The other day, I happened to watch a highly charged discussion programme on NDTV moderated by Ms Barkha Dutt, on the issue of secularism, in the context of the next year's general election. Those aggressively championing secularism as the most important factor for the survival of Indian democracy, included self-confessed secular fundamentalist Mani Shankar Aiyar, the Congress-nominated Rajya Sabha MP, Ashutosh Varshney, IE columnist who teaches at the Brown University in the US and Javed Akhtar, a pro-Congress film lyricist.
As usual, Aiyar was most intolerant, insufferable and full of hate against his opponents. His poisonous barbs against those disagreeing with him and his contemptuous style, makes him unfit for a civilised company, in my opinion. He seems emotionally sick. In the TV debate, he just dismissed his strong critic Ms Madhu Kishwar, the editor of a women's journal and an academic, who pointed serious flaws in Aiyar's thinking and arguments, with his angry and hateful epithets. The most controversial reasoning of these three advocates of secularism was their belief that it was a Gandhi-Nehru gift to Indian values. They clearly overlooked the defining fact that India was always a "secular" country. MK Gandhi claimed himself as a proud "Hindu" and believed Hinduism to be "the most tolerant of all religions known to me"(From Gandhiji's book:Hindu Dharam-Page 5). Thus, he regarded Hinduism as the most secular faith. The Constitution-makers did not specifically mention secularism in its preamble or the Directive Principles, presumably because they believed that the country's majority faith was the most tolerant and respectful of all other faiths. In other words, secularism-equal treatment of all religions-was the inherent characterisitc of Indian ethos. The word "secularism" was added to the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency rule of Mrs Indira Gandhi in the mid-seventies
It is amazing that an academic like Varshney who lives most of the time in the US where no one talks of secularism as it is taken for granted, seriously debates secularism when he comes here even when as a born Hindu he knows what his faith stands for! Does Narendra Modi or the BJP talk or promote Hinduism against other faiths? Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former Indian Foreign Service(IFS) officer who became Rajiv Gandhi's special assistant and speech-writer and later joined the Congress party, is one politician who is not seriously by the party leadership because of his acid tongue. He has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the "cultural" quota, as a reluctant reward for his great loyalty to the late boss's family. Javed Akhtar is one those intellectual Muslims who underline their secularism by supporting the Congress whom many regard as the most communally divisive political entity.
Madhu Kishwar, the panelist on the opposite side of the TV debate, strongly condemned the Modi-phobia, applauding Modi for his development agenda and leadership quality. He invited Aiyar to accompany her to a Gujarat village and see its inclusive growth under Modi; Aiyar, of course, spurned it with his usual contempt. Another panelist Ashok Malik emphasised that the secularism-communalism debate was confined to TV studios and an average Indian was not interested in it. The election focus would good governance and development. Lord Meghnad Desai, a member of the House of Lords in London, the sixth panelist, drew attention to the Congress hypocrisy regarding secularism, adding that it was a party to the Partition of India!
As usual, Aiyar was most intolerant, insufferable and full of hate against his opponents. His poisonous barbs against those disagreeing with him and his contemptuous style, makes him unfit for a civilised company, in my opinion. He seems emotionally sick. In the TV debate, he just dismissed his strong critic Ms Madhu Kishwar, the editor of a women's journal and an academic, who pointed serious flaws in Aiyar's thinking and arguments, with his angry and hateful epithets. The most controversial reasoning of these three advocates of secularism was their belief that it was a Gandhi-Nehru gift to Indian values. They clearly overlooked the defining fact that India was always a "secular" country. MK Gandhi claimed himself as a proud "Hindu" and believed Hinduism to be "the most tolerant of all religions known to me"(From Gandhiji's book:Hindu Dharam-Page 5). Thus, he regarded Hinduism as the most secular faith. The Constitution-makers did not specifically mention secularism in its preamble or the Directive Principles, presumably because they believed that the country's majority faith was the most tolerant and respectful of all other faiths. In other words, secularism-equal treatment of all religions-was the inherent characterisitc of Indian ethos. The word "secularism" was added to the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency rule of Mrs Indira Gandhi in the mid-seventies
It is amazing that an academic like Varshney who lives most of the time in the US where no one talks of secularism as it is taken for granted, seriously debates secularism when he comes here even when as a born Hindu he knows what his faith stands for! Does Narendra Modi or the BJP talk or promote Hinduism against other faiths? Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former Indian Foreign Service(IFS) officer who became Rajiv Gandhi's special assistant and speech-writer and later joined the Congress party, is one politician who is not seriously by the party leadership because of his acid tongue. He has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the "cultural" quota, as a reluctant reward for his great loyalty to the late boss's family. Javed Akhtar is one those intellectual Muslims who underline their secularism by supporting the Congress whom many regard as the most communally divisive political entity.
Madhu Kishwar, the panelist on the opposite side of the TV debate, strongly condemned the Modi-phobia, applauding Modi for his development agenda and leadership quality. He invited Aiyar to accompany her to a Gujarat village and see its inclusive growth under Modi; Aiyar, of course, spurned it with his usual contempt. Another panelist Ashok Malik emphasised that the secularism-communalism debate was confined to TV studios and an average Indian was not interested in it. The election focus would good governance and development. Lord Meghnad Desai, a member of the House of Lords in London, the sixth panelist, drew attention to the Congress hypocrisy regarding secularism, adding that it was a party to the Partition of India!
No comments:
Post a Comment