Saturday, July 25, 2009
WHY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM NOT ARRESTING NARENDRA MODI & HIS 62 OTHER CRIMINALS
Ahmedabad: In fresh trouble for Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the Gujarat High Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the probe by the special investigation team (SIT) against him and 62 others in connection with the 2002 riots.
Justice D H Vaghela dismissed the petition filed by former BJP MLA Kalu Malivad (one of the 62) stating that no relief could be granted in the case as the SIT was directly working under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
Malivad had filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court demanding a stay on investigations by Supreme Court-appointed SIT with regard to a complaint made by one Zakia Jaffrey.
Zakia, whose husband ex-MP Ehsan Jaffrey was killed during the riots in Gulburg society along with 39 others, had alleged in her complaint that Modi, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted the 2002 post-Godhra riots.
Malivad, one of the persons named in Zakia's complaint, in his petition, had demanded stay on investigations and directions from the court to restrain SIT from arresting persons named in the complaint, including Modi.
Malivad contended that the apex court had asked SIT to "look into" the complaint, and this does not empower it to investigate the case according to the provisions of CrPC as no FIR was registered in the matter.
Appearing on behalf of the SIT, senior counsel K G Menon had countered the points raised in Malivad's petition by submitting before the court that as per the Supreme Court order their job was to find out the truth with regard to the allegations made in Zakia's complaint and as the apex court order had stated that SIT needs to take necessary steps as per law, "a preliminary inquiry in the matter was permissible, which we are doing," Menon said.
He had further submitted that they were conducting a preliminary inquiry permissible as per the apex court's order, and the report will be submitted to the court.
And only after a cognisable offence is disclosed following the preliminary inquiry that SIT shall register a case and then proceed for investigation, he added.
Justice D H Vaghela dismissed the petition filed by former BJP MLA Kalu Malivad (one of the 62) stating that no relief could be granted in the case as the SIT was directly working under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
Malivad had filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court demanding a stay on investigations by Supreme Court-appointed SIT with regard to a complaint made by one Zakia Jaffrey.
Zakia, whose husband ex-MP Ehsan Jaffrey was killed during the riots in Gulburg society along with 39 others, had alleged in her complaint that Modi, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted the 2002 post-Godhra riots.
Malivad, one of the persons named in Zakia's complaint, in his petition, had demanded stay on investigations and directions from the court to restrain SIT from arresting persons named in the complaint, including Modi.
Malivad contended that the apex court had asked SIT to "look into" the complaint, and this does not empower it to investigate the case according to the provisions of CrPC as no FIR was registered in the matter.
Appearing on behalf of the SIT, senior counsel K G Menon had countered the points raised in Malivad's petition by submitting before the court that as per the Supreme Court order their job was to find out the truth with regard to the allegations made in Zakia's complaint and as the apex court order had stated that SIT needs to take necessary steps as per law, "a preliminary inquiry in the matter was permissible, which we are doing," Menon said.
He had further submitted that they were conducting a preliminary inquiry permissible as per the apex court's order, and the report will be submitted to the court.
And only after a cognisable offence is disclosed following the preliminary inquiry that SIT shall register a case and then proceed for investigation, he added.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Natural therapy for heart vain opening
Good day,
Natural therapy for heart vain opening
For Heart Vein opening
1) Lemon juice 01 cup
2) Ginger juice 01 cup
3) Garlic juice 01 cup
4) Apple vinegar 01 cup
Mix all above and boil in light flame approximately half
hour, when it becomes 3 cups, take it out and keep it
For cooling. After cooling, mix 3 cups of natural honey
And keep it in bottle.
Every morning before breakfast use one Table spoon
Regularly. Your blockage of Vein's will open!!!
(No need any Angiography or By pass)
This is e-mail received from a person working in a Software Company
Dear colleagues, I am working in Blore Software City ..... I wanted to share an incident of my life with you, hoping that it may be an eye opener to you so that you can live more years.
On 27 th October afternoon, I had severe heart attack symptom and I was rushed to the hospital.
After reaching to the hospital, the doctors prescribed a test called angiogram. This test is basically to identify blood flow of heart arteries. When they finished the test they found a 94% block in the main artery, please see the image below with red circle.
At this point, I wanted to share my living style, which has caused this block in my heart arteries. Please see the below points of my life style, if any of these points are part of your life style then you are at risk, please change yourselves.
1. I was not doing any physical exercise for more than 10 years , not even walking 30 minutes a day for years .
2. My food timings are 11:00 AM Breakfast or no ! Breakfast, 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Lunch and dinner at 11:00 PM to 12:00 AM.
3. Sleeping in very odd timings, going to bed between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM. Waking up at between 9:00 AM and 10:30AM ........ Some times spending sleepless nights.
4. I used to eat heavily because of long gaps between lunch and dinner and I used to make sure that Non-Veg is available most of the time, there were times when I did survey on city hotels to find delicious Non-Veg dishes. I was never inter! ested in vegetable and healthier food.
5. Above all I was chain smoker from years.
6. My father passed away due to heart problems, and the doctors say the heart problems are usually genetic.
Once they identified the major block they have done immediately a procedure called angioplasty along with 2 Stints, mean they will insert a foreign body into the heart arteries and open the blocked area of arteries. Please see the below image after the procedure.
I learnt from the doctors that 60% people will die before reaching the hospital, 20% people will die in the process of recovering from heart attack and only 20% will survive .. In my case, I was very lucky to be part of the last 20%.
Doctors instructions:
1. Need to have physical exercise for minimum of 45 minutes daily.
2. Eat your food at perfect timings, like how you eat during your school ! days. Eat in small quantities more times and have lot of vegetables and boiled food, try to avoid fry items and oily food. Fish is good than other non-vegetarian food.
3. Sleep for 8 hours a day, this count should complete before sun rising .
4. Stop smoking.
5. Genetic problems, we cannot avoid but we can get away from it by having regular checkups.
6. Find a way to get relived from the stress (Yoga, Meditation etc).
So I urge you all to please avoid getting into this situation, it is in your hands to turn the situation up side down, by just planning / changing your life style, by following simple points above.
If you find it's useful you can forward this mail to your friends and loved ones.....
Best Regards,
ysf
Natural therapy for heart vain opening
For Heart Vein opening
1) Lemon juice 01 cup
2) Ginger juice 01 cup
3) Garlic juice 01 cup
4) Apple vinegar 01 cup
Mix all above and boil in light flame approximately half
hour, when it becomes 3 cups, take it out and keep it
For cooling. After cooling, mix 3 cups of natural honey
And keep it in bottle.
Every morning before breakfast use one Table spoon
Regularly. Your blockage of Vein's will open!!!
(No need any Angiography or By pass)
This is e-mail received from a person working in a Software Company
Dear colleagues, I am working in Blore Software City ..... I wanted to share an incident of my life with you, hoping that it may be an eye opener to you so that you can live more years.
On 27 th October afternoon, I had severe heart attack symptom and I was rushed to the hospital.
After reaching to the hospital, the doctors prescribed a test called angiogram. This test is basically to identify blood flow of heart arteries. When they finished the test they found a 94% block in the main artery, please see the image below with red circle.
At this point, I wanted to share my living style, which has caused this block in my heart arteries. Please see the below points of my life style, if any of these points are part of your life style then you are at risk, please change yourselves.
1. I was not doing any physical exercise for more than 10 years , not even walking 30 minutes a day for years .
2. My food timings are 11:00 AM Breakfast or no ! Breakfast, 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Lunch and dinner at 11:00 PM to 12:00 AM.
3. Sleeping in very odd timings, going to bed between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM. Waking up at between 9:00 AM and 10:30AM ........ Some times spending sleepless nights.
4. I used to eat heavily because of long gaps between lunch and dinner and I used to make sure that Non-Veg is available most of the time, there were times when I did survey on city hotels to find delicious Non-Veg dishes. I was never inter! ested in vegetable and healthier food.
5. Above all I was chain smoker from years.
6. My father passed away due to heart problems, and the doctors say the heart problems are usually genetic.
Once they identified the major block they have done immediately a procedure called angioplasty along with 2 Stints, mean they will insert a foreign body into the heart arteries and open the blocked area of arteries. Please see the below image after the procedure.
I learnt from the doctors that 60% people will die before reaching the hospital, 20% people will die in the process of recovering from heart attack and only 20% will survive .. In my case, I was very lucky to be part of the last 20%.
Doctors instructions:
1. Need to have physical exercise for minimum of 45 minutes daily.
2. Eat your food at perfect timings, like how you eat during your school ! days. Eat in small quantities more times and have lot of vegetables and boiled food, try to avoid fry items and oily food. Fish is good than other non-vegetarian food.
3. Sleep for 8 hours a day, this count should complete before sun rising .
4. Stop smoking.
5. Genetic problems, we cannot avoid but we can get away from it by having regular checkups.
6. Find a way to get relived from the stress (Yoga, Meditation etc).
So I urge you all to please avoid getting into this situation, it is in your hands to turn the situation up side down, by just planning / changing your life style, by following simple points above.
If you find it's useful you can forward this mail to your friends and loved ones.....
Best Regards,
ysf
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Poor Kerala brides falling prey to aged married 'grooms'
Kochi: Poor Muslim women in Kerala are increasingly becoming victims of an organised network of touts which arranges their weddings to aged married men from neighbouring Maldives.
"There is an organised network of touts and middlemen who arrange such weddings," social worker and Latin Catholic Aikya Vedi President Tony Oliver said.
The women return home soon after their marriage, complaining of ill-treatment, he said.
Last week, police swooped down on a wedding in Thiruvanathapuram and arrested a 43-year-old groom, Haroon Abdul Rasheed, when he came to the hut of a 17-year-old bride to exchange wedding vows.
Rasheed had come to Thiruvananthapuram from Maldives for medical treatment and identified a "suitable" bride through a tout.
A case has been registered against the 'groom' under the Child Marriage Restraint act, 1929 and sect 420 IPC (Cheating) and he has been remanded to custody, police said.
During interrogation, the man admitted that he is already married and has six children back home.
The menace of has reached to such an extent that the Jaamat council at Vallakkadavu, a Muslim dominated area in Thiruvanathapuram, has complained to the Consulate of Maldives about the free-wheeling marriages being indulged in by the visiting Maldivian men and the plight of deserted women.
President of the Council, Saifuddin Hajee, said the organisation has launched an awareness campaign in the community against the "illegal marriages".
Hajee said most of the Maldivians come for medical treatment in the city. These men marry local girls with the help of middle men. In some cases, the girls are also used as personal nurses for the treatment period and later deserted when the men leave for home.
The Maldivian men promise cash and happy life to the girls belonging to poor families.
"However, the brides are in most cases taken for a ride after the wedding as promises are never kept," Oliver said.
According to official figures, about 10,000 people from the Islamic Republic of Maldives are present in Kerala at any given point of time. Thiruvanathapuram is the closest city to Male, capital of Maldivian islands. Many Maldivians visit the state for medical treatment, education and business.
The story of 28-year-old Mumtaz from a place near Thiruvanathapuram, who returned from Maldives after few years of marriage, was no different.
Mumtaz was married to 55-year-old man at the age of 16.
The groom was not only physically handicapped, but also deaf and had claimed before marriage that he owned two ships in Maldives.
However, after marriage, she found that her husband was a fisherman. He had given Rs 5,000 as 'mehr' to her parents, while the agent had received Rs 20,000 for broking the deal.
In another incident, Oliver said, a Maldivian man, who had come to Kerala for kidney transplant, got married to an 18-year-old local girl and even managed to get one of her kidneys transplanted to him. However, the groom died after a month.
In most of the cases, such brides are forced to return to their home state following hardship and ill-treatment, Oliver said. "If they give birth to girls, they are sent back with the daughters, but if they have a son, the boy is not allowed to return with his mother," he said.
In some cases, the victims of such marriages have returned to Kerala and "are now making easy money by becoming the touts' agents," Oliver said.
Besides Kerala, girls from Nagercoil and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu are also falling to such wedding traps, he said.
According to member of the Kerala State Gender Board T. N. Seema, the most effective way to prevent these weddings was by ensuring that all marriages are registered with local bodies,
irrespective of the community.
"It is also important that religious leaders and community heads take initiative to ensure that young women from their communities are not exploited," Seema, also a member of the CPI(M) state committee said.
"There is an organised network of touts and middlemen who arrange such weddings," social worker and Latin Catholic Aikya Vedi President Tony Oliver said.
The women return home soon after their marriage, complaining of ill-treatment, he said.
Last week, police swooped down on a wedding in Thiruvanathapuram and arrested a 43-year-old groom, Haroon Abdul Rasheed, when he came to the hut of a 17-year-old bride to exchange wedding vows.
Rasheed had come to Thiruvananthapuram from Maldives for medical treatment and identified a "suitable" bride through a tout.
A case has been registered against the 'groom' under the Child Marriage Restraint act, 1929 and sect 420 IPC (Cheating) and he has been remanded to custody, police said.
During interrogation, the man admitted that he is already married and has six children back home.
The menace of has reached to such an extent that the Jaamat council at Vallakkadavu, a Muslim dominated area in Thiruvanathapuram, has complained to the Consulate of Maldives about the free-wheeling marriages being indulged in by the visiting Maldivian men and the plight of deserted women.
President of the Council, Saifuddin Hajee, said the organisation has launched an awareness campaign in the community against the "illegal marriages".
Hajee said most of the Maldivians come for medical treatment in the city. These men marry local girls with the help of middle men. In some cases, the girls are also used as personal nurses for the treatment period and later deserted when the men leave for home.
The Maldivian men promise cash and happy life to the girls belonging to poor families.
"However, the brides are in most cases taken for a ride after the wedding as promises are never kept," Oliver said.
According to official figures, about 10,000 people from the Islamic Republic of Maldives are present in Kerala at any given point of time. Thiruvanathapuram is the closest city to Male, capital of Maldivian islands. Many Maldivians visit the state for medical treatment, education and business.
The story of 28-year-old Mumtaz from a place near Thiruvanathapuram, who returned from Maldives after few years of marriage, was no different.
Mumtaz was married to 55-year-old man at the age of 16.
The groom was not only physically handicapped, but also deaf and had claimed before marriage that he owned two ships in Maldives.
However, after marriage, she found that her husband was a fisherman. He had given Rs 5,000 as 'mehr' to her parents, while the agent had received Rs 20,000 for broking the deal.
In another incident, Oliver said, a Maldivian man, who had come to Kerala for kidney transplant, got married to an 18-year-old local girl and even managed to get one of her kidneys transplanted to him. However, the groom died after a month.
In most of the cases, such brides are forced to return to their home state following hardship and ill-treatment, Oliver said. "If they give birth to girls, they are sent back with the daughters, but if they have a son, the boy is not allowed to return with his mother," he said.
In some cases, the victims of such marriages have returned to Kerala and "are now making easy money by becoming the touts' agents," Oliver said.
Besides Kerala, girls from Nagercoil and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu are also falling to such wedding traps, he said.
According to member of the Kerala State Gender Board T. N. Seema, the most effective way to prevent these weddings was by ensuring that all marriages are registered with local bodies,
irrespective of the community.
"It is also important that religious leaders and community heads take initiative to ensure that young women from their communities are not exploited," Seema, also a member of the CPI(M) state committee said.
The first batch of ID cards will come out in 12 to 18 months
Petroleum Minister Murali Deora, right, welcomes Head of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Nandan M Nilekani, as Junior Petroleum Minster Jitin Prasad, left, looks on during a meeting in New Delhi on July 14.
Nandan Nilekani, who quit Infosys as its co-chairman to join public service, took over as chairman of of the Unique Identification Authority of India on July 14.
Nilekani plans to create a central database of names, modeled on India's electronic securities depository, and use biometrics — probably some combination of fingerprint and facial identification — to ensure that every Indian gets one and only one identification number.
The first batch of ID cards will come out in 12 to 18 months, he said, but declined to specify how long it might take to complete the rollout. The agency's initial budget is 1.2 billion rupees ($24.6 million), but the total cost will likely be far higher.He is keenly aware, however, that establishing the unique identity of 1.2 billion Indians is mind-bogglingly complex. "It keeps me awake at night, thinking what the hell have I got into," Nilekani said.
