Having just brushed past the election season, one of the most common words one must have heard recently is "secular" or "secularism". It's the favorite word of the politicians in India, especially the ones that do not belong to the BJP. They all claim to be truly "secular" while insinuating BJP to be not.
So, what does "secular" mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary, "secular" means "not connected with religious or spiritual matters". Then, the dictionary also explains the meaning of the word when used in the context of Christianity, Astronomy and Economics. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular)
Too bad that it does not explain the meaning of the word as used in the Indian context; to be more precise, in the context of Indian politics. For in this context, it does not mean "not connected with religious or spiritual matters" but rather it means "embracing, practicing and loving Muslims".
Ideally, when a person, organization or nation is secular, he/she/it should have no particular religious affinities. A secular person should not judge people or form impressions about them because of the religion practiced by them. He/she should treat all persons equally even if they practice a religion different from them. Similarly, a secular organization or a secular nation should not discriminate any of its people based on their religious or spiritual choices. It should provide equal opportunities, services and benefits to all and should allow them to pursue any religion they choose without interfering in their choices.
But, that doesn't happen in India. In India, a person to appear secular should actually leave behind his or her own religion and start embracing the other religion, read Islam, to appear secular. If he doesn't do that, he is classified as a Hindu nationalist or worse a Hindu fascist / Hindu hardliner. And the irony is that all this is only targeted towards people who are religiously inclined to Hinduism.
So, if a Narendra Modi chooses to do a "Ganga aarti" instead of, say, putting a "chaadar" on any "mazaar", the entire media goes berserk and he is termed as a Hindu nationalist and an nonsecular person. But, if a Hamid Ansari refuses to take the "aarti thaal" in his hand and participate in the official "aarti" and "puja" at the Rashtrapati Bhawan, no one questions it. Because only Hindus are expected to be secular in India and not Muslims. And to be clear, I am a very secular person and I personally wouldn't expect Mr. Ansari to do the "puja" just as much as I wouldn't expect Mr. Modi to offer a "namaaz".
According to me, being truly secular means letting each person practice whatever religion, belief and school of thought he/she believes in. So, if as a person, Mr. Modi believes in Hinduism, he has the right to perform as many "aartis", visit as many temples, and observe as many religious rituals of Hindus as he wants as long as his government does not discriminate against non-Hindus; as long as his governance policies do not promote Hindus over non-Hindus in providing the fruits and benefits of any schemes they launch or any policies they draft for the betterment of the citizens of the country. Similarly, Hamid Ansari is free to offer his "namaaz" as long as he is fulfilling his duties diligently. Neither Mr. Modi should be forced to don a skull cap, nor Mr. Ansari should be made to perform any "puja" to prove that they are secular in their thoughts and actions. If Congress (Mr. Ansari's ex-Party) is a secular party, they shouldn't provide quotas to Muslims or any other religious sect for that matter. Secular people should be anti-religious-quota all together. And yet, every party talks about quotas, with Congress going a step ahead in its desperation and promise to introduce quotas in the private sector jobs too. Quotas for Muslims, quotas for Jains, quotas for backward classes, whatever. And they try to justify these vote bank politics as secularism. A truly secular nation can't have notion of special perks for anyone because then it defies the spirit of "equality for all." (Image courtesy: Dr. Subramanian Swamy on Facebook)
Today, when Mr. Modi announced his cabinet, I could see a number of Muslims on Facebook questioning why Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Hussain were not included in the cabinet to have representation from Muslims in the cabinet. Now, I want to ask all of them, why is representation from any particular religion needed over there. Is the cabinet's only task to draft religious laws for which you need people from all religions to kind of give a perspective to the laws? On the contrary, the Cabinet will work for India and irrespective of whatever religion the Indians follow, the laws should be equally applicable to all.
When France declared that no religious symbols are allowed in schools and all Muslim, Christian and Sikh students were forced to abandon their "hijaabs", "crosses" and "turbans", it was true practice of secularism - they can practice whatever religion they want but they need not wear it on their sleeve. Can anyone imagine that happening in India? The day that does happen, I would say India has become truly secular. Indians should learn tolerance and accept a person's beliefs as merely a part of his/her personality. To each his own. Equality for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment