C'da, > I was about to go dancing in the streets from your assurance. But just so I > don't rejoice prematurely, is the following what it is?
And it might have a sight for sore eyes :-) > *** From what you know, does some 'pseudo-secularists' and religious govts > of India does not now or have not in the past, let this happen, like banning > conversion? Ah! the ace up your sleeve. Freedom to practice comes along with responsibilities and limitations in the sense that some other religion is not affected. Are you talking about forced conversions? Or converting by guile (of usually the poor and uneducated)? Do these never happen? I do not think there is a ban on voluntary conversions. A religious practice may call for some something like sacrificing the first born. Obviously, such a practice would be banned, and should trumph the right to practice. That protection to practice cannot and should not be used as a cloak to subvert the sensibilities of other religions: ie: sacrificing cows in front of a Hindu temple, or playing loud music in front of a Mosque. Basically, as you may well know, that freedom to practice obviously stops where it is seen as infringing on others' rights. > *** Can you cite some examples in India of this, so that the clueless can > get their cues from it, emulate as role models? That is what I am trying to get at. In India, democracy is taken for granted far too often, and people seems to started believing that they can do anything because they have 'democracy'. There are examples of national integrity but there seem to also be a rise in forces that are hell-bent on destroying that in the name of practicing democracy. > >nd that they are given employment or educational opportunities without > >>>eference to religion or caste. > > *** Why is it not so now Ram? What seems to be the problem? Because, there are far too many people who like the 'freedom' part in democracy, but conveniently leave out the 'responsibility' part. For a democracy to function properly, and for the people to get the best from it, it has to be a national effort. Starting with corrupt polititcians and beaucrats, to the various rag-tag groups wanting to undermine the country in some fashion or another, have done great harm to the country in the name of practicing democracy. --Ram On 6/15/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ram: > > >Seriously - I do have a very clear concept of the term 'Secularism'. > > I was about to go dancing in the streets from your assurance. But just so I > don't rejoice prematurely, is the following what it is? > > > Secularism > should mean that all religions are given the freedom to practice their > >faiths as they choose, without let. > > > > *** From what you know, does some 'pseudo-secularists' and religious govts > of India does not now or have not in the past, let this happen, like banning > conversion? > > > >The big component missing is the concept of synergy - ie. thinking > about the country in the long run, instead of self-serving benefits > >for groups. > > *** Can you cite some examples in India of this, so that the clueless can > get their cues from it, emulate as role models? Like the Hindus, or the > Muslims, or the Sikhs? Or is this an involuntary eruption of pithy piety? > > > >Thats a big surprise (a pleasant one) coming from you! And I was under > >the impression that democracy didn't exist in India. > > *** It is about the QUALITY of desi-demokrasy Ram, not the label. I would > have thought that by now you would have had this lesson mastered. > > > And that they are given employment > >or educational opportunities without preference to religion or caste. > > *** Why is it not so now Ram? What seems to be the problem? > > c-da :-) > > > > > > > > > > At 1:02 AM -0500 6/15/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > C'da, > > >You still are befuddled with the meaning of secularism, while you > charge others >of misunderstanding, aren't you? > > You caught me, C'da :-). > Seriously - I do have a very clear concept of the term 'Secularism'. > What I am alluding to is that frequently, in India, many minority (and > majority) groups make their 'cause' as having something to do with > religion. > That way, they probably get more mileage by putting everything they > can in a secularist slant. > > A case in point: Recently the Govt. was trying to change the Muslim > family law to empower women (the 3 times talak business), but lo and > behold, some Muslim groups portrayed that move as the GOI trying to > marginalize their secular status. > No, I am not picking on Muslims here. There could well be cases with > the Bajrang Dal or some other group trying to advance their cause by > showing Hindus have been slighted. > The big component missing is the concept of synergy - ie. thinking > about the country in the long run, instead of self-serving benefits > for groups. > > > Of course interest groups would fight to protect their turfs. That is > > in the nature of democracy. > Thats a big surprise (a pleasant one) coming from you! And I was under > the impression that democracy didn't exist in India. > > >You cannot, on the one hand invoke the need for compromises in a > democracy, >and on the other decry compromises made as 'appeasement'. > > I hope secularism does not mean bending over backwards to make > compromises at the expense of another religious group. Secularism > should mean that all religions are given the freedom to practice their > faiths as they choose, without let. And that they are given employment > or educational opportunities without preference to religion or caste. > > --Ram > > > > > > > On 6/14/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ram: > > > > > > >I agree. The problem seems to be that each religious, ethinic, caste, > > >language group bring their own sets of problems to the table, with > > >absolutely no thought for other groups. In doing so, they seem to be > > >re-defining secularism, to mean that if their wants are satisfied, > > >there is secularism, else there is discrimination. > > > > > > *** You are one of our more clear headed thinkers. But this paragraph > > does not do you justice at all. You still are befuddled with the > > meaning of secularism, while you charge others of misunderstanding, > > aren't you? > > > > > > Of course interest groups would fight to protect their turfs. That is > > in the nature of democracy. But NOT on religious matters in a secular > > state. That they would leave behind in their mandirs and masjids and > > girjas or their gwxain-ghor. The sophisticated and intellectually > > able would hold it in their hearts instead of wearing it on their > > kurta sleeves. > > > > > > > >There is none. Unfortunately, in India (or even in the net), the > > >definition for secularism means different things to different