Metro Man E Sreedharan always made headlines for his sterling achievements in execution of mega civil engineering project
E Sreedharan, Chairman of DMRC, inspects the site of the accident at Metro site on July 12
Metro Man E Sreedharan always made headlines for his sterling achievements in execution of mega civil engineering projects. But his 77th birthday on July 12 turned out to be a sad day for him. On that day, he woke up to hear that a portion of the Metro overbridge under construction had collapsed, killing six people. Sreedharan quit owning moral responsibility for the collapse of the overbridge, but the Delhi government rejected his resignation, saying his continuation was necessary for the completion of the Metro projects in time.
Sreedhran is yet to identify the real cause of the accident at Metro site. An expert panel is going into that question. The accident at the Delhi Metrol site has raised concerns about the safety of similar Metro projects under construction in major cities in the country. Karnataka governemnt has ordered a thorough review of the safety aspects of the under-construction Bangalore Metro.
IS IT RITA SPEACH MORE TERRIBLE AGAINST MAYAWATIS?
Rita Bahuguna Joshi is taken into custody by police in Moradabad, about 340 km from Lucknow, on July 15, 2009.
A tongue-in-the-cheek remark made by Uttar Pradesh Congress president Rita Bahuguna Joshi against state Chief Minister Mayawati landed her in prison. What earned Rita the wrath of Mayawati was her reported comment: "The girl who was raped in Meerut was given Rs 25,000, the same amount was given to a deaf and dumb newly-wed girl who was raped. In the third instance, the father of the raped and murdered girl was given Rs 75,000. I say that such money should be thrown at Mayawati's face and the victims should tell her let her be raped and we will give her one crore rupees".
Driven to the wall, Rita sought to clarify that she had "simply sought to draw people's attention to the fact that Mayawati's dole of Rs 25,000 to every Dalit rape victim was quite ironical as the state police chief was spending lakhs on the helicopter ride that he undertakes to hand over that paltry amount." Uttar Pradesh police arrested her while she was on her way to Delhi and BSP men set her house afire. There was strong condemnation of the remarks of Rita across the political spectrum, with her party chief Sonia herself strongly disapproving what Rita had said. The arrest of UP Congress chief Rita Bahuguna Joshi has added a new spark to the cumbustible political situaiton in UP. It has set Mayawati's BSP against Sonia's Congress. The Congress took the fight into the UP camp by deploying Rahul Gandhi to address the party workers in Lucknow on Friday. Rahul went ballistic against Mayawati for arresting and detaining Rita Joshi. But Mayawati stood her ground, saying Rita Bahuguna Joshi's derogatory remarks against her cannot be forgiven and that she will be punished.
Newsmakers: Singh-Gilani handshake; combative Modi & more
India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, right, shakes hands with Pakistan's Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani during their meeting at the 15th Non-Aligned Movement summit in Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, Thursday, July 16, 2009.
There were great expectations about the Manmohan-Gilani meeting at the just concluded NAM summit in Egypt. TV reports at the end of the discussion indicated that India has watered down its position and Gilani assured Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of action against terror. Nothing more, nothing less. The customary joint statement issued by the two reaffirmed that both sides will continue the dialogue to promote better neighbourly relations. The joint statement agreed that the two countries will share "real time credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threat".
India has been demanding that Pakistan punish all those behind the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. Pakistan's dossier on the probe into the Nov 26 Mumbai attacks, presented to the Indian charge d'affairs in Islamabad Saturday night, contained the identities of five people who are under arrest. It also lists nine proclaimed offenders they are looking for. Still, there was no commitment on the part of Gilani as to what action will be taken by the Pakistan government against the guilty what it will do to check cross-border terrorism.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Can Indian secularism survive?
Can Indian secularism survive?
It is 10 years since the day when Hindu hardliners tore down the Babri Masjid in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya.
The event triggered some of the worst communal violence in India's history.
It also provoked deep soul searching about the country's secular traditions and the threats it might be facing from the forces of communalism.
The religious violence that erupted earlier this year in the state of Gujarat appeared to confirm those fears.
But 10 years on, is India more polarised along religious lines then before? Or is secularism and tolerance still alive and well?
Tell us what you think has changed for better or worse since the destruction of the mosque in Ayodhya in 1992.
Please your comments!
It is 10 years since the day when Hindu hardliners tore down the Babri Masjid in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya.
The event triggered some of the worst communal violence in India's history.
It also provoked deep soul searching about the country's secular traditions and the threats it might be facing from the forces of communalism.
The religious violence that erupted earlier this year in the state of Gujarat appeared to confirm those fears.
But 10 years on, is India more polarised along religious lines then before? Or is secularism and tolerance still alive and well?
Tell us what you think has changed for better or worse since the destruction of the mosque in Ayodhya in 1992.
Please your comments!
India's model: faith, secularism and democracy
Rajeev Bhargava, 3 - 11 - 2004
Western variants of multiculturalism and secularism are being challenged by religious demands for public recognition of faith. Instead of reinventing the wheel, the world should learn from India, says Rajeev Bhargava.3 - 11 - 2004
The reality of the “multicultural”, describing the mere presence of many cultures within a society, has been present in India for several millennia. But “multiculturalism” is different: it is a special kind of relationship adopted by the state towards different cultural communities that fall within its sovereignty. In addition, it is the official, doctrinal articulation of this stance; and a label for theories of this doctrine, propounded and argued over by academics and journalists.
Rajeev Bhargava’s openDemocracy essays analyse and explain India in the world – and India to itself. Among the highlights:
“India’s majority-minority syndrome” (August 2002)
“Words save lives: India, the BJP, and the constitution” (October 2002)
“Poverty and political freedom” (August 2003)
“The political psychology of Hindu nationalism” (November 2003)
“The magic of Indian democracy: questions for Antara Dev Sen” (May 2004)
While India might be invoked descriptively in treatments of the epiphenomena of multiculture, it is rarely mentioned in most theoretical discussions of multiculturalism. This is testimony to the narrowness and parochialism of the dominant public cultures of the west, which still assumes that it houses the future, not the past.
To deepen our understanding of multiculturalism, to understand its internal tensions and foresee its problems - and accordingly to refine and focus public policies - the world needs to look to and learn from India.
The emergence of an “ism”
Will Kymlicka, one of the foremost scholars of the subject, says that “multiculturalism” as a unique experiment started in Canada in 1971, and that it was followed in other countries such as Australia.
In a sense he is correct: as official doctrine and theory, it certainly began life in Canada, and was later adopted in Australia, the United States and Britain.
The reason why, as a doctrine, multiculturalism appears to have originated where it did was twofold. First, Canada was already a multinational state, one characterised by French-speaking Quebec’s refusal to “integrate” with its English-speaking neighbours on the model of the United States. Second, Canada was, like the US, a country of immigration.
Canadian governments, both fighting to avoid the break-up of their country and unable to insist that newcomers accept “melting-pot” integration into a powerful US-style nationality, embraced a policy that recognised the right of all its citizens to demand distinct kinds of identities. The unity of the country thus came to depend upon granting a constitutional right of difference to its own people within the framework of their nation-state. On this social and constitutional experience, which Canada and its western partners saw as unique, was built the doctrine of multiculturalism.
Canada, as well as the US and Australia, were formed by immigration, and came as a result to understand it - in their bones, as it were - as a permanent fact of life. Most other countries, by contrast, experienced it as an exception, an intrusion, a crisis in their composition.
But migration has gradually become a permanent fact of life everywhere, making the view of immigration as exceptional or problematic harder to sustain. The immense imbalances of wealth and population on a world scale, coupled with global technologies and transports, render mass immigration “normal”.
The urbanisation of humankind is accelerating; hundreds of millions of people are moving from rural areas to the cities, and many of these journeys are leading people to cross and settle beyond national borders. In almost every country, new minorities and diasporas - often intensely self-conscious and interconnected thanks to information technology - are becoming normal components of the population. It appears that nothing can stop the process of “people flow” (as it was innovatively described in the debate jointly hosted by Demos and openDemocracy).
This highlights a sense in which Will Kymlicka is wrong to champion Canada as the homeland of multiculturalism. For as official policy and broader normative orientation based on social experience, its lineage is much older. It has been an integral feature of public debate in India for more than a century. Indeed, there is hardly a multicultural policy known to the world that, in one form or another, has not been examined, used or discarded in India.
All societies, it might be said, are today becoming like India. What can they learn from it?
Indian constitutional secularism
Since 1950, when India’s lengthy constitution was adopted, the country’s official, constitutional discourse has attended to the range of issues and arguments generated by a multiply diverse society. They include the cultural rights of minorities; the funding of minority educational institutions; the cultural rights of indigenous peoples; linguistic rights; the self-government rights of culturally distinct groups; asymmetrical federalism; legal pluralism; affirmative action for marginalised groups.
Moreover, several concerns have long been part of official state policy: public holidays that bestow official recognition to minority religions; flexible dress codes; a sensitivity in history- and literature-teaching to the cultures and traditions of minorities; and government funding of especially significant religious practices.
Show your support for openDemocracy Subscribe today for £25/€40/$US40. Click here But perhaps the most important lesson India has for debate over and policies towards “multiculturalism” is the need to rethink and reform another “ism”- secularism. This term, originally non-Indian, is now part of the everyday vocabulary of Indian politics and society in a way that others could embrace.
The introduction of secularism into a discussion of multiculturalism should be no surprise. Secularism defines itself in relation to religion; and always, everywhere, even when they are understood to be conceptually separate, cultures and religions remain deeply intertwined. This is even more so in cases where the very distinction between religion and culture is hard to draw. Is the hijab, for a Muslim, a cultural or a religious object? Is marriage among Muslims a cultural or a religious event? Is the identity of a Hindu or a Jew cultural or religious?
To think about multiculturalism, then, is to be confronted with the (public, often conflictual) presence of multiple religions – something that has been a constitutive feature of social reality on the subcontinent. Since secularism defines itself in relation to religion, it must also see itself in relation to multiple religions. This is primarily how the term secularism works on the subcontinent (when indeed it is allowed to do any work at all!).
The return of religion
This multi-religious reality of the subcontinent should become the starting-point for discussions of western secularism, which is now being challenged by three distinct processes.
First, it is now evident that a central aspect of the classic or western secularisation thesis is deeply mistaken. The projected privatisation of religion mandated by classic notions of modernisation has, even in western societies, failed to occur. Instead, two developments are visible: the continued public presence of religion, and what Jose Casanova calls the “de-privatisation” of religions that formerly had retreated from the public sphere. (Two examples of the latter are the militant role of evangelical and “born-again” Christianity in the United States and the global impact of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Second, migration from former colonies and an intensified globalisation has thrown together on western soil pre-Christian faiths, Christianity and Islam. The public spaces of western societies are reappropriated by people of one religion and its various denominations, and increasingly claimed also by people adhering to several other religions; the accumulative result is a deep, unprecedented religious diversity. As a result, the weak but definite public monopoly of single religions is being challenged by the very norms that govern these societies.
Third, the encounter between these multiple religions is not fully dialogic; rather, it generates mutual suspicion, distrust, hostility and conflict. To some extent, this too is a “normal” reaction to a close encounter with the unfamiliar; and due in part also to the different understandings of individual and social selves embodied in the divergent cumulative traditions of each of these religions.
But there is also something troubling about the exclusions that mark the self-understanding of religions themselves, about their inability to form more benign and tolerant understandings of those outside their fold. The bigotry on one side is matched on the other by a demonisation that relentlessly legitimises denial of the other religion’s right to an equal space in public life.
The same point can be put another way. Different forms of dance or dress can have deep and abiding identity-significance for people, yet a classical liberalism that has been reshaped by the spectacle of the market and fashion can also easily incorporate them into a market-driven perspective. When, however, culture is organised by religion rather than politics, it is more usually accompanied by lasting forms of exclusion, bans and power-systems (often involving unaccountable rule by old men) as well as practices and procedures which limit freedom and have undemocratic consequences.
This raises the question: is western secularism equipped to deal with the new reality of multiple religions in public life or with the social tensions this engenders?
The problem of secularism
The dominant self-understanding of western secularism, somewhat encrusted into formula, is that it is a universal doctrine requiring the strict separation of church and state, religion and politics, for the sake of individual liberty and equality (including religious liberty and equality).
The social context that gave this self-understanding urgency and significance was the fundamental problem faced by modernising western societies: the tyranny, oppression and sectarianism of the church and the two threats to liberty it posed - to religious liberty conceived individualistically (the liberty of an individual to seek his own personal way to God, an individual's freedom of conscience), and to liberty more generally as (ultimately) the foundation of common citizenship.
To overcome this problem, modernising western societies needed to create or strengthen an alternative centre of public power completely separate from the church. The rigidity of the demand here is unmistakable - mutual exclusion (a wall , as Thomas Jefferson famously put it) between the two relevant institutions, one intrinsically and solely public and the other expected to retreat into the private domain and remain there. The individualist underpinnings of this view are fully evident.
This classic, western conception of secularism was designed to solve the internal problem of a single religion with different heresies - Christianity. It also appeared to rest on an active hostility to the public role of religion and an obligatory, sometimes respectful indifference to whatever religion does within its own internal, privatedomain. As long as it is private, the state is not meant to interfere.
It is now increasingly clear that this form of western secularism has persistent difficulties in seeking to cope with community-oriented religions that demand a public presence, particularly when they begin to multiply in society. This individualistic, inward-looking secularism is already proving vulnerable to crisis after crisis. The rigid response of the French republican state to the hijab issue, and the more ambiguous response of the German state to the demand by Turkish Muslims for the public funding of their educational institutions, may be only harbingers of clashes to come.
Which way will these western societies go? Will they become even more dogmatic in their assertions about their strict-separation secularism; or, in view of changed circumstances, will they abandon it in favour of an unashamed embrace of their majoritarian religious character founded on an official establishment? Or could they not work out a better form of secularism which addresses these new demands without giving up the values for which the original was devised?
Most important of all, is it not worth asking if such an alternative exists already?
I think it does - a conception not available as a doctrine or a theory but worked out in the subcontinent and available loosely in the best moments of inter-communal practice in India; in the country’s constitution appropriately interpreted; and in the scattered writings of some of its best political actors.
The Indian model
Six features of the Indian model are striking and relevant to wider discussion.
First, multiple religions are not extras, added on as an afterthought but present at its starting-point, as part of its foundation.
Second, it is not entirely averse to the public character of religions. Although the state is not identified with a particular religion or with religion more generally (there is no establishment of religion), there is official and therefore public recognition granted to religious communities.
Third, it has a commitment to multiple values - liberty or equality, not conceived narrowly but interpreted broadly to cover the relative autonomy of religious communities and equality of status in society, as well as other more basic values such as peace and toleration between communities. This model is acutely sensitive to the potential within religions to sanction violence.
Fourth, it does not erect a wall of separation between state and religion. There are boundaries, of course, but they are porous. This allows the state to intervene in religions, to help or hinder them. This involves multiple roles: granting aid to educational institutions of religious communities on a non-preferential basis; or interfering in socio-religious institutions that deny equal dignity and status to members of their own religion or to those of others (for example, the ban on untouchability and the obligation to allow everyone, irrespective of their caste, to enter Hindu temples, and potentially to correct gender inequalities), on the basis of a more sensible understanding of equal concern and respect for all individuals and groups. In short, it interprets separation to mean not strict exclusion or strict neutrality but rather what I call principled distance.
Fifth, this model shows that we do not have to choose between active hostility or passive indifference, or between disrespectful hostility or respectful indifference. We can have the necessary hostility as long as there is also active respect: the state may intervene to inhibit some practices, so long as it shows respect for the religious community and it does so by publicly lending support to it in some other way.
Sixth, by not fixing its commitment from the start exclusively to individual or community values or marking rigid boundaries between the public and private, India’s constitutional secularism allows decisions on these matters to be taken within the open dynamics of democratic politics - albeit with the basic constraints such as abnegation of violence and protection of basic human rights, including the right not to be disenfranchised.
A lesson in democracy
This commitment to multiple values and principled distance means that the state tries to balance different, ambiguous but equally important values. This makes its secular ideal more like an ethically sensitive, politically negotiated arrangement (which it really is), rather than a scientific doctrine conjured by ideologues and merely implemented by political agents.
A somewhat forced, formulaic articulation of Indian secularism goes something like this. The state must keep a principled distance from all public or private, individual-oriented or community-oriented religious institutions for the sake of the equally significant (and sometimes conflicting) values of peace, this-worldly goods, dignity, liberty and equality (in all its complicated individualistic or non-individualistic versions).
Some readers may find in this condensed version an irritatingly complicated collage and yearn for the elegance, economy and tidiness of western secularism. But, alas, no workable constitution will generate the geometrical beauty of a social-scientific theory or a chemical formula. The ambiguity and flexibility of the conception of secularism developed by India is not a weakness but in fact the strength of an inclusive and complex political ideal.
Discerning students of western secularism may now begin to find something familiar in this ideal. But then, Indian secularism has not dropped fully formed from the sky. It shares a history with the west. In part, it has learnt from and built on it. But is it not time to give something in return? What better way than to do this than by showing that Indian secularism is a route to retrieving the rich history of western secularism - forgotten, underemphasised, or frequently obscured by the formula of strict separation and by many of its current articulations!
For the image of western secularism I outlined above is just one of its variants, what can be called the church-state model. Another equally interesting version that deepens the idea of western secularism flows from the religious wars in Europe and can be called the religious-strife model.
Yet, in its attempt to tackle the deep diversity of religious traditions, and in its ethically sensitive flexibility, there is something unparalleled in the Indian experiment - something different from each of the two versions. If so, western societies can find reflected in it not only a compressed version of their own history but also a vision of their future.
But it might be objected: look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism? I do not wish to underestimate the force of this objection. The secular ideal in India is in periodic crisis and is deeply contested. Besides, at the best of times, it generates as many problems as it solves.
openDemocracy writers examine vital south Asian issues – communal violence in Gujarat, nuclear rivalry, Kashmir…and cricket. See our “India/Pakistan” debate But it should not be forgotten either that a secular state was set up in India despite the massacre and displacement of millions of people on ethno-religious grounds. It has survived in a continuing context in which ethnic nationalism remains dominant throughout the world. As different religious cultures claim their place in societies across the world, it may be India’s development of secularism that offers the most peaceful, freedom-sensitive and democratic way forward. At any rate, why should the fate of ideal conceptions with trans-cultural potential be decided purely on the basis of what happens to them in their place of origin?
A final point - or rather a question. India in May 2004 witnessed an election in which the Hindu right was democratically ousted. At least part of the credit for this goes to the way the secular constitution helped transform the caste system from being an integral part of a sacral, hierarchical order to a political and associative formation tied to secular interests. As “lower castes” fight to get their share of power, wealth and dignity, the friction created in this struggle thwarts the majoritarian ambitions of the dominant religious group.
Will the American constitution play a similar role in removing the vastly more dangerous takeover of the state by the Christian right? Or have the privatising ambitions of the “wall of separation” model backfired, leaving Americans exposed to yet another term of the same devils?
Western variants of multiculturalism and secularism are being challenged by religious demands for public recognition of faith. Instead of reinventing the wheel, the world should learn from India, says Rajeev Bhargava.3 - 11 - 2004
The reality of the “multicultural”, describing the mere presence of many cultures within a society, has been present in India for several millennia. But “multiculturalism” is different: it is a special kind of relationship adopted by the state towards different cultural communities that fall within its sovereignty. In addition, it is the official, doctrinal articulation of this stance; and a label for theories of this doctrine, propounded and argued over by academics and journalists.
Rajeev Bhargava’s openDemocracy essays analyse and explain India in the world – and India to itself. Among the highlights:
“India’s majority-minority syndrome” (August 2002)
“Words save lives: India, the BJP, and the constitution” (October 2002)
“Poverty and political freedom” (August 2003)
“The political psychology of Hindu nationalism” (November 2003)
“The magic of Indian democracy: questions for Antara Dev Sen” (May 2004)
While India might be invoked descriptively in treatments of the epiphenomena of multiculture, it is rarely mentioned in most theoretical discussions of multiculturalism. This is testimony to the narrowness and parochialism of the dominant public cultures of the west, which still assumes that it houses the future, not the past.
To deepen our understanding of multiculturalism, to understand its internal tensions and foresee its problems - and accordingly to refine and focus public policies - the world needs to look to and learn from India.
The emergence of an “ism”
Will Kymlicka, one of the foremost scholars of the subject, says that “multiculturalism” as a unique experiment started in Canada in 1971, and that it was followed in other countries such as Australia.
In a sense he is correct: as official doctrine and theory, it certainly began life in Canada, and was later adopted in Australia, the United States and Britain.
The reason why, as a doctrine, multiculturalism appears to have originated where it did was twofold. First, Canada was already a multinational state, one characterised by French-speaking Quebec’s refusal to “integrate” with its English-speaking neighbours on the model of the United States. Second, Canada was, like the US, a country of immigration.
Canadian governments, both fighting to avoid the break-up of their country and unable to insist that newcomers accept “melting-pot” integration into a powerful US-style nationality, embraced a policy that recognised the right of all its citizens to demand distinct kinds of identities. The unity of the country thus came to depend upon granting a constitutional right of difference to its own people within the framework of their nation-state. On this social and constitutional experience, which Canada and its western partners saw as unique, was built the doctrine of multiculturalism.
Canada, as well as the US and Australia, were formed by immigration, and came as a result to understand it - in their bones, as it were - as a permanent fact of life. Most other countries, by contrast, experienced it as an exception, an intrusion, a crisis in their composition.
But migration has gradually become a permanent fact of life everywhere, making the view of immigration as exceptional or problematic harder to sustain. The immense imbalances of wealth and population on a world scale, coupled with global technologies and transports, render mass immigration “normal”.
The urbanisation of humankind is accelerating; hundreds of millions of people are moving from rural areas to the cities, and many of these journeys are leading people to cross and settle beyond national borders. In almost every country, new minorities and diasporas - often intensely self-conscious and interconnected thanks to information technology - are becoming normal components of the population. It appears that nothing can stop the process of “people flow” (as it was innovatively described in the debate jointly hosted by Demos and openDemocracy).
This highlights a sense in which Will Kymlicka is wrong to champion Canada as the homeland of multiculturalism. For as official policy and broader normative orientation based on social experience, its lineage is much older. It has been an integral feature of public debate in India for more than a century. Indeed, there is hardly a multicultural policy known to the world that, in one form or another, has not been examined, used or discarded in India.
All societies, it might be said, are today becoming like India. What can they learn from it?
Indian constitutional secularism
Since 1950, when India’s lengthy constitution was adopted, the country’s official, constitutional discourse has attended to the range of issues and arguments generated by a multiply diverse society. They include the cultural rights of minorities; the funding of minority educational institutions; the cultural rights of indigenous peoples; linguistic rights; the self-government rights of culturally distinct groups; asymmetrical federalism; legal pluralism; affirmative action for marginalised groups.
Moreover, several concerns have long been part of official state policy: public holidays that bestow official recognition to minority religions; flexible dress codes; a sensitivity in history- and literature-teaching to the cultures and traditions of minorities; and government funding of especially significant religious practices.
Show your support for openDemocracy Subscribe today for £25/€40/$US40. Click here But perhaps the most important lesson India has for debate over and policies towards “multiculturalism” is the need to rethink and reform another “ism”- secularism. This term, originally non-Indian, is now part of the everyday vocabulary of Indian politics and society in a way that others could embrace.
The introduction of secularism into a discussion of multiculturalism should be no surprise. Secularism defines itself in relation to religion; and always, everywhere, even when they are understood to be conceptually separate, cultures and religions remain deeply intertwined. This is even more so in cases where the very distinction between religion and culture is hard to draw. Is the hijab, for a Muslim, a cultural or a religious object? Is marriage among Muslims a cultural or a religious event? Is the identity of a Hindu or a Jew cultural or religious?
To think about multiculturalism, then, is to be confronted with the (public, often conflictual) presence of multiple religions – something that has been a constitutive feature of social reality on the subcontinent. Since secularism defines itself in relation to religion, it must also see itself in relation to multiple religions. This is primarily how the term secularism works on the subcontinent (when indeed it is allowed to do any work at all!).
The return of religion
This multi-religious reality of the subcontinent should become the starting-point for discussions of western secularism, which is now being challenged by three distinct processes.
First, it is now evident that a central aspect of the classic or western secularisation thesis is deeply mistaken. The projected privatisation of religion mandated by classic notions of modernisation has, even in western societies, failed to occur. Instead, two developments are visible: the continued public presence of religion, and what Jose Casanova calls the “de-privatisation” of religions that formerly had retreated from the public sphere. (Two examples of the latter are the militant role of evangelical and “born-again” Christianity in the United States and the global impact of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Second, migration from former colonies and an intensified globalisation has thrown together on western soil pre-Christian faiths, Christianity and Islam. The public spaces of western societies are reappropriated by people of one religion and its various denominations, and increasingly claimed also by people adhering to several other religions; the accumulative result is a deep, unprecedented religious diversity. As a result, the weak but definite public monopoly of single religions is being challenged by the very norms that govern these societies.
Third, the encounter between these multiple religions is not fully dialogic; rather, it generates mutual suspicion, distrust, hostility and conflict. To some extent, this too is a “normal” reaction to a close encounter with the unfamiliar; and due in part also to the different understandings of individual and social selves embodied in the divergent cumulative traditions of each of these religions.
But there is also something troubling about the exclusions that mark the self-understanding of religions themselves, about their inability to form more benign and tolerant understandings of those outside their fold. The bigotry on one side is matched on the other by a demonisation that relentlessly legitimises denial of the other religion’s right to an equal space in public life.
The same point can be put another way. Different forms of dance or dress can have deep and abiding identity-significance for people, yet a classical liberalism that has been reshaped by the spectacle of the market and fashion can also easily incorporate them into a market-driven perspective. When, however, culture is organised by religion rather than politics, it is more usually accompanied by lasting forms of exclusion, bans and power-systems (often involving unaccountable rule by old men) as well as practices and procedures which limit freedom and have undemocratic consequences.
This raises the question: is western secularism equipped to deal with the new reality of multiple religions in public life or with the social tensions this engenders?
The problem of secularism
The dominant self-understanding of western secularism, somewhat encrusted into formula, is that it is a universal doctrine requiring the strict separation of church and state, religion and politics, for the sake of individual liberty and equality (including religious liberty and equality).
The social context that gave this self-understanding urgency and significance was the fundamental problem faced by modernising western societies: the tyranny, oppression and sectarianism of the church and the two threats to liberty it posed - to religious liberty conceived individualistically (the liberty of an individual to seek his own personal way to God, an individual's freedom of conscience), and to liberty more generally as (ultimately) the foundation of common citizenship.
To overcome this problem, modernising western societies needed to create or strengthen an alternative centre of public power completely separate from the church. The rigidity of the demand here is unmistakable - mutual exclusion (a wall , as Thomas Jefferson famously put it) between the two relevant institutions, one intrinsically and solely public and the other expected to retreat into the private domain and remain there. The individualist underpinnings of this view are fully evident.
This classic, western conception of secularism was designed to solve the internal problem of a single religion with different heresies - Christianity. It also appeared to rest on an active hostility to the public role of religion and an obligatory, sometimes respectful indifference to whatever religion does within its own internal, privatedomain. As long as it is private, the state is not meant to interfere.
It is now increasingly clear that this form of western secularism has persistent difficulties in seeking to cope with community-oriented religions that demand a public presence, particularly when they begin to multiply in society. This individualistic, inward-looking secularism is already proving vulnerable to crisis after crisis. The rigid response of the French republican state to the hijab issue, and the more ambiguous response of the German state to the demand by Turkish Muslims for the public funding of their educational institutions, may be only harbingers of clashes to come.
Which way will these western societies go? Will they become even more dogmatic in their assertions about their strict-separation secularism; or, in view of changed circumstances, will they abandon it in favour of an unashamed embrace of their majoritarian religious character founded on an official establishment? Or could they not work out a better form of secularism which addresses these new demands without giving up the values for which the original was devised?
Most important of all, is it not worth asking if such an alternative exists already?
I think it does - a conception not available as a doctrine or a theory but worked out in the subcontinent and available loosely in the best moments of inter-communal practice in India; in the country’s constitution appropriately interpreted; and in the scattered writings of some of its best political actors.
The Indian model
Six features of the Indian model are striking and relevant to wider discussion.
First, multiple religions are not extras, added on as an afterthought but present at its starting-point, as part of its foundation.
Second, it is not entirely averse to the public character of religions. Although the state is not identified with a particular religion or with religion more generally (there is no establishment of religion), there is official and therefore public recognition granted to religious communities.
Third, it has a commitment to multiple values - liberty or equality, not conceived narrowly but interpreted broadly to cover the relative autonomy of religious communities and equality of status in society, as well as other more basic values such as peace and toleration between communities. This model is acutely sensitive to the potential within religions to sanction violence.
Fourth, it does not erect a wall of separation between state and religion. There are boundaries, of course, but they are porous. This allows the state to intervene in religions, to help or hinder them. This involves multiple roles: granting aid to educational institutions of religious communities on a non-preferential basis; or interfering in socio-religious institutions that deny equal dignity and status to members of their own religion or to those of others (for example, the ban on untouchability and the obligation to allow everyone, irrespective of their caste, to enter Hindu temples, and potentially to correct gender inequalities), on the basis of a more sensible understanding of equal concern and respect for all individuals and groups. In short, it interprets separation to mean not strict exclusion or strict neutrality but rather what I call principled distance.
Fifth, this model shows that we do not have to choose between active hostility or passive indifference, or between disrespectful hostility or respectful indifference. We can have the necessary hostility as long as there is also active respect: the state may intervene to inhibit some practices, so long as it shows respect for the religious community and it does so by publicly lending support to it in some other way.
Sixth, by not fixing its commitment from the start exclusively to individual or community values or marking rigid boundaries between the public and private, India’s constitutional secularism allows decisions on these matters to be taken within the open dynamics of democratic politics - albeit with the basic constraints such as abnegation of violence and protection of basic human rights, including the right not to be disenfranchised.
A lesson in democracy
This commitment to multiple values and principled distance means that the state tries to balance different, ambiguous but equally important values. This makes its secular ideal more like an ethically sensitive, politically negotiated arrangement (which it really is), rather than a scientific doctrine conjured by ideologues and merely implemented by political agents.
A somewhat forced, formulaic articulation of Indian secularism goes something like this. The state must keep a principled distance from all public or private, individual-oriented or community-oriented religious institutions for the sake of the equally significant (and sometimes conflicting) values of peace, this-worldly goods, dignity, liberty and equality (in all its complicated individualistic or non-individualistic versions).
Some readers may find in this condensed version an irritatingly complicated collage and yearn for the elegance, economy and tidiness of western secularism. But, alas, no workable constitution will generate the geometrical beauty of a social-scientific theory or a chemical formula. The ambiguity and flexibility of the conception of secularism developed by India is not a weakness but in fact the strength of an inclusive and complex political ideal.
Discerning students of western secularism may now begin to find something familiar in this ideal. But then, Indian secularism has not dropped fully formed from the sky. It shares a history with the west. In part, it has learnt from and built on it. But is it not time to give something in return? What better way than to do this than by showing that Indian secularism is a route to retrieving the rich history of western secularism - forgotten, underemphasised, or frequently obscured by the formula of strict separation and by many of its current articulations!
For the image of western secularism I outlined above is just one of its variants, what can be called the church-state model. Another equally interesting version that deepens the idea of western secularism flows from the religious wars in Europe and can be called the religious-strife model.
Yet, in its attempt to tackle the deep diversity of religious traditions, and in its ethically sensitive flexibility, there is something unparalleled in the Indian experiment - something different from each of the two versions. If so, western societies can find reflected in it not only a compressed version of their own history but also a vision of their future.
But it might be objected: look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism? I do not wish to underestimate the force of this objection. The secular ideal in India is in periodic crisis and is deeply contested. Besides, at the best of times, it generates as many problems as it solves.
openDemocracy writers examine vital south Asian issues – communal violence in Gujarat, nuclear rivalry, Kashmir…and cricket. See our “India/Pakistan” debate But it should not be forgotten either that a secular state was set up in India despite the massacre and displacement of millions of people on ethno-religious grounds. It has survived in a continuing context in which ethnic nationalism remains dominant throughout the world. As different religious cultures claim their place in societies across the world, it may be India’s development of secularism that offers the most peaceful, freedom-sensitive and democratic way forward. At any rate, why should the fate of ideal conceptions with trans-cultural potential be decided purely on the basis of what happens to them in their place of origin?
A final point - or rather a question. India in May 2004 witnessed an election in which the Hindu right was democratically ousted. At least part of the credit for this goes to the way the secular constitution helped transform the caste system from being an integral part of a sacral, hierarchical order to a political and associative formation tied to secular interests. As “lower castes” fight to get their share of power, wealth and dignity, the friction created in this struggle thwarts the majoritarian ambitions of the dominant religious group.
