Abhishek has spent the last two years studying for the Union Public Service Commission exam. He has a great interest in reading about Indian politics and has strong views on it. Although he is not particularly religious, he feels that Hinduism should be promoted by the Indian state, because it is 바카라a way of life for all Indians바카라. Therefore, he objects to those who stand for secularism. He thinks they indulge in what has come to be known as appeasement politics. 바카라These people are pro-Muslim.바카라 According to Abhishek, the term 바카라sickular바카라 aptly defines those who 바카라are anti-Hindu in the closet바카라 but call themselves secular.
The young civil services aspirant is, however, not alone who thinks this way. Many, especially Hindu nationalists, believe that those who call themselves secular have always been biased towards Hindus. Many journalists and academicians question those who propagate secularism but fail to practise it; therefore, such secularists are often accused of and ridiculed for being 바카라opportunistic바카라. A commonly used expression is pseudo-secular, which in the age of social media is interchangeably used with the word 바카라sickular바카라바카라a pejorative expression intended to insult.
The word 바카라secular바카라 originated from the Latin 바카라saeculum바카라, which means 바카라a period of long duration: age바카라. Rukmini Bhaya Nair, professor of Linguistics and English at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, says, 바카라The temporal element is very important. It was used to separate the eternal time, to which monks were devoted in the monasteries versus ordinary, everyday time. So, this defines the division of church and state in the history of western democracy.바카라
Nair finds the pun 바카라sickular바카라, which includes the word 바카라sick바카라, a very complex sort of abuse. 바카라It is like saying your party is sick, you are sick. This word has no sustaining value. It is just a word that you deploy, and you are not genuine. You are not healthy.바카라 The word secular is an adjective, unlike the word democracy, which is a noun. Therefore, it can also be applied to people, political formations and so on. So, the availability of a word, in terms of its abusiveness, depends partly on the function it serves.
However, Indian secularism is different from the west. Rajeev Bhargava, a professor with the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, says, 바카라Indian secularism is not anti-rel- igious.바카라 It is about respecting all religions, while maintaining a distance from them. He believes that as a nation 바카라we imagined a mode of existence to which accommodation and acceptance were central바카라 and 바카라the Indian Constitution guarantees some rights to religious minorities to achieve communal harmony바카라.
Providing certain rights and safeguards to minorities is not appeasement, he says. It helps them grow in society. 바카라For instance, if all of us want to go up, we will build stairs. But for older people, pregnant women and the physically challenged, it might not be easy to climb them. So, we build escalators to enable them to achieve what others already have.바카라 Minority groups should not suffer because they are smaller in numbers. They too must have what the majority community has.
For Bhargava, it is 바카라unfortunate바카라 when people call these provisions 바카라pro-minority바카라 policies. He adds, 바카라It creates the impression that minorities secure those things at the expense of the majority. That may happen sometimes but not if the measures have been conceived thoughtfully.바카라
According to Bhargava, Indian secularism is about 바카라critical respect바카라 towards every religion. This means the state 바카라cannot show respect for each and every aspect of religion. It has to combine overall respect with disrespect towards features that are oppressive and degrading.바카라 Hence the ban on untouchability and the state바카라s attempt to reform personal laws that are unjust to women.
The politics of opportunism exercised by almost all parties for electoral gains has apparently led to the degeneration of secularism as a concept in India. Sadly, according to Bhargava, political parties have taken 바카라critical바카라 out of the critical respect (for every religion) and reduced it to making deals with the loudest, most fanatical, orthodox and aggressive sections of every religion바카라. Therefore, political parties either refrain from addressing religion or do so only when it is in their electoral interest. In Indian politics, this has become quite conspicuous.
In the last few years, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, for example, has often been invoking his Hindu identity. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal earmarked funds for the pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Recently, he even demanded pictures of Laxmi and Ganesha on currency notes. Not be left behind, Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav too is seen opting for 바카라Hindutva strategies바카라. The Bharatiya Janata Party, on the other hand, is not only comfortable boasting about its Hindutva politics but also aggressively furthering its agenda. This all shows that non-BJP political parties are no longer comfortable with the tag of being 바카라secularist바카라, as they fear it may push them towards an electorally disadvantaged position. Though, this is not a new trend. From the Shah Bano case to the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, political parties have always given primacy to electoral gains over practising secularism.
No surprises then if a section of academicians, who are not influenced by the Hindu nationalist thought, too contests the viability of the concept of secularism in the Indian context. Ashis Nandy, one of the forerunners of such academicians and social theorists, believes that the largest section of Indian state functionaries 바카라has never been entirely secular and wholeheartedly implemented secular policies바카라. He writes in an essay, 바카라Closing the Debate on Secularism바카라, part of an anthology titled The Crisis of Secularism in India, 바카라They have made compromises all the way. For instance, instead of being irreligious, they have tried to get away with equal respect for all religions.바카라
Nandy further adds that to propagate secularism, one has to invoke non-secular icons. He says, 바카라Kabir, Lalan and Shah Latif, the Baul singers of Bengal and the Charans of Rajasthan, and names from history like Ashoka, Akbar, Dara Shikoh, Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi, and Narayan Guru, none of whom drew their principles or values from the ideology of secularism.바카라 He, therefore, believes, 바카라secularism has become the last refuge of the intellectually lazy, of those who refuse to confront the logic of their own political and cultural choices바카라.
It comes as no surprise that expressions such as 바카라secularists바카라, 바카라secular intellectuals바카라 and 바카라secular brigade바카라, along with 바카라sickular바카라, are quite often used as an insult. However, one thing is quite clear: a question about the functionality of secularism is rife. It is the result of an overall disenchantment with the idea of secularism among many who not only think secular parties have failed the country but also suggest failure of 바카라secularism바카라 as an idea. Nair points out, 바카라Secularism was always part of our conceptual apparatus.바카라 But the concept in troubled times has provided people a pretext, and rightly so, to criticise those who they think are not following it in letter and spirit.
(This appeared in the print edition as "Lost in Translation")