people. > > > > > > *** What do you attribute this to? > > > > 1: That damned English language? No comprendo! > > 2: Because they like to have it both ways--declare to the world > > that theirs is an enlightened secular democratic state, but still > > mess with their politics of religion in the affairs of state, > > because that is the desi thing to do? > > 3: Something else? > > > > > >It shouldn't mean appeasing the minority, and nor should it mean > > >>the majority can flount all rules. > > > > > > *** What in the heck is this supposed to mean? You cannot, on the one hand > > invoke the need for compromises in a democracy, and on the other > > decry compromises made as 'appeasement'. You cannot get away with > > that damned English language alibi here Ram :-). So what is it? Been > > cultivating confusion for long? > > > > But yes, the state must NOT play the religion game if it also has > > pretenses of being a secular one. And do you NOT know why it has been > > like this, even after posting that article by the SC justice who > > explained the loopholes in the Indian constitution which allow this > > to happen? Or is it more convenient to forget it? > > > > Where are the statesmen , the luminaries of desi-demokrasy, who have > > advocated reforms to close those loopholes to make it a real secular > > state? Ever heard anyone proposing it? > > > > > > > > >Plus, those who find fault with secularism in India, ARE NOT the root > cause. > > >All they are doing is look into every nook & crany on an endless fact? > > >finding mission. So, in essence, all they have to say is the system > > >ain't right, but have never tried nor offered any alternative > > >democratic solution. > > > > > > > > > > **** My point exactly. See above. > > > > Again, why do you suppose it is so? > > > > Also what would YOUR solution be? Or are you going to excuse yourself > > because you don't criticize the Indian state's partial or fake > > secularism? > > > > >There is no alternative to secularism. But how many are trying to > > >strengthen >it? > > > > *** You tell me. > > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 11:41 AM -0500 6/14/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > >C'da, > > > > > >> But what are the RELIGIONS doing to help resolve the religious > > >> conflicts? What are the LEADERS of the nation doing to douse the > > >> effects of religious intolerance and religion based political demands > > >> ? Who are fanning the fires of anti-secularist emotions? > > > > > >I agree. The problem seems to be that each religious, ethinic, caste, > > >language group bring their own sets of problems to the table, with > > >absolutely no thought for other groups. In doing so, they seem to be > > >re-defining secularism, to mean that if their wants are satisfied, > > >there is secularism, else there is discrimination. I would sqarely > > >blame all such groups, whether they represent the majority or the > > >minority. None of them seem to be working toward a common goal, that > > >would benefit all in the long run. > > > > > >>And what is the alternative to the secular state? > > > > > >There is none. Unfortunately, in India (or even in the net), the > > >definition for secularism means different things to different people. > > >IMHO: It shouldn't mean appeasing the minority, and nor should it mean > > >the majority can flount all rules. > > > > > >>it is not those who find > fault in Indian pretenses to secularism > > >that are at the >root of India's religious miseries: > > > > > >There is no such pretense in India to secularism. Its individuals, be > > >it an RSS or someone from Bajrang dal. People like that are always on > > >the lookout to capitalize on the slightest opportunity to marginalize > > >the secular concept. > > > > > >Plus, those who find fault with secularism in India, ARE NOT the root > cause. > > >All they are doing is look into every nook & crany on an endless fact? > > >finding mission. So, in essence, all they have to say is the system > > >ain't right, but have never tried nor offered any alternative > > >democratic solution. > > > > > >There is no alternative to secularism. But how many are trying to > > >strengthen it? > > > > > >>It is those who indulge in religious politics and their apologists. > > > > > >I agree. > > > > > >--Ram > > > > > > > > >On 6/14/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > Also, for those of us seem to be continually finding > > >> >fault with secularism in India, would find the enormous difficulty > the > > >> >Govt. faces trying to balance this 'majority rule and minority > > >> > > >> > > >> No doubt it is a difficult job. > > >> > > >> But what are the RELIGIONS doing to help resolve the religious > > >> conflicts? What are the LEADERS of the nation doing to douse the > > >> effects of religious intolerance and religion based political demands > > >> ? Who are fanning the fires of anti-secularist emotions? And what is > > >> the alternative to the secular state? > > >> > > >> Finally, just in case it was not obvious, it is not those who find > > >> fault in Indian pretenses to secularism that are at the root of > > >> India's religious miseries: It is those who indulge in religious > > >> politics and their apologists. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> At 8:03 AM -0500 6/14/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > >> >Thank you Bhuban da. > > >> > > > >> >>what is more I find support for my own views on various matters as > > >> >expressed >from time to time in the net from this author. > > >> > > > >> >I feel the same. Also, for those of us seem to be continually finding > > >> >fault with secularism in India, would find the enormous difficulty > the > > >> >Govt. faces trying to balance this 'majority rule and minority > > >> >rights'. > > >> > > > >> >--Ram > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >On 6/14/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Ram > > >> >> > > >> >> I congratulate you for being able to find out an excellent > > >>dissertation > > >> >> like this covering comprehensibly such issues as minorities, > reserved > > >> >> constituencies, employment, personal laws, Kashmir, etc and > > >>what is more I > > >> >> find support for my own views on various matters as expressed > > >>from time to > > >> >> time in the net from this author. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks. > > >> >> > > >> >> Bhuban > > >> > > > >> >_______________________________________________ > > >> >Assam mailing list > > >> >[email protected] > > >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > > >> > > > >> >Mailing list FAQ: > > >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html > > >> >To unsubscribe or change options: > > >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