Will the American constitution play a similar role in removing the vastly more dangerous takeover of the state by the Christian right? Or have the privatising ambitions of the “wall of separation” model backfired, leaving Americans exposed to yet another term of the same devils?
India's failing secularism -kapil-komireddi
In a supposedly secular state, India's religious minorities find themselves in an increasingly precarious position
Comments (175)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Kapil Komireddi
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 April 2009 17.00 BST
Article history
As India prepares for the 15th general election since it became a republic in 1950, the country's religious minorities are anxious. The impressive economic growth that put India on the covers of major western news weeklies has not touched their lives, and they are acutely aware of their precarious position in a country that is routinely celebrated by the rest of the world as a redoubt of western-style modernity in a region associated with backwardness.
Indian Muslims in particular have rarely known a life uninterrupted by communal conflict or unimpaired by poverty and prejudice. Their grievances are legion, and the list of atrocities committed against them by the Indian state is long. In 2002 at least 1,000 Muslims were slaughtered by Hindu mobs in the western state of Gujarat in what was the second state-sponsored pogrom in India (Sikhs were the object of the first, in 1984).
Gujarat's chief minister, Narendra Modi, explained away the riots by quoting Newton's third law. "Every action," he said on television, "has an equal opposite reaction." The "action" that invited the reaction of the mobs was the torching of a Gujarat-bound train in which 59 Hindus pilgrims, most of them saffron-clad bigots who were returning home from a trip to the site of the Babri Mosque that they had helped demolish a decade earlier, perished. The "equal and opposite reaction" was the slaughter of 1,000 innocent Muslims for the alleged crime of their coreligionists.
Such an event, had it occurred anywhere else, would have destroyed that country's reputation. But, astonishingly, the years since 2002 have witnessed a steady stream of books, mostly by western authors, extolling India. The unwillingness on western intellectuals' part to engage honestly with the violent reality of India, or offer a sincere portrayal of its transformation, has much to do with their own assumptions of history and modernity; but glossing over India's treatment of its Muslims – or omitting it substantially from their analyses – must have at least something to do with the insidious apathy towards Muslim tribulations that has characterised western attitudes since 9/11.
The rise of Hindu chauvinism in India has a complex history, but the absence of any meaningful sanction from the rest of the world has certainty emboldened Hindu bigots. Last week, Varun Gandhi, the Hindu-chauvinist BJP's London-educated parliamentary candidate from the Pilibhit constituency in Uttar Pradesh, India's largest state, made remarks of a kind that even European neo-Nazi leaders would hesitate to make in public.
Addressing an exclusive gathering of Hindu voters, Gandhi talked about the injustices faced by Hindus; then he told his enthusiastic listeners that he would sever any hand that was raised against a Hindu; that the lotus (the BJP's election symbol) would chop off Muslim heads; that Muslim names were scary; that his opponent's name sounded like "Osama bin Laden".
The name of his opponent, Riaz Ahmed, does not sound remotely like bin Laden's; but listening to a "Gandhi" make such an inflammatory speech should, if it hasn't already, shatter complacent Indian liberal notions about the country's experiment with secularism. Varun Gandhi is not a fringe figure: he is the great-grandson of India's first prime minister, the staunchly secular atheist Pandit Nehru.
For decades Indian intellectuals have claimed that religion, particularly Hinduism, is perfectly compatible with secularism. Indian secularism, they said repeatedly, is not a total rejection of religion by the state but rather an equal appreciation of every faith. Even though no faith is in principle privileged by the state, this approach made it possible for religion to find expression in the public sphere, and, since Hindus in India outnumber adherents of every other faith, Hinduism dominated it. Almost every government building in India has a prominently positioned picture of a Hindu deity. Hindu rituals accompany the inauguration of all public works, without exception.
The novelist Shashi Tharoor tried to burnish this certifiably sectarian phenomenon with a facile analogy: Indian Muslims, he wrote, accept Hindu rituals at state ceremonies in the same spirit as teetotallers accept champagne in western celebrations. This self-affirming explanation is characteristic of someone who belongs to the majority community. Muslims I interviewed took a different view, but understandably, they were unwilling to protest for the fear of being labelled as "angry Muslims" in a country famous for its tolerant Hindus.
The failure of secularism in India – or, more accurately, the failure of the Indian model of secularism – may be just one aspect of the gamut of failures, but it has the potential to bring down the country. Secularism in India rests entirely upon the goodwill of the Hindu majority. Can this kind of secularism really survive a Narendra Modi as prime minister? As Hindus are increasingly infected by the kind of hatred that Varun Gandhi's speech displayed, maybe it is time for Indian secularists to embrace a new, more radical kind of secularism that is not afraid to recognise and reject the principal source of this strife: religion itself.
Comments (175)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Kapil Komireddi
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 April 2009 17.00 BST
Article history
As India prepares for the 15th general election since it became a republic in 1950, the country's religious minorities are anxious. The impressive economic growth that put India on the covers of major western news weeklies has not touched their lives, and they are acutely aware of their precarious position in a country that is routinely celebrated by the rest of the world as a redoubt of western-style modernity in a region associated with backwardness.
Indian Muslims in particular have rarely known a life uninterrupted by communal conflict or unimpaired by poverty and prejudice. Their grievances are legion, and the list of atrocities committed against them by the Indian state is long. In 2002 at least 1,000 Muslims were slaughtered by Hindu mobs in the western state of Gujarat in what was the second state-sponsored pogrom in India (Sikhs were the object of the first, in 1984).
Gujarat's chief minister, Narendra Modi, explained away the riots by quoting Newton's third law. "Every action," he said on television, "has an equal opposite reaction." The "action" that invited the reaction of the mobs was the torching of a Gujarat-bound train in which 59 Hindus pilgrims, most of them saffron-clad bigots who were returning home from a trip to the site of the Babri Mosque that they had helped demolish a decade earlier, perished. The "equal and opposite reaction" was the slaughter of 1,000 innocent Muslims for the alleged crime of their coreligionists.
Such an event, had it occurred anywhere else, would have destroyed that country's reputation. But, astonishingly, the years since 2002 have witnessed a steady stream of books, mostly by western authors, extolling India. The unwillingness on western intellectuals' part to engage honestly with the violent reality of India, or offer a sincere portrayal of its transformation, has much to do with their own assumptions of history and modernity; but glossing over India's treatment of its Muslims – or omitting it substantially from their analyses – must have at least something to do with the insidious apathy towards Muslim tribulations that has characterised western attitudes since 9/11.
The rise of Hindu chauvinism in India has a complex history, but the absence of any meaningful sanction from the rest of the world has certainty emboldened Hindu bigots. Last week, Varun Gandhi, the Hindu-chauvinist BJP's London-educated parliamentary candidate from the Pilibhit constituency in Uttar Pradesh, India's largest state, made remarks of a kind that even European neo-Nazi leaders would hesitate to make in public.
Addressing an exclusive gathering of Hindu voters, Gandhi talked about the injustices faced by Hindus; then he told his enthusiastic listeners that he would sever any hand that was raised against a Hindu; that the lotus (the BJP's election symbol) would chop off Muslim heads; that Muslim names were scary; that his opponent's name sounded like "Osama bin Laden".
The name of his opponent, Riaz Ahmed, does not sound remotely like bin Laden's; but listening to a "Gandhi" make such an inflammatory speech should, if it hasn't already, shatter complacent Indian liberal notions about the country's experiment with secularism. Varun Gandhi is not a fringe figure: he is the great-grandson of India's first prime minister, the staunchly secular atheist Pandit Nehru.
For decades Indian intellectuals have claimed that religion, particularly Hinduism, is perfectly compatible with secularism. Indian secularism, they said repeatedly, is not a total rejection of religion by the state but rather an equal appreciation of every faith. Even though no faith is in principle privileged by the state, this approach made it possible for religion to find expression in the public sphere, and, since Hindus in India outnumber adherents of every other faith, Hinduism dominated it. Almost every government building in India has a prominently positioned picture of a Hindu deity. Hindu rituals accompany the inauguration of all public works, without exception.
The novelist Shashi Tharoor tried to burnish this certifiably sectarian phenomenon with a facile analogy: Indian Muslims, he wrote, accept Hindu rituals at state ceremonies in the same spirit as teetotallers accept champagne in western celebrations. This self-affirming explanation is characteristic of someone who belongs to the majority community. Muslims I interviewed took a different view, but understandably, they were unwilling to protest for the fear of being labelled as "angry Muslims" in a country famous for its tolerant Hindus.
The failure of secularism in India – or, more accurately, the failure of the Indian model of secularism – may be just one aspect of the gamut of failures, but it has the potential to bring down the country. Secularism in India rests entirely upon the goodwill of the Hindu majority. Can this kind of secularism really survive a Narendra Modi as prime minister? As Hindus are increasingly infected by the kind of hatred that Varun Gandhi's speech displayed, maybe it is time for Indian secularists to embrace a new, more radical kind of secularism that is not afraid to recognise and reject the principal source of this strife: religion itself.
Secularism in India
Secularism in India
By Asghar Ali Engineer
The Milli Gazette Online
23 June 2006
Secularism in India has very different meaning and implications. The word secularism has never been used in Indian context in the sense in which it has been used in Western countries i.e. in the sense of atheism or purely this worldly approach, rejecting the other-worldly beliefs.
India is a country where religion is very central to the life of people. India’s age-old philosophy as expounded in Hindu scriptures called Upanishad is sarva dharma samabhava, which means equal respect for all religions. The reason behind this approach is the fact that India has never been a mono-religious country. Even before the Aryan invasion India was not a mono-religious country.
There existed before Aryan invasion numerous tribal cults from north-western India to Kanya Kumari most of whom happened to be Dravidians. Thus certain languages in North West of Pakistan even today contain some words of Dravidian origin. However, with the invasion of Aryans people of Dravidian origin were driven down south and today we find all Dravidian people in four southern states of India.
Aryans brought new religion based on Vedas and Brahmins dominated intellectual life of north India. But a section of Brahmins also migrated to south and evolved new cults marrying Vedic cults with Dravidian ones. Thus it is said that Hindu Indians worship more than 33 hundred thousand gods and goddesses.
Thus even before advent of Christianity and Islam India was multi-religious in nature. Christianity and Islam added more religious traditions to existing Indian traditions. Thus it would be correct to say that India is bewilderingly diverse country in every respect – religious, cultural, ethnic and caste.
India is one country where caste rigidity and concept of untouchability evolved and still plays a major role in religious, social and cultural matters. Caste dynamics in Indian life, even in Christian and Islamic societies, plays larger than life role. Since most of the conversions to Christianity and Islam took place from lower caste Hindus, these two world religions also developed caste structure. There are lower caste churches and mosques in several places.
Under feudal system there was no competition between different religious traditions as authority resided in sword and generally there were no inter-religious tensions among the people of different religions. They co-existed in peace and harmony though at times inter-religious controversies did arise. However, there never took place bloodshed in the name of religion.
There was also tradition of tolerance between religions due to state policies of Ashoka and Akbar. Ashoka’s edicts clearly spell out policy of religious tolerance and Akbar used to hold inter-religious dialogue among followers of different religions and he also followed the policy of tolerance and even withdrew the jizya tax (poll tax on Hindus which was an irritant. Thus both Ashok and Akbar have place of great significance in religious life of India. No doubt they have been designated as ‘great’ i.e. they are referred to as Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great.
Also, India had Sufi and Bhakti traditions in Islam and Hinduism respectively. Both Sufism and Bhakti traditions were based on respect for different religions. The poorer and lower caste Hindus and Muslims were greatly influenced by these traditions. Unlike ‘ulama and Brahmans the Sufi and Bhakti saints were highly tolerant and open to the truth in other faiths. They never adopted sectarian attitudes and were never involved in power struggles. They kept away from power structures.
Nizamuddin Awliya, a great Sufi saints of 13-14th century saw the times of five Sultans but never paid court to a single one. When the last Sultan of his life sent a message requesting him to come to the court, he refused. Then he sent the message that if Nizamuddin does not come to my court, I (the Sultan) will come to his hospice. He replied that there are two doors to my hospice; if Sultan enters by one, I will leave by the other. Such was the approach of Sufis and Saints to power structure of their time.
Dara Shikoh, was heir apparent to Shajahan, the Moghul Emperor but had sufi bent of mind and was also a great scholar of Islam and Hinduism. He wrote a book Majmau’l Bahrayn (Co-mingling of Two Oceans Islam and Hinduism) and quoting from Hindu and Islamic scriptures showed both religions had similar teachings. The difference was of languages (Arabic and Sanskrit) and not teachings. Thus Dara Shikoh also contributed richly to inter-religious harmony in India.
Most of the conversions to Islam and Christianity took place through Sufis and missionaries with a spirit of devotion. Even today in India most of the Christians and Muslims belong to these lower caste strata. Even centuries after conversion their caste status and economic status has not changed.
EMERGENCE OF COMPETITIVE POLITICS
However, the entire social, economic and political scenario changed after advent of the British rule in 19th century. Differences between Hindu and Muslim elite began to emerge for various reasons – socio-cultural, economic and political. The British rulers adopted the policy of divide and rule, distorted medieval Indian history to make Muslim rulers appear as tyrants to the Hindu elite. This distorted history was taught in new school system, which was established by the British rulers.
Also there developed economic and political competition between Hindu and Muslim elite leading to communal tensions. The Hindu elite was quick to adjust to new realities and took to modern education and commerce and industries. The Muslim ruling elite resisted new secular education system and also could not take to commerce and industry. They were thus left far behind in the race for progress.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had a perceptive mind. He understood importance of modern education system and founded Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College (MAO College) which became fulcrum of modern education for North Indian Muslim elite. The orthodox Ulama, however, vehemently opposed modern secular education and declared Syed Ahmad Khan as kafir (unbeliever) as he was supporting modern secular education.
Initially Hindu and Muslim elite cooperated with each other and Syed Ahmad Khan always emphasised Hindu-Muslim unity but the competitive nature of political and economic power drove wedge between the two elites and communal tensions began to emerge. When Indian National Congress was formed in 1885, it adopted secularism as its anchor sheet in view of multi-religious nature of Indian society.
India could not head towards Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) as India was not merely a Hindu country. In pre-partition period Muslims were 25% besides Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. However, Hindu society was highly fragmented society and far from monolithic. The dalits (low caste people) refused to call themselves as Hindus (subsequently their leader B.R.Ambedkar) adopted Buddhism in protest).
Muslims too, though not monolithic, had semblance of unity and this was used by communal Hindus to try to unite Hindus as one community. However, it is also true that the Hindu elite was more confident than the Muslim elite in the emerging new power-structure and felt more secure. Muslim elite felt less secure and they hitched their wagon with the British rulers. They wanted to share power-sharing arrangement before the British left the country.
Thus secularism in India was more a political than philosophical phenomenon. The Indian National Congress adopted secularism, not as this worldly philosophy but more as a political arrangement between different religious communities. As power-sharing arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out between the Hindu and Muslim elite the country was divided into two independent states of India and Pakistan, Muslim majority areas of North-West going to Pakistan.
After independence and partition a large body of Muslims were left in India and hence the leaders like Gandhi and Nehru preferred to keep India secular in the sense that Indian state will have no religion though people of India will be free both in individual and corporate sense to follow any religion of their birth or adoption. Thus India remained politically secular but otherwise its people continued to be deeply religious.
In India right from the British period main contradiction was not between religious and secular but it was between secular and communal. In the western world main struggle was between church and state and church and civil society but in India neither Hinduism nor Islam had any church-like structure and hence there never was any such struggle between secular and religious power structure.
The main struggle was between secularism and communalism. The communal forces from among Hindus and Muslims mainly fought for share in power though they used their respective religions for their struggle for power.
Even after partition communal problem did not die. It raised its head again within few years. The RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh), which is mainspring of Hindu right remained in existence and at its instance a new political outfit, which was communal in nature came into existence called Jan Sangh. In independent India the Jan Sangh was mainspring of communal problem and it kept on denouncing secularism as western concept alien to the Indian ethos.
Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India was great champion of secularism and secular politics. Theoretically speaking the Congress Party was also committed to secularism. However, the Congress Party consisted of several members and leaders whose secularism was in doubt. But it was due to Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and B.R.Ambedkar that India committed itself to secularism and its Constitution was drafted on secular lines.
