given by Kautilya.
Itd also help if Harsh gave the source for molten lead is to be poured
into the ears of the low born who dare to hear the recital of the
written word from our ancient books. Merely quoting it without
attribution is not good form. On such prescriptions, for the record,
theres also a quote in the selfsame Manu Smritibecause Harsh uses
that text to base his critiquewhich provides for inserting hot coal into
the throat of a Brahmin who drinks alcohol. What does that say about
upper castes ill-treating the lower castes? In reality, these harsh
punishments were in reality, mere deterrents. Theres really no record of
such punishments being actually implemented in ancient times.
From here, Harsh makes even more unsustainable claims. Consider this:
todays Hindu nationalists are, at least in their self-image (and this is
indeed partially true), actually the vanguard of creating a casteless
society. Was this prompted by political and religious threats, or a
realization that the social system we had was immoral irrespective of
any temporal considerations?
When Harsh talks about todays Hindu nationalists, who is he actually
referring to? Without providing this information, its pretty much fair
game to tar all Hindu nationalists with the same brush. This apart, what
is Harshs basis for claiming something like a realization that the social
system we had was immoral irrespective of any temporal
considerations? This mischievous question is a common refrain of
Marxist literature: large numbers of Hindu society converted to Islam,
which they saw as a savior from the oppressive Hindu social order. This
claim is unsustainable looked at from whichever perspectivehistorical,
political and social. Indeed, the continued existence of Hindu society
owes tremendous debt to the so-called lower-caste Hindus.
expressed on both sides. However, I will leave you with a few more
questions:
1. What is the statute of limitations, if there is one, for past
grievances?
2. How can we understand Hinduism? While the ancient texts speak
with one tongue, there is no doubt that practice has not matched
inspiration.
3. What is the validity of any idea, Eastern or Western? The latter
may not apply, but given the change in society, the former might
not either. Does it not become incumbent upon us to think these
things through and judge based upon contemporary situation and
merit?
4. Neither participant disagreed that the INC has made a mockery of
secularism. The question then arises, should we even bother to
repeat that example? Any idea can be manipulated, but
a susceptibility to be manipulated is only a testament to human
ingenuity, not the success or failure of an idea.
5. Secularism, we are informed, comes in many flavours French,
Turkish, Chinese Is there an Indian secularism? Should there be
one? What would such a concept look like?
Once again, I thank the participants on behalf of CRI and its readers for
an informative debate. The curse of the middle class person is the
difficulty in finding time to read and ponder on important issues, and
Harsh and Sandeep have both generously allowed us all to save some
time by giving us the benefit of their learning. Thank you
everyonegood night, and good luck!