Secularism in India, as pointed out before, meant equal respect for all religions and cultures and non-interference of religion in the government affairs. Also, according to the Indian Constitution no discrimination will be made on the basis of caste, creed, gender and class. Similarly all citizens of India irrespective of ones religion, caste or gender have right to vote. According to articles 14 to 21 all will enjoy same rights without any discrimination on any ground.
According to Article 25 all those who reside in India are free to confess, practice and propagate religion of one’s choice subject of course to social health and law and order. Thus even conversion to any religion of ones choice is a fundamental right. But the BJP (Bhartiya Janta Party) and RSS are opposed to all this. According to them there should be Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) in India and Muslims and Sikhs should be secondary citizens without any political right.
Since the BJP is a political party it cannot say so openly and publicly. It also has to take pledge of secularism for contesting election. But since it is integral part of RSS ideology it is also responsible for RSS beliefs. In fact all secular forces in India consider the BJP as a communal party. It always takes anti-minority stance and accuses the Congress, supposedly a secular party, of ‘appeasement’ of minorities. It also describes the Congress and other secular parties as indulging in ‘pseudo-secularism’.
The RSS and BJP also known as the Sangh Parivar, not only reject secularism but provoke violence against minorities. Since independence several major communal riots have taken pace in India. The first such riot took place in Jabalpur in Central India and last major riot took place in Gujarat in Western India in 2002 in which more than 2000 Muslims were killed and several women were raped. When the Gujarat carnage took place in 2002 BJP was ruling over Gujarat.
According to the filed evidence Chief Minister of BJP party Mr. Narendra Modi was involved along with the entire governmental machinery in the carnage and on this basis the US Government denied him visa in early 2005. The BJP was directly involved in high pitch propaganda against the historic mosque called Babri Mosque and ultimately demolished it claiming it to be a birth -place of Lord Ram, a Hindu god.
Mr. Lal Krishna Advani who was then the President of BJP spearheaded the campaign against Babri Mosque and the mosque was demolished right in his presence. He later became Home Minister in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) ministry. He is known as hardliner Hindu. Shri Vajpayee who became Prime Minister of India in NDA Government, is known as the moderate face of BJP though one can say there is hardly any ideological difference between the two.
SECULAR AND UNSECULAR PEOPLE
Now question arises how many Indian people are secular and how many unsecular? Since secularism does not mean being this worldly in India, one cannot say how many are believers and how many unbelievers? On the contrary in Indian context what it means how many people are against people of minority religions like Islam and Christianity and how many people respect them.
In fact in India an overwhelming majority of people are religious but tolerant and respect other religions and are thus ‘secular’ in Indian context. Even Sufis and Bhakti Saints are considered quite secular in that sense. The followers of RSS and the BJP are very few, not more than 5-10 per cent. India has remained secular and democratic for its entire post-independence period (more than 58 years).
There is no doubt India has witnessed much communal violence but only due to involvement of RSS and BJP and occasionally the Congress in some places. Communalism is a powerful political weapon used by politicians of different hues. The Hindu masses are generally not to be blamed for such violence. However, few fanatics under the influence of RSS ideology are involved along with anti-social elements.
It is also true that on certain major issues like birth place of Ram people get misled by powerful communal propaganda and may side with the BJP but that does not mean they are for violence and bloodshed. If they are properly informed they withdraw their support. However, secular forces are not as pro-active as communal forces are. Communal forces are actively working spreading communal poison round the year whereas secular forces become active only after communal violence and once peace is established they become nonchalant. It is their nonchalance which, benefits communal forces.
The communal forces thus came to power through false propaganda but were exposed during this five-year rule and were voted out of power as they were perceived to be behind communal carnage in Gujarat in 2002. No less than a person like Vajpayee, the former Prime Minister of BJP, himself admitted that people rejected us because we were held responsible for the Gujarat carnage.
This confession on the part of ex-Prime Minister of BJP itself clearly establishes that people of India are by and large secular and do not like killing of others just because they are not Hindus. Not only the BJP lost the election but also its allies, which are otherwise considered secular. The BJP is today being deserted by its former allies as they realised that association with communal dispensation is not approved by the people of India.
There are some rationalists and secularists who reject religion in its entirety but such rationalists or secularists are extremely few. Though there are no census figures available but one can safely say they are less than 0.1% in India. Also, there are extremely orthodox people who exhibit rigidity and intolerance towards other faiths though of course not on communal grounds but on the grounds of religious orthodoxy but they too are in miniscule minority. Tolerance in India among people of all religions is widely prevalent. It is perhaps due to influence of ancient Indian doctrine that truth is one but is manifested in different forms, and on the other hand due to the Sufi doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (Real Being is one) that implies that there is only One Real Being and all of us are mere manifestations of that real being.
As the ancient Hindu doctrine leads to inclusiveness and peaceful coexistence so does the Sufi doctrine. For peaceful co-existence another Sufi doctrine of sulh-i-kul i.e. total peace and peace with all is very important. Sufism left deep influence on Hindu masses as much as on Muslim masses.
Thus the real spirit of secularism in India is all inclusiveness, religious pluralism and peaceful co-existence. However, it is politics, which proved to be divisive and not religion. It is not religious leaders by and large (with few exceptions) who divide but politicians who seek to mobilise votes on grounds of primordial identities like religion, caste and ethnicity.
In a multi-religious society, if politics is not based on issues but on identities, it can prove highly divisive. Politicians are tempted to appeal to primordial identities rather than to solve problems. The former case proves much easier. The medieval society in India was thus more religiously tolerant as it was non-competitive. The modern Indian society, on the other hand, has proved to be more divisive as it is based on competition. This competition becomes more acute if development is uneven and unjust.
Thus in case of India one can say by and large it is secular in as much as it is religiously plural and tolerant but there are politically divisive forces quite active and create communal pressure and widen the gap between religious community thus bringing Indian secularism under threat. (Secular Perspective)
«
By Asghar Ali Engineer
The Milli Gazette Online
23 June 2006
Secularism in India has very different meaning and implications. The word secularism has never been used in Indian context in the sense in which it has been used in Western countries i.e. in the sense of atheism or purely this worldly approach, rejecting the other-worldly beliefs.
India is a country where religion is very central to the life of people. India’s age-old philosophy as expounded in Hindu scriptures called Upanishad is sarva dharma samabhava, which means equal respect for all religions. The reason behind this approach is the fact that India has never been a mono-religious country. Even before the Aryan invasion India was not a mono-religious country.
There existed before Aryan invasion numerous tribal cults from north-western India to Kanya Kumari most of whom happened to be Dravidians. Thus certain languages in North West of Pakistan even today contain some words of Dravidian origin. However, with the invasion of Aryans people of Dravidian origin were driven down south and today we find all Dravidian people in four southern states of India.
Aryans brought new religion based on Vedas and Brahmins dominated intellectual life of north India. But a section of Brahmins also migrated to south and evolved new cults marrying Vedic cults with Dravidian ones. Thus it is said that Hindu Indians worship more than 33 hundred thousand gods and goddesses.
Thus even before advent of Christianity and Islam India was multi-religious in nature. Christianity and Islam added more religious traditions to existing Indian traditions. Thus it would be correct to say that India is bewilderingly diverse country in every respect – religious, cultural, ethnic and caste.
India is one country where caste rigidity and concept of untouchability evolved and still plays a major role in religious, social and cultural matters. Caste dynamics in Indian life, even in Christian and Islamic societies, plays larger than life role. Since most of the conversions to Christianity and Islam took place from lower caste Hindus, these two world religions also developed caste structure. There are lower caste churches and mosques in several places.
Under feudal system there was no competition between different religious traditions as authority resided in sword and generally there were no inter-religious tensions among the people of different religions. They co-existed in peace and harmony though at times inter-religious controversies did arise. However, there never took place bloodshed in the name of religion.
There was also tradition of tolerance between religions due to state policies of Ashoka and Akbar. Ashoka’s edicts clearly spell out policy of religious tolerance and Akbar used to hold inter-religious dialogue among followers of different religions and he also followed the policy of tolerance and even withdrew the jizya tax (poll tax on Hindus which was an irritant. Thus both Ashok and Akbar have place of great significance in religious life of India. No doubt they have been designated as ‘great’ i.e. they are referred to as Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great.
Also, India had Sufi and Bhakti traditions in Islam and Hinduism respectively. Both Sufism and Bhakti traditions were based on respect for different religions. The poorer and lower caste Hindus and Muslims were greatly influenced by these traditions. Unlike ‘ulama and Brahmans the Sufi and Bhakti saints were highly tolerant and open to the truth in other faiths. They never adopted sectarian attitudes and were never involved in power struggles. They kept away from power structures.
Nizamuddin Awliya, a great Sufi saints of 13-14th century saw the times of five Sultans but never paid court to a single one. When the last Sultan of his life sent a message requesting him to come to the court, he refused. Then he sent the message that if Nizamuddin does not come to my court, I (the Sultan) will come to his hospice. He replied that there are two doors to my hospice; if Sultan enters by one, I will leave by the other. Such was the approach of Sufis and Saints to power structure of their time.
Dara Shikoh, was heir apparent to Shajahan, the Moghul Emperor but had sufi bent of mind and was also a great scholar of Islam and Hinduism. He wrote a book Majmau’l Bahrayn (Co-mingling of Two Oceans Islam and Hinduism) and quoting from Hindu and Islamic scriptures showed both religions had similar teachings. The difference was of languages (Arabic and Sanskrit) and not teachings. Thus Dara Shikoh also contributed richly to inter-religious harmony in India.
Most of the conversions to Islam and Christianity took place through Sufis and missionaries with a spirit of devotion. Even today in India most of the Christians and Muslims belong to these lower caste strata. Even centuries after conversion their caste status and economic status has not changed.
EMERGENCE OF COMPETITIVE POLITICS
However, the entire social, economic and political scenario changed after advent of the British rule in 19th century. Differences between Hindu and Muslim elite began to emerge for various reasons – socio-cultural, economic and political. The British rulers adopted the policy of divide and rule, distorted medieval Indian history to make Muslim rulers appear as tyrants to the Hindu elite. This distorted history was taught in new school system, which was established by the British rulers.
Also there developed economic and political competition between Hindu and Muslim elite leading to communal tensions. The Hindu elite was quick to adjust to new realities and took to modern education and commerce and industries. The Muslim ruling elite resisted new secular education system and also could not take to commerce and industry. They were thus left far behind in the race for progress.
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had a perceptive mind. He understood importance of modern education system and founded Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College (MAO College) which became fulcrum of modern education for North Indian Muslim elite. The orthodox Ulama, however, vehemently opposed modern secular education and declared Syed Ahmad Khan as kafir (unbeliever) as he was supporting modern secular education.
Initially Hindu and Muslim elite cooperated with each other and Syed Ahmad Khan always emphasised Hindu-Muslim unity but the competitive nature of political and economic power drove wedge between the two elites and communal tensions began to emerge. When Indian National Congress was formed in 1885, it adopted secularism as its anchor sheet in view of multi-religious nature of Indian society.
India could not head towards Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) as India was not merely a Hindu country. In pre-partition period Muslims were 25% besides Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. However, Hindu society was highly fragmented society and far from monolithic. The dalits (low caste people) refused to call themselves as Hindus (subsequently their leader B.R.Ambedkar) adopted Buddhism in protest).
Muslims too, though not monolithic, had semblance of unity and this was used by communal Hindus to try to unite Hindus as one community. However, it is also true that the Hindu elite was more confident than the Muslim elite in the emerging new power-structure and felt more secure. Muslim elite felt less secure and they hitched their wagon with the British rulers. They wanted to share power-sharing arrangement before the British left the country.
Thus secularism in India was more a political than philosophical phenomenon. The Indian National Congress adopted secularism, not as this worldly philosophy but more as a political arrangement between different religious communities. As power-sharing arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out between the Hindu and Muslim elite the country was divided into two independent states of India and Pakistan, Muslim majority areas of North-West going to Pakistan.
After independence and partition a large body of Muslims were left in India and hence the leaders like Gandhi and Nehru preferred to keep India secular in the sense that Indian state will have no religion though people of India will be free both in individual and corporate sense to follow any religion of their birth or adoption. Thus India remained politically secular but otherwise its people continued to be deeply religious.
In India right from the British period main contradiction was not between religious and secular but it was between secular and communal. In the western world main struggle was between church and state and church and civil society but in India neither Hinduism nor Islam had any church-like structure and hence there never was any such struggle between secular and religious power structure.
The main struggle was between secularism and communalism. The communal forces from among Hindus and Muslims mainly fought for share in power though they used their respective religions for their struggle for power.
Even after partition communal problem did not die. It raised its head again within few years. The RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh), which is mainspring of Hindu right remained in existence and at its instance a new political outfit, which was communal in nature came into existence called Jan Sangh. In independent India the Jan Sangh was mainspring of communal problem and it kept on denouncing secularism as western concept alien to the Indian ethos.
Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India was great champion of secularism and secular politics. Theoretically speaking the Congress Party was also committed to secularism. However, the Congress Party consisted of several members and leaders whose secularism was in doubt. But it was due to Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and B.R.Ambedkar that India committed itself to secularism and its Constitution was drafted on secular lines.
Secularism in India, as pointed out before, meant equal respect for all religions and cultures and non-interference of religion in the government affairs. Also, according to the Indian Constitution no discrimination will be made on the basis of caste, creed, gender and class. Similarly all citizens of India irrespective of ones religion, caste or gender have right to vote. According to articles 14 to 21 all will enjoy same rights without any discrimination on any ground.
According to Article 25 all those who reside in India are free to confess, practice and propagate religion of one’s choice subject of course to social health and law and order. Thus even conversion to any religion of ones choice is a fundamental right. But the BJP (Bhartiya Janta Party) and RSS are opposed to all this. According to them there should be Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) in India and Muslims and Sikhs should be secondary citizens without any political right.
Since the BJP is a political party it cannot say so openly and publicly. It also has to take pledge of secularism for contesting election. But since it is integral part of RSS ideology it is also responsible for RSS beliefs. In fact all secular forces in India consider the BJP as a communal party. It always takes anti-minority stance and accuses the Congress, supposedly a secular party, of ‘appeasement’ of minorities. It also describes the Congress and other secular parties as indulging in ‘pseudo-secularism’.
The RSS and BJP also known as the Sangh Parivar, not only reject secularism but provoke violence against minorities. Since independence several major communal riots have taken pace in India. The first such riot took place in Jabalpur in Central India and last major riot took place in Gujarat in Western India in 2002 in which more than 2000 Muslims were killed and several women were raped. When the Gujarat carnage took place in 2002 BJP was ruling over Gujarat.
According to the filed evidence Chief Minister of BJP party Mr. Narendra Modi was involved along with the entire governmental machinery in the carnage and on this basis the US Government denied him visa in early 2005. The BJP was directly involved in high pitch propaganda against the historic mosque called Babri Mosque and ultimately demolished it claiming it to be a birth -place of Lord Ram, a Hindu god.
Mr. Lal Krishna Advani who was then the President of BJP spearheaded the campaign against Babri Mosque and the mosque was demolished right in his presence. He later became Home Minister in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) ministry. He is known as hardliner Hindu. Shri Vajpayee who became Prime Minister of India in NDA Government, is known as the moderate face of BJP though one can say there is hardly any ideological difference between the two.
SECULAR AND UNSECULAR PEOPLE
Now question arises how many Indian people are secular and how many unsecular? Since secularism does not mean being this worldly in India, one cannot say how many are believers and how many unbelievers? On the contrary in Indian context what it means how many people are against people of minority religions like Islam and Christianity and how many people respect them.
In fact in India an overwhelming majority of people are religious but tolerant and respect other religions and are thus ‘secular’ in Indian context. Even Sufis and Bhakti Saints are considered quite secular in that sense. The followers of RSS and the BJP are very few, not more than 5-10 per cent. India has remained secular and democratic for its entire post-independence period (more than 58 years).
There is no doubt India has witnessed much communal violence but only due to involvement of RSS and BJP and occasionally the Congress in some places. Communalism is a powerful political weapon used by politicians of different hues. The Hindu masses are generally not to be blamed for such violence. However, few fanatics under the influence of RSS ideology are involved along with anti-social elements.
It is also true that on certain major issues like birth place of Ram people get misled by powerful communal propaganda and may side with the BJP but that does not mean they are for violence and bloodshed. If they are properly informed they withdraw their support. However, secular forces are not as pro-active as communal forces are. Communal forces are actively working spreading communal poison round the year whereas secular forces become active only after communal violence and once peace is established they become nonchalant. It is their nonchalance which, benefits communal forces.
The communal forces thus came to power through false propaganda but were exposed during this five-year rule and were voted out of power as they were perceived to be behind communal carnage in Gujarat in 2002. No less than a person like Vajpayee, the former Prime Minister of BJP, himself admitted that people rejected us because we were held responsible for the Gujarat carnage.
This confession on the part of ex-Prime Minister of BJP itself clearly establishes that people of India are by and large secular and do not like killing of others just because they are not Hindus. Not only the BJP lost the election but also its allies, which are otherwise considered secular. The BJP is today being deserted by its former allies as they realised that association with communal dispensation is not approved by the people of India.
There are some rationalists and secularists who reject religion in its entirety but such rationalists or secularists are extremely few. Though there are no census figures available but one can safely say they are less than 0.1% in India. Also, there are extremely orthodox people who exhibit rigidity and intolerance towards other faiths though of course not on communal grounds but on the grounds of religious orthodoxy but they too are in miniscule minority. Tolerance in India among people of all religions is widely prevalent. It is perhaps due to influence of ancient Indian doctrine that truth is one but is manifested in different forms, and on the other hand due to the Sufi doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (Real Being is one) that implies that there is only One Real Being and all of us are mere manifestations of that real being.
As the ancient Hindu doctrine leads to inclusiveness and peaceful coexistence so does the Sufi doctrine. For peaceful co-existence another Sufi doctrine of sulh-i-kul i.e. total peace and peace with all is very important. Sufism left deep influence on Hindu masses as much as on Muslim masses.
Thus the real spirit of secularism in India is all inclusiveness, religious pluralism and peaceful co-existence. However, it is politics, which proved to be divisive and not religion. It is not religious leaders by and large (with few exceptions) who divide but politicians who seek to mobilise votes on grounds of primordial identities like religion, caste and ethnicity.
In a multi-religious society, if politics is not based on issues but on identities, it can prove highly divisive. Politicians are tempted to appeal to primordial identities rather than to solve problems. The former case proves much easier. The medieval society in India was thus more religiously tolerant as it was non-competitive. The modern Indian society, on the other hand, has proved to be more divisive as it is based on competition. This competition becomes more acute if development is uneven and unjust.
Thus in case of India one can say by and large it is secular in as much as it is religiously plural and tolerant but there are politically divisive forces quite active and create communal pressure and widen the gap between religious community thus bringing Indian secularism under threat. (Secular Perspective)
«
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Secular India New Hopes
Editorial:-
Secular India New Hopes
I would like to brief a few words about the subject of Secular India new hopes. We all are from India and proud of our great Nation because India is Secular Democratic Republican Country. After the independence of India we faced lot of communal, religious & Cast system, our government had been solved 75% of that.
We had greater leaders like Mahathma Gandhi, Pundit Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad and others all are made their good & powerful leader ship for build a new India. The assassination of Gandhi and Demolition of Babri Mosque are the major wounds in our secularism forever.
However at the present world India is one among the powerful secular country in the world. Now we know what is going on our neighboring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Srilanka. There is no more stable Government and no peace no power and no freedom and no wealth and no progress.
The great turbulence from our neighborhood Pakistan actually India wanted peace with Pakistan. But it takes two hands to clap. “If the leadership of Pakistan have stability, courage and determination and statesmanship to take this road to peace we will meet them more than half way”.
And also Pakistan named as a Islamic country and their always making trouble for Indian Muslims also. My dream if Pakistan and Bangladesh keep quite with Indian Muslim Community and stop terrorism by the name of Islam, Indian Muslims almost seeking peace and nationalism
Now we have hopes about our country because our secular government under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh and Soniya Gandhi re-elected by the public Election. And the major Communal party under the leadership of Adwani and Modi going down and the public mandate is against them by past election.
The renewed vote for the Congress led United Progressive Alliance as “a mandate for stability, change with continuity, and commitment to inclusive growth, equitable developments, and commitment to the preservation and protection of a secular and plural India”
The running governments flagship policies to improve the lot of the poor and pay more attention to rural development, health and improved public services through greater transparency.
And there is no meaning I am fully satisfied & confidence with our running government. They should work hard and innocent to implement our secularism in our secular India. Otherwise we will lose our dignity of great India.
1. Government should take action above Libarhan Commission about Babri Mosque & other commission like Gujarath Riot etc.
2. They should make sure our Executive and Judiciary working without partiality.
3. Over the use of money and muscle power and other influence in elections.
4. And make sure everyone not to encourage groups and individuals who seek to divide the country in the name of religious, caste and communalism.
Let me conclude my words I have confidence and hope with our secular India and I wish our secular India become a developed country among the modern world.
Thank you.
Editor
Eyenewsworld.
Secular India New Hopes
I would like to brief a few words about the subject of Secular India new hopes. We all are from India and proud of our great Nation because India is Secular Democratic Republican Country. After the independence of India we faced lot of communal, religious & Cast system, our government had been solved 75% of that.
We had greater leaders like Mahathma Gandhi, Pundit Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad and others all are made their good & powerful leader ship for build a new India. The assassination of Gandhi and Demolition of Babri Mosque are the major wounds in our secularism forever.
However at the present world India is one among the powerful secular country in the world. Now we know what is going on our neighboring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Srilanka. There is no more stable Government and no peace no power and no freedom and no wealth and no progress.
The great turbulence from our neighborhood Pakistan actually India wanted peace with Pakistan. But it takes two hands to clap. “If the leadership of Pakistan have stability, courage and determination and statesmanship to take this road to peace we will meet them more than half way”.
And also Pakistan named as a Islamic country and their always making trouble for Indian Muslims also. My dream if Pakistan and Bangladesh keep quite with Indian Muslim Community and stop terrorism by the name of Islam, Indian Muslims almost seeking peace and nationalism
Now we have hopes about our country because our secular government under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh and Soniya Gandhi re-elected by the public Election. And the major Communal party under the leadership of Adwani and Modi going down and the public mandate is against them by past election.
The renewed vote for the Congress led United Progressive Alliance as “a mandate for stability, change with continuity, and commitment to inclusive growth, equitable developments, and commitment to the preservation and protection of a secular and plural India”
The running governments flagship policies to improve the lot of the poor and pay more attention to rural development, health and improved public services through greater transparency.
And there is no meaning I am fully satisfied & confidence with our running government. They should work hard and innocent to implement our secularism in our secular India. Otherwise we will lose our dignity of great India.
1. Government should take action above Libarhan Commission about Babri Mosque & other commission like Gujarath Riot etc.
2. They should make sure our Executive and Judiciary working without partiality.
3. Over the use of money and muscle power and other influence in elections.
4. And make sure everyone not to encourage groups and individuals who seek to divide the country in the name of religious, caste and communalism.
Let me conclude my words I have confidence and hope with our secular India and I wish our secular India become a developed country among the modern world.
Thank you.
Editor
Eyenewsworld.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sarabjit appeals to Zardari in the name of Islam
Islamabad: Indian prisoner on death row Sarabjit Singh has made an emotional appeal to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari pleading amnesty, so that he could live his "remaining life with his wife and children."
The mercy petition, to be submitted to Zardari tomorrow reads, "I Sarabjit Singh, a prisoner for death, is languishing in jail's dark cell for the last 19 years."
"I appeal you in the name of Allah and humanity that kindly pardon me so that whatever months and years I have left with me, I could spent them with my wife and children in my country," Sarabjit said in his petition written in Urdu.
According to Singh's new lawyer Awais Sheikh, the fresh petition will be filed before Zardari tomorrow in the wake of the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against the capital punishment.
What is your openion! Please commence.....Editor -Eyenewsworld
The mercy petition, to be submitted to Zardari tomorrow reads, "I Sarabjit Singh, a prisoner for death, is languishing in jail's dark cell for the last 19 years."
"I appeal you in the name of Allah and humanity that kindly pardon me so that whatever months and years I have left with me, I could spent them with my wife and children in my country," Sarabjit said in his petition written in Urdu.
According to Singh's new lawyer Awais Sheikh, the fresh petition will be filed before Zardari tomorrow in the wake of the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against the capital punishment.
What is your openion! Please commence.....Editor -Eyenewsworld
New Delhi, June 9 (IANS) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday promised sustained but inclusive economic growth and vowed to protect the country’s secular and plural ethos as he unveiled the agenda of his new government after its return to power with a larger mandate.
Delivering his first major policy address since the election victory in May, Manmohan Singh covered a range of issues in which he pressed Pakistan to dismantle its terror “infrastructure” if it wanted India’s friendship and dubbed as racist the continuing attacks on Indian students in Australia.
The prime minister was speaking in the Lok Sabha following a debate by members on President Pratibha Patil’s earlier address to members from both the houses.
He described the renewed vote for the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance as “a mandate for stability, change with continuity, commitment to inclusive growth, equitable development, and commitment to the preservation and protection of a secular and plural India”.
In a 45-minute address that was heard with attention, Manmohan Singh pledged to strengthen his government’s flagship policies to improve the lot of the poor and pay more attention to rural development, health and improved public services through greater transparency.
As MPs occasionally thumped their desks in appreciation, the prime minister underlined
“In the last one year our economy was affected and our growth rate declined to about 7 percent,” he said. But due to high savings, New Delhi would manage 8-9 percent growth even if the world did not, he said.
One of India’s most respected politicians, Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the use of money and muscle power in elections and said these needed to be curbed.
“The growing use of money power in elections, muscle power, these are developments which need to be tackled if we have to maintain the health of our democratic polity.”
He also urged everyone not to encourage groups and individuals who seek to divide the country in the name of religion and caste.
Speaking on the growing attacks on Indians studying in Australia, the prime minister said his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd had promised to “strongly deal with” racial attacks on Indians. He called the attacks “senseless” and “racially motivated”.
Arguing that India could not enjoy the fruits of development if there was
“great turbulence” in its neighbourhood, Manmohan Singh said India wanted peace with Pakistan. “But it takes two hands to clap.”
He pressed Pakistan to take action against terrorists who have committed or commit crimes against India, including those who raided Mumbai and killed more than 170 people in November last year. If this was done, the prime minister said, India would Pakistan “more than half way”.
“If the leaders of Pakistan have the courage, determination and statesmanship to take this road to peace, we will meet them more than half way.”
He also urged Sri Lanka to “show imagination and courage” to meet Tamil concerns following the crushing defeat of the Tamil Tigers.
India, he said, had “a deep and abiding interest in the well being of the Tamil people in that country”. The Tamil problem, he pointed out, is larger than the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
“I sincerely hope the Sri Lankan government will show imagination and courage in meeting the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Tamil people to lead their lives as equal citizens and with dignity and respect.”
Sphere: Related Content
Delivering his first major policy address since the election victory in May, Manmohan Singh covered a range of issues in which he pressed Pakistan to dismantle its terror “infrastructure” if it wanted India’s friendship and dubbed as racist the continuing attacks on Indian students in Australia.
The prime minister was speaking in the Lok Sabha following a debate by members on President Pratibha Patil’s earlier address to members from both the houses.
He described the renewed vote for the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance as “a mandate for stability, change with continuity, commitment to inclusive growth, equitable development, and commitment to the preservation and protection of a secular and plural India”.
In a 45-minute address that was heard with attention, Manmohan Singh pledged to strengthen his government’s flagship policies to improve the lot of the poor and pay more attention to rural development, health and improved public services through greater transparency.
As MPs occasionally thumped their desks in appreciation, the prime minister underlined
“In the last one year our economy was affected and our growth rate declined to about 7 percent,” he said. But due to high savings, New Delhi would manage 8-9 percent growth even if the world did not, he said.
One of India’s most respected politicians, Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the use of money and muscle power in elections and said these needed to be curbed.
“The growing use of money power in elections, muscle power, these are developments which need to be tackled if we have to maintain the health of our democratic polity.”
He also urged everyone not to encourage groups and individuals who seek to divide the country in the name of religion and caste.
Speaking on the growing attacks on Indians studying in Australia, the prime minister said his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd had promised to “strongly deal with” racial attacks on Indians. He called the attacks “senseless” and “racially motivated”.
Arguing that India could not enjoy the fruits of development if there was
“great turbulence” in its neighbourhood, Manmohan Singh said India wanted peace with Pakistan. “But it takes two hands to clap.”
He pressed Pakistan to take action against terrorists who have committed or commit crimes against India, including those who raided Mumbai and killed more than 170 people in November last year. If this was done, the prime minister said, India would Pakistan “more than half way”.
“If the leaders of Pakistan have the courage, determination and statesmanship to take this road to peace, we will meet them more than half way.”
He also urged Sri Lanka to “show imagination and courage” to meet Tamil concerns following the crushing defeat of the Tamil Tigers.
India, he said, had “a deep and abiding interest in the well being of the Tamil people in that country”. The Tamil problem, he pointed out, is larger than the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
“I sincerely hope the Sri Lankan government will show imagination and courage in meeting the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Tamil people to lead their lives as equal citizens and with dignity and respect.”
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, July 6, 2009
Highlights of Union Budget 2009
Union Budget Highlights: What is in it for you?
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee presented Union Budget 2009 in the Parliament. The Minister commenced his speech by stating that the mandate for UPA in the just concluded General Elections is in fact a mandate for inclusive growth and went on to spell out the road ahead for India's growth story.
Highlights of Union Budget 2009:
Impact & outcome
Cheaper: Footwear, LCD TVs, branded jewellery, drugs for heart treatment, bulk drugs, textiles
Dearer: Mobile phones, set-top boxes, gold bars, gold and silver import
Tax slabs raised
Income tax exemption limit for others raised by Rs 10,000 (Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 1.6 lakh)
Income tax exemption limit for women raised by Rs 10,000 (Rs 1.80 lakh to Rs 1.90 lakh)
Income tax exemption limit for senior citizens raised by Rs 15,000 (Rs 2.25 lakh to Rs 2.40 lakh)
10% surcharge in Direct Taxes scrapped
Individual law consultation not to attract service tax
I-T Saral II form to be introduced
No change in corporate taxation
SEC 80IB benefit extended to natural gas
Investment-linked tax benefits for gas pipelines, cold chains
Sunset clause for Software Technology Parks of India (STPIs) extended by 1 year
Minimum alternate tax increased to 15% from 10% of book profit
Section 80DD to be hiked to Rs 1 lakh
Fringe benefit tax scrapped
What is in it for you?
Govt to spend Rs 120 cr in FY10 on unique ID
Certain pension-related benefits extended to war-hounded
National Web Portal for employer and employee to be launched
Stepped up allocation of funds from Rs 10,800 cr to Rs 15,800 cr for railways
Aila hurricane relief at Rs 1,000 cr
What Young India gets?
Employment exchanges to be modernised
Interest subsidy for educational loans
Plan to cut female illiteracy by half in three yrs
To launch national mission on female literacy
What Agriculture sector gets?
Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna stepped up by 30%
Agri credit for at Rs 3.25 lakh crore for 09-10
Budget makes subvention of 1% to benefit farmers
Proposes to extend deadline to farmers to pay off 75% of loans by six months to December 31, 2009
Ensure 4% agriculture growth
What Rural India gets?
To provide Rs 2000 cr for rural housing
Banking facilities in remote areas in next 3 years
To add handloom clusters in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu
Govt aims to have social security for informal sector
PM's Adarsh Gram Yojana starts with Rs 100 cr funding
NHB refinance to rural housing sector to be raised
Indira Awaas Yojana outlay increased by 63%
Bharat Nirman outlay raised by 59%
Food security to provide rice, wheat at Rs 3 a kg to poor
Allocation for Indira Awaas Yojana to be increased by 63%
Govt. to move food security bill very soon
NREGA outlay increased by 144%
NREGA min wages set at Rs 100/day
Special fund of Rs 4,000 cr from Rural Infra Dev fund to provide cheap loans to MSME
PSUs: Disinvestment on backburner
PSU companies to remain under government control
Govt wants public shareholding in PSUs to go up
PSUs to remain under govt control
Govt to set-up expert committee to advise on petro pricing products
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
There are signs of revival in domestic industry
Sops for industry
Construction: Restore full exemption on goods such as pre-fabricated slabs
Branded jewellery exempted from excise duty
Tax holiday on commercial production of mineral oil and natural gas on NELP VIII
MAT hiked to 15% of book profit from 10%
To introduce GST by April 1, 2010
Govt wants public shareholding in PSUs to go up
PSUs to remain under govt control
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
Exporters borne the brunt of eco crisis, will provide adj assistance till March 2010
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Infra investment to be over 9% of GDP by 2014
Gross capital flow rose to over 9% over GDP
Financial sector: The road ahead
Budget estimates: Interest payment expected at Rs 2,25,511 cr
8.5% growth in recent past fueled by pvt sector investment
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
Turbulence in world markets left Indian financial sector unaffected
Fiscal deficit up to 6.2% from 2.7% fo GDP
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Advantage Infrastructure
Rs 1 lakh crore projects for Infrastructure revival
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Highway and railways: Allocation hiked by 23%
Stepped up allocation of funds from Rs 10,800 cr to Rs 15,800 cr for railways
Govt have some success in attracting investments in certain sectors through PPP
Allocation for Mumbai flood management hiked
Defence Budgets
To spend Rs 1.42 lakh cr on defence
Govt to build 100,000 homes for paramilitary forces
Paramilitary housing project to cost Rs 1,000 cr
Certain Pension related benefits extended to war hounded
Paramilitary housing cost estimated at Rs 1,000 cr
Govt proposes to launch housing for 1 lakh para military forces
Challenges ahead
Fiscal deficit grew from 2.7% to 6.8% of GDP
To lead the economy back to 9% growth
Growth rate in 2008-09 dipped to 6.7% from average 9 % growth in previous 3 fiscal years
Follow MSN India's complete Budget coverage on Twitter
Latest Headlines
Income Tax sops; incentive for farm, exporters
Income tax limit increased, corporate tax unchanged
Fiscal deficit up from Rs 193 lakh cr to Rs 10 lakh cr
Divestment programme revived in General Budget 2009
Stimulus packge for print media extended till Dec 31
Tax structure to be simplified in four years
Sensex soars on hopes of sops from Union Budget
After 25 years, Pranab scores a double first
Budget makes no difference to households, says survey
Roll back stimulus measures: Planning Commission to FM
Budget unlikely to raise cess on petrol, diesel
Govt may extend tax holiday for software firms
Industry wishlist
Dear FM, could you please be our Santa?
What to expect, what not to expect from Pranab's budget?
Simplify taxation process, do away with some Ts?
Own part of a PSU and partner with Mr FM!
How Budgets impact your personal finances
Image Gallery
Pranab Mukherjee's pre-Budget photo call
Watch Videos
Budget 2009 videos: Long road ahead to recovery, say experts
Message board
Will Pranab’s budget take India’s growth story forward?
Will Budget take India’s growth story forward?
Has Pranab done justice to the salaried class?
Will Budget 2009 help fight economic slowdown?
Have the Senior Citizens got a fair deal?
Are the housewives taken for a ride?
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee presented Union Budget 2009 in the Parliament. The Minister commenced his speech by stating that the mandate for UPA in the just concluded General Elections is in fact a mandate for inclusive growth and went on to spell out the road ahead for India's growth story.
Highlights of Union Budget 2009:
Impact & outcome
Cheaper: Footwear, LCD TVs, branded jewellery, drugs for heart treatment, bulk drugs, textiles
Dearer: Mobile phones, set-top boxes, gold bars, gold and silver import
Tax slabs raised
Income tax exemption limit for others raised by Rs 10,000 (Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 1.6 lakh)
Income tax exemption limit for women raised by Rs 10,000 (Rs 1.80 lakh to Rs 1.90 lakh)
Income tax exemption limit for senior citizens raised by Rs 15,000 (Rs 2.25 lakh to Rs 2.40 lakh)
10% surcharge in Direct Taxes scrapped
Individual law consultation not to attract service tax
I-T Saral II form to be introduced
No change in corporate taxation
SEC 80IB benefit extended to natural gas
Investment-linked tax benefits for gas pipelines, cold chains
Sunset clause for Software Technology Parks of India (STPIs) extended by 1 year
Minimum alternate tax increased to 15% from 10% of book profit
Section 80DD to be hiked to Rs 1 lakh
Fringe benefit tax scrapped
What is in it for you?
Govt to spend Rs 120 cr in FY10 on unique ID
Certain pension-related benefits extended to war-hounded
National Web Portal for employer and employee to be launched
Stepped up allocation of funds from Rs 10,800 cr to Rs 15,800 cr for railways
Aila hurricane relief at Rs 1,000 cr
What Young India gets?
Employment exchanges to be modernised
Interest subsidy for educational loans
Plan to cut female illiteracy by half in three yrs
To launch national mission on female literacy
What Agriculture sector gets?
Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna stepped up by 30%
Agri credit for at Rs 3.25 lakh crore for 09-10
Budget makes subvention of 1% to benefit farmers
Proposes to extend deadline to farmers to pay off 75% of loans by six months to December 31, 2009
Ensure 4% agriculture growth
What Rural India gets?
To provide Rs 2000 cr for rural housing
Banking facilities in remote areas in next 3 years
To add handloom clusters in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu
Govt aims to have social security for informal sector
PM's Adarsh Gram Yojana starts with Rs 100 cr funding
NHB refinance to rural housing sector to be raised
Indira Awaas Yojana outlay increased by 63%
Bharat Nirman outlay raised by 59%
Food security to provide rice, wheat at Rs 3 a kg to poor
Allocation for Indira Awaas Yojana to be increased by 63%
Govt. to move food security bill very soon
NREGA outlay increased by 144%
NREGA min wages set at Rs 100/day
Special fund of Rs 4,000 cr from Rural Infra Dev fund to provide cheap loans to MSME
PSUs: Disinvestment on backburner
PSU companies to remain under government control
Govt wants public shareholding in PSUs to go up
PSUs to remain under govt control
Govt to set-up expert committee to advise on petro pricing products
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
There are signs of revival in domestic industry
Sops for industry
Construction: Restore full exemption on goods such as pre-fabricated slabs
Branded jewellery exempted from excise duty
Tax holiday on commercial production of mineral oil and natural gas on NELP VIII
MAT hiked to 15% of book profit from 10%
To introduce GST by April 1, 2010
Govt wants public shareholding in PSUs to go up
PSUs to remain under govt control
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
Exporters borne the brunt of eco crisis, will provide adj assistance till March 2010
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Infra investment to be over 9% of GDP by 2014
Gross capital flow rose to over 9% over GDP
Financial sector: The road ahead
Budget estimates: Interest payment expected at Rs 2,25,511 cr
8.5% growth in recent past fueled by pvt sector investment
PSU Banks, insurance firms outside disinvestment plan
Turbulence in world markets left Indian financial sector unaffected
Fiscal deficit up to 6.2% from 2.7% fo GDP
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Advantage Infrastructure
Rs 1 lakh crore projects for Infrastructure revival
IIFCL and banks in position to support Rs 1,00,000 cr in infrastructure
Highway and railways: Allocation hiked by 23%
Stepped up allocation of funds from Rs 10,800 cr to Rs 15,800 cr for railways
Govt have some success in attracting investments in certain sectors through PPP
Allocation for Mumbai flood management hiked
Defence Budgets
To spend Rs 1.42 lakh cr on defence
Govt to build 100,000 homes for paramilitary forces
Paramilitary housing project to cost Rs 1,000 cr
Certain Pension related benefits extended to war hounded
Paramilitary housing cost estimated at Rs 1,000 cr
Govt proposes to launch housing for 1 lakh para military forces
Challenges ahead
Fiscal deficit grew from 2.7% to 6.8% of GDP
To lead the economy back to 9% growth
Growth rate in 2008-09 dipped to 6.7% from average 9 % growth in previous 3 fiscal years
Follow MSN India's complete Budget coverage on Twitter
Latest Headlines
Income Tax sops; incentive for farm, exporters
Income tax limit increased, corporate tax unchanged
Fiscal deficit up from Rs 193 lakh cr to Rs 10 lakh cr
Divestment programme revived in General Budget 2009
Stimulus packge for print media extended till Dec 31
Tax structure to be simplified in four years
Sensex soars on hopes of sops from Union Budget
After 25 years, Pranab scores a double first
Budget makes no difference to households, says survey
Roll back stimulus measures: Planning Commission to FM
Budget unlikely to raise cess on petrol, diesel
Govt may extend tax holiday for software firms
Industry wishlist
Dear FM, could you please be our Santa?
What to expect, what not to expect from Pranab's budget?
Simplify taxation process, do away with some Ts?
Own part of a PSU and partner with Mr FM!
How Budgets impact your personal finances
Image Gallery
Pranab Mukherjee's pre-Budget photo call
Watch Videos
Budget 2009 videos: Long road ahead to recovery, say experts
Message board
Will Pranab’s budget take India’s growth story forward?
Will Budget take India’s growth story forward?
Has Pranab done justice to the salaried class?
Will Budget 2009 help fight economic slowdown?
Have the Senior Citizens got a fair deal?
Are the housewives taken for a ride?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
No other finance minister in independent India has presented an interim Budget before the elections
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee will have a unique distinction. No other finance minister in independent India has presented an interim Budget before the elections and then followed that up with a regular Budget for the same year after being voted back to power
Focus on how markets will react
Hike in cess on fuel unlikely
No impact on daily lives: survey
Budget makes no difference to households, says survey
New Delhi: More than half the respondents of a pre-Budget survey think this annual exercise doesn’t impact their daily lives.
Even as Pranab Mukherjee rises to present the Union Budget in Parliament at 11 am on Monday, a nationwide survey reveals that most Indian households think this annual exercise has no significant effect on their daily lives.
Adding to this, a majority (60 per cent) of the 5,468 households surveyed, covering different income groups, said the Budget document did not make much sense to them and a quarter of the respondents derided the relevance of the exercise because they believed most policy decisions were taken outside the Budget anyway.
The survey, conducted by UTVi-CVoter to gauge the expectations of ordinary citizens from the Budget, found that the majority wanted the Budget to be a less secretive document and easier to understand.
The survey also found that almost half the respondents did not believe that their lives were getting better and as much as 68 per cent felt the taxes they paid were too high and should be reduced to leave more money in people's hands to meet rising day-to-day expenditure.
Respondents felt a reduction in personal tax levels would make consumer goods, health insurance, automotives and certain food items like dairy products, tea and coffee cheaper, leading to positive impacts on the cost and quality of living.
In 2008-09, when the global economic crisis started impacting India, 48 per cent of the respondents revealed that their expenditure had gone up and incomes were static while around 20 per cent experienced a surge in expenditure and declining income.
The survey revealed that nearly 75 per cent of the respondents felt an income of Rs 50,000 a month is enough for a family of four with nearly a third saying incomes should be made tax-free.
The survey also found that the quality of life of around 65 per cent of Indian households has deteriorated in the past one year because of rising prices, especially of food articles. The inflation rate has remained below 3 per cent since December 2008 and entered negative territory three weeks ago.
Besides rising prices of food, prices of other items like cooking gas, local transport, airfares, education, fuel prices, property rentals, healthcare and even expensive domestic help have significantly increased the cost of living for the average Indian household.
As far as the future outlook on the quality of life is concerned, public opinion is divided with 38 per cent saying the quality of life will be static, another 38 per cent predicting an improvement, with the rest expecting a deterioration in the next year.
Source: Business Standard
Catch the Budget excitement : Complete coverage
More on News
Rate this article: PoorThank you for rating.Excellent
Your rating helps other users gauge the value of an article
Thank you for rating.
Average rating: from 0 users
Focus on how markets will react
Hike in cess on fuel unlikely
No impact on daily lives: survey
Budget makes no difference to households, says survey
New Delhi: More than half the respondents of a pre-Budget survey think this annual exercise doesn’t impact their daily lives.
Even as Pranab Mukherjee rises to present the Union Budget in Parliament at 11 am on Monday, a nationwide survey reveals that most Indian households think this annual exercise has no significant effect on their daily lives.
Adding to this, a majority (60 per cent) of the 5,468 households surveyed, covering different income groups, said the Budget document did not make much sense to them and a quarter of the respondents derided the relevance of the exercise because they believed most policy decisions were taken outside the Budget anyway.
The survey, conducted by UTVi-CVoter to gauge the expectations of ordinary citizens from the Budget, found that the majority wanted the Budget to be a less secretive document and easier to understand.
The survey also found that almost half the respondents did not believe that their lives were getting better and as much as 68 per cent felt the taxes they paid were too high and should be reduced to leave more money in people's hands to meet rising day-to-day expenditure.
Respondents felt a reduction in personal tax levels would make consumer goods, health insurance, automotives and certain food items like dairy products, tea and coffee cheaper, leading to positive impacts on the cost and quality of living.
In 2008-09, when the global economic crisis started impacting India, 48 per cent of the respondents revealed that their expenditure had gone up and incomes were static while around 20 per cent experienced a surge in expenditure and declining income.
The survey revealed that nearly 75 per cent of the respondents felt an income of Rs 50,000 a month is enough for a family of four with nearly a third saying incomes should be made tax-free.
The survey also found that the quality of life of around 65 per cent of Indian households has deteriorated in the past one year because of rising prices, especially of food articles. The inflation rate has remained below 3 per cent since December 2008 and entered negative territory three weeks ago.
Besides rising prices of food, prices of other items like cooking gas, local transport, airfares, education, fuel prices, property rentals, healthcare and even expensive domestic help have significantly increased the cost of living for the average Indian household.
As far as the future outlook on the quality of life is concerned, public opinion is divided with 38 per cent saying the quality of life will be static, another 38 per cent predicting an improvement, with the rest expecting a deterioration in the next year.
Source: Business Standard
Catch the Budget excitement : Complete coverage
More on News
Rate this article: PoorThank you for rating.Excellent
Your rating helps other users gauge the value of an article
Thank you for rating.
Average rating: from 0 users
After 25 years, Pranab scores a double first
New Delhi: He’s the first finance minister to present Budgets on either side of an election and the first to do so after a quarter-century gap
When Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee rises in the Lok Sabha Monday to present the Union Budget for 2009-10, he would have earned a unique distinction. No other finance minister in independent India has presented an interim Budget before the elections and then followed that up with a regular Budget for the same year after being voted back to power.
His prime minister, Manmohan Singh (finance minister from 1991 to 1996), presented the Interim Budget for 1996-97 before the polls, but the Congress lost the general elections held in April-May 1996. Palaniappan Chidambaram became the finance minister under the United Front government and presented the regular Budget in July 1996.
Yashwant Sinha faced a similar fate. As finance minister in the Chandra Shekhar government, he presented the Interim Budget for 1991-92, but his party lost the elections, paving the way for the P V Narasimha Rao government. Jaswant Singh also presented the Interim Budget for 2004-05, but the National Democratic Alliance did not return to power after the elections. It was Chidambaram, this time under the United Progressive Alliance, who presented the regular Budget for 2004-05.
There have been nine more Interim Budgets since independence. However, none of these was presented before the elections. In fact, the timing of the elections was such that there was no need for an interim Budget before the country went to the polls. After the formation of the new government in each of these cases, the finance minister first presented an interim Budget because he needed more time to prepare a regular Budget a few weeks later.
Pranab’s other distinction Monday will be that no other finance minister has presented two Budgets with as large a gap between them as 25 years. His last three Budgets were presented between 1982 and 1984. Apart from the tinkering with tax rates through exemptions and concessions and placing greater reliance on indirect taxes to raise resources, those Budgets will also be remembered for the economic policy mindset that prevailed during the 1980s.
His first Budget referred to the government’s rationale for seeking recourse to an SDR 5 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund under its extended fund facility. The Indira Gandhi government was under attack for seeking the IMF loan that its opponents feared would jeopardise India’s economic sovereignty. In a bid to assuage such sentiments, Pranab said in his Budget speech that the loan “will help us implement our own policies, which have been sanctioned and approved by our people and Parliament”.
In his third Budget in 1984, Pranab referred to the IMF loan again. But this time he talked about the government’s decision to return the last tranche of the loan.
In a triumphant tone, Pranab said, “Belying the prophecies of doom by many a self-styled Cassandra, the economy has emerged stronger as a result of the adjustment effort mounted by us. None of the dire consequences that we were being warned about has occurred. We have not cut subsidies. We have not cut wages. We have not compromised on planning. We have not been trapped in a debt crisis...We have come out of it with our heads high.”
Corporate India will remember Pranab’s first Budget for a different reason. In a bid to attract investments from Indians living abroad, Pranab allowed non-resident Indians (NRIs) to buy shares of companies quoted on the stock exchanges subject to specified limits, among many other incentives. This policy change led to the controversial takeover bid by London-based Swraj Paul of the Caparo group on DCM and Escorts in 1983. The bids finally did not succeed, but India Inc can hardly forget how Pranab’s first Budget shook its leaders out of their complacence.
Pranab had also extended the scheme for investment allowance for another five years till 1987. Investment allowance permitted companies to claim deduction for tax purposes on their capital expenditure according to prescribed rates. This was abolished in April 1990. The big question he is likely to answer Monday is whether investment allowance will be reintroduced in some form.
When Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee rises in the Lok Sabha Monday to present the Union Budget for 2009-10, he would have earned a unique distinction. No other finance minister in independent India has presented an interim Budget before the elections and then followed that up with a regular Budget for the same year after being voted back to power.
His prime minister, Manmohan Singh (finance minister from 1991 to 1996), presented the Interim Budget for 1996-97 before the polls, but the Congress lost the general elections held in April-May 1996. Palaniappan Chidambaram became the finance minister under the United Front government and presented the regular Budget in July 1996.
Yashwant Sinha faced a similar fate. As finance minister in the Chandra Shekhar government, he presented the Interim Budget for 1991-92, but his party lost the elections, paving the way for the P V Narasimha Rao government. Jaswant Singh also presented the Interim Budget for 2004-05, but the National Democratic Alliance did not return to power after the elections. It was Chidambaram, this time under the United Progressive Alliance, who presented the regular Budget for 2004-05.
There have been nine more Interim Budgets since independence. However, none of these was presented before the elections. In fact, the timing of the elections was such that there was no need for an interim Budget before the country went to the polls. After the formation of the new government in each of these cases, the finance minister first presented an interim Budget because he needed more time to prepare a regular Budget a few weeks later.
Pranab’s other distinction Monday will be that no other finance minister has presented two Budgets with as large a gap between them as 25 years. His last three Budgets were presented between 1982 and 1984. Apart from the tinkering with tax rates through exemptions and concessions and placing greater reliance on indirect taxes to raise resources, those Budgets will also be remembered for the economic policy mindset that prevailed during the 1980s.
His first Budget referred to the government’s rationale for seeking recourse to an SDR 5 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund under its extended fund facility. The Indira Gandhi government was under attack for seeking the IMF loan that its opponents feared would jeopardise India’s economic sovereignty. In a bid to assuage such sentiments, Pranab said in his Budget speech that the loan “will help us implement our own policies, which have been sanctioned and approved by our people and Parliament”.
In his third Budget in 1984, Pranab referred to the IMF loan again. But this time he talked about the government’s decision to return the last tranche of the loan.
In a triumphant tone, Pranab said, “Belying the prophecies of doom by many a self-styled Cassandra, the economy has emerged stronger as a result of the adjustment effort mounted by us. None of the dire consequences that we were being warned about has occurred. We have not cut subsidies. We have not cut wages. We have not compromised on planning. We have not been trapped in a debt crisis...We have come out of it with our heads high.”
Corporate India will remember Pranab’s first Budget for a different reason. In a bid to attract investments from Indians living abroad, Pranab allowed non-resident Indians (NRIs) to buy shares of companies quoted on the stock exchanges subject to specified limits, among many other incentives. This policy change led to the controversial takeover bid by London-based Swraj Paul of the Caparo group on DCM and Escorts in 1983. The bids finally did not succeed, but India Inc can hardly forget how Pranab’s first Budget shook its leaders out of their complacence.
Pranab had also extended the scheme for investment allowance for another five years till 1987. Investment allowance permitted companies to claim deduction for tax purposes on their capital expenditure according to prescribed rates. This was abolished in April 1990. The big question he is likely to answer Monday is whether investment allowance will be reintroduced in some form.
Adwani was behind the demolition of Babari Mosque
Advani Looked Disturbed... Mouth Gaping Open’
http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main42.asp? filename= Ne110709advani_ looked.asp
He saw each dome of the Babri Masjid fall one by one. Ayodhya’s sky was all smoke and fire. A first-hand account
PRASHANT PANJIAR
Photographer
Men of another god Karsewaks demolish the domes of the Babri Masjid in 1992
Photos:PRASHANT PANJIAR/INDIA TODAY
ON DECEMBER 5, 1992, I was in Lucknow covering LK Advani’s rally. All BJP leaders had been doing a yatra across UP, and India Today had asked me to follow him. That night, after the speeches subsided, all the journalists dispersed. Something told me to stay. I followed Advani after the rally and landed up at Kalyan Singh’s house. I was the only photographer there. They let me in. All the top BJP leaders — Atal Behari Vajpayee, Murli Manohar Joshi — were present, meeting inside a room. I could sense the tension in the air.
When Advani stepped out at midnight, I casually asked what time he’d leave for Ayodhya the next day. “Right now,” he replied. Suddenly Vajpayee emerged, headed for New Delhi. Something wasn’t as they had expected. I called my reporter colleague and we rushed out too.
In Ayodhya, we traced Advani at Mahant Paramhans’ ashram meeting with Vinay Katiyar from the Bajrang Dal, Ashok Singhal from the VHP and HV Seshadri from the RSS. We learned that the karsewaks were completely determined to bring down the mosque.
I followed Advani as he left the ashram. Along with other BJP and VHP leaders, he arrived at the platform facing the disputed shrine to review arrangements for symbolic pujas which were to commence at 11:30am. Chants of Jai Shri Ram had begun. 200 meters away, a stage had been set up on an open terrace in a building called the Ram Katha Kunj. Advani walked to the dais. I followed. From the edge of the terrace, diagonally, I could only see the domes of the Babri Masjid, but nothing beyond and below.
All the Sangh leaders — Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambara, Vijay Raje Scindia, MM Joshi, Seshadri, Advani, Pramod Mahajan — were on the stage. Somehow they thought I was a VHP photographer so they let me stay. Most other photographers were at the puja tents. Little did they know that RSS sewaks had already been appointed to stop them from clicking the moment the demolition began.
Back on the stage, Advani and Seshadri looked nervous. The pujas began; so did the speeches. At around 11:30am people started climbing the domes. Photographers started clicking. The karsewaks pounced on them. They were pushed into a room and locked up. Those who resisted were beaten. “We’ll break your legs if you try to come out,” they were told.
I was the only photographer who had a clear view of the domes. Through the lens, I could see men with iron rods beating on a dome. There was laughter on the stage. Suddenly, a larger group of people appeared on the top of the dome, and it looked like the beginnings of a serious attack. At this point, I turned towards the leaders. I could see the faces of Advani and Seshadri. They looked disturbed. A little later, I would see them in front of the stage wide-eyed, with their mouths gaping open. Around them, the other leaders on stage looked pleased with themselves. It seemed that Advani was trying to signal to the other VHP leaders – ‘Enough, now call them down.’ But the others weren’t satisfied and wanted ‘a little more’. This was when I began to understand the urgency of the previous night in Lucknow. I think the BJP leaders received information that the karsewaks weren’t going to listen to them. Vajpayee rushed to Delhi to damage control. Advani rushed to Ayodhya early and Kalyan Singh stayed in Lucknow. I think Advani had been promised by the Ram Janambhoomi movement that they’d create a ruckus but ensure the mosque is not demolished. But this doesn’t absolve Advani of culpability.
Meanwhile, the others were laughing in great delight. When the first dome began to crack, there were loud cheers from Uma Bharati, Sadhvi Ritambara and Scindia. They egged on the karsewaks with chants of “Ek Dhaka Aur Do, Babri Masjid Tod Do”.
By this time, I received information that most of the other photographers had been beaten up. I realised that I was the only one who could photograph the domes falling. I knew I had to be careful. By mid-day, the domes were being attacked with full force. I saw people walking away from the Masjid carrying long pillars on their head.
At one point, I overheard Advani ask Pramod Mahajan to go ‘check what was going on’. Advani never left the stage, but all the other leaders were doing trips back and forth. Mahajan came back, and I overheard again. “Nothing can be done. They’ve tied ropes from behind. They will pull down the domes.”
It got hotter by mid-afternoon. I had been there the entire day without food or water. I remember sitting on a chair at one point, my head falling in a slump. A swami came up to me and asked, “Why is your head down? Are you not happy (about the demolition)?” By 4:30pm, two of the domes were gone. I shot the sequence. Initially there had been a lot of chaos but as the operation progressed it seemed to be a systematic demolition, one dome after the other.
Some of the photographers who had been beaten up had managed to escape and come to the stage. I borrowed a longer lens from one of them. His camera had been smashed and he was too shocked to shoot. With the longer lens, I shot the last dome as it fell. I saw it tilt, and remain titled for a second until it smashed on the ground. A cloud of dust rose to fill the empty air. The sight of that last dome, titled in mid-air, about to fall, remains a striking image. There was complete jubilation on the stage. Soon, I saw the city’s horizon pierced with spirals of smoke. An acharaya said into the mike, “Look at these Muslims, they are burning their own homes to malign us.” The karsewaks went berserk. The killing began. The sky was all smoke and fire.
A young woman police officer came to the Rama Katha Kunj aghast. She said the entire town was out of control. She told me about two photographers – Nitin Rai and Pablo Bartholomew, who the karsewaks were trying to lynch. She saved them by saying she’s arresting them.
‘The Muslims are burning their homes to malign us,’ said an acharya, and the karsewaks went berserk
When I came down from the stage, all I could see were logs of wood, road blocks, fire, people brandishing sticks and rods. By 7:30pm most journalists escaped from Ayodhya. I too managed to get into a car and head to Faizabad, where we were staying.
I returned later next day to photograph the aftermath. The hillock where the mosque stood was now covered with pink tents. The karsewaks had begun constructing the makeshift temple.
Seventeen years after the demolition, it isn’t the falling of the domes that has left a lasting impression. Rather, it was the acharya’s words as the smoke spiraled from Muslim homes that remains the most defining moment. The demolition of a mosque can be part of the politics of hatred, but what stopped Advani from walking up to the same microphone? One appeal from him to stop the killing would have saved many lives. The lack of that was the most defining thing for me. It was the complete absence of courage.
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 27, Dated July 11, 2009
http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main42.asp? filename= Ne110709advani_ looked.asp
He saw each dome of the Babri Masjid fall one by one. Ayodhya’s sky was all smoke and fire. A first-hand account
PRASHANT PANJIAR
Photographer
Men of another god Karsewaks demolish the domes of the Babri Masjid in 1992
Photos:PRASHANT PANJIAR/INDIA TODAY
ON DECEMBER 5, 1992, I was in Lucknow covering LK Advani’s rally. All BJP leaders had been doing a yatra across UP, and India Today had asked me to follow him. That night, after the speeches subsided, all the journalists dispersed. Something told me to stay. I followed Advani after the rally and landed up at Kalyan Singh’s house. I was the only photographer there. They let me in. All the top BJP leaders — Atal Behari Vajpayee, Murli Manohar Joshi — were present, meeting inside a room. I could sense the tension in the air.
When Advani stepped out at midnight, I casually asked what time he’d leave for Ayodhya the next day. “Right now,” he replied. Suddenly Vajpayee emerged, headed for New Delhi. Something wasn’t as they had expected. I called my reporter colleague and we rushed out too.
In Ayodhya, we traced Advani at Mahant Paramhans’ ashram meeting with Vinay Katiyar from the Bajrang Dal, Ashok Singhal from the VHP and HV Seshadri from the RSS. We learned that the karsewaks were completely determined to bring down the mosque.
I followed Advani as he left the ashram. Along with other BJP and VHP leaders, he arrived at the platform facing the disputed shrine to review arrangements for symbolic pujas which were to commence at 11:30am. Chants of Jai Shri Ram had begun. 200 meters away, a stage had been set up on an open terrace in a building called the Ram Katha Kunj. Advani walked to the dais. I followed. From the edge of the terrace, diagonally, I could only see the domes of the Babri Masjid, but nothing beyond and below.
All the Sangh leaders — Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambara, Vijay Raje Scindia, MM Joshi, Seshadri, Advani, Pramod Mahajan — were on the stage. Somehow they thought I was a VHP photographer so they let me stay. Most other photographers were at the puja tents. Little did they know that RSS sewaks had already been appointed to stop them from clicking the moment the demolition began.
Back on the stage, Advani and Seshadri looked nervous. The pujas began; so did the speeches. At around 11:30am people started climbing the domes. Photographers started clicking. The karsewaks pounced on them. They were pushed into a room and locked up. Those who resisted were beaten. “We’ll break your legs if you try to come out,” they were told.
I was the only photographer who had a clear view of the domes. Through the lens, I could see men with iron rods beating on a dome. There was laughter on the stage. Suddenly, a larger group of people appeared on the top of the dome, and it looked like the beginnings of a serious attack. At this point, I turned towards the leaders. I could see the faces of Advani and Seshadri. They looked disturbed. A little later, I would see them in front of the stage wide-eyed, with their mouths gaping open. Around them, the other leaders on stage looked pleased with themselves. It seemed that Advani was trying to signal to the other VHP leaders – ‘Enough, now call them down.’ But the others weren’t satisfied and wanted ‘a little more’. This was when I began to understand the urgency of the previous night in Lucknow. I think the BJP leaders received information that the karsewaks weren’t going to listen to them. Vajpayee rushed to Delhi to damage control. Advani rushed to Ayodhya early and Kalyan Singh stayed in Lucknow. I think Advani had been promised by the Ram Janambhoomi movement that they’d create a ruckus but ensure the mosque is not demolished. But this doesn’t absolve Advani of culpability.
Meanwhile, the others were laughing in great delight. When the first dome began to crack, there were loud cheers from Uma Bharati, Sadhvi Ritambara and Scindia. They egged on the karsewaks with chants of “Ek Dhaka Aur Do, Babri Masjid Tod Do”.
By this time, I received information that most of the other photographers had been beaten up. I realised that I was the only one who could photograph the domes falling. I knew I had to be careful. By mid-day, the domes were being attacked with full force. I saw people walking away from the Masjid carrying long pillars on their head.
At one point, I overheard Advani ask Pramod Mahajan to go ‘check what was going on’. Advani never left the stage, but all the other leaders were doing trips back and forth. Mahajan came back, and I overheard again. “Nothing can be done. They’ve tied ropes from behind. They will pull down the domes.”
It got hotter by mid-afternoon. I had been there the entire day without food or water. I remember sitting on a chair at one point, my head falling in a slump. A swami came up to me and asked, “Why is your head down? Are you not happy (about the demolition)?” By 4:30pm, two of the domes were gone. I shot the sequence. Initially there had been a lot of chaos but as the operation progressed it seemed to be a systematic demolition, one dome after the other.
Some of the photographers who had been beaten up had managed to escape and come to the stage. I borrowed a longer lens from one of them. His camera had been smashed and he was too shocked to shoot. With the longer lens, I shot the last dome as it fell. I saw it tilt, and remain titled for a second until it smashed on the ground. A cloud of dust rose to fill the empty air. The sight of that last dome, titled in mid-air, about to fall, remains a striking image. There was complete jubilation on the stage. Soon, I saw the city’s horizon pierced with spirals of smoke. An acharaya said into the mike, “Look at these Muslims, they are burning their own homes to malign us.” The karsewaks went berserk. The killing began. The sky was all smoke and fire.
A young woman police officer came to the Rama Katha Kunj aghast. She said the entire town was out of control. She told me about two photographers – Nitin Rai and Pablo Bartholomew, who the karsewaks were trying to lynch. She saved them by saying she’s arresting them.
‘The Muslims are burning their homes to malign us,’ said an acharya, and the karsewaks went berserk
When I came down from the stage, all I could see were logs of wood, road blocks, fire, people brandishing sticks and rods. By 7:30pm most journalists escaped from Ayodhya. I too managed to get into a car and head to Faizabad, where we were staying.
I returned later next day to photograph the aftermath. The hillock where the mosque stood was now covered with pink tents. The karsewaks had begun constructing the makeshift temple.
Seventeen years after the demolition, it isn’t the falling of the domes that has left a lasting impression. Rather, it was the acharya’s words as the smoke spiraled from Muslim homes that remains the most defining moment. The demolition of a mosque can be part of the politics of hatred, but what stopped Advani from walking up to the same microphone? One appeal from him to stop the killing would have saved many lives. The lack of that was the most defining thing for me. It was the complete absence of courage.
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 27, Dated July 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
