A Response to The Deccan Herald oped 'Secularism in the age of coronavirus'
Here I attempt to share some of my disagreements with a recent article published in The Deccan Herald. The esteemed daily had publish an oped a few days ago titled Secularism in the age of coronavirus.
The author of this piece is Najmul Hoda, an IPS officer and a friend from JNU. He often writes on issues related to Muslims.
The author appears to be obsessed with, at least in his piece, with identity politics. The common refrain of his piece is minority-majority, and Hindu-Muslim. In his above-mentioned obsession, he ignores the fact that at about 12% of indian population and 200 million strong, Muslims in India are not a minority by any stretch of imagination. In his entire discourse Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Bahais, etc. do not appear even once. These religious groups comprise roughly less than 10% of the Indian population combined.
The premise that India is a 'Hindu Rashtra' because it is 80% Hindu is oversimplification of a thousands of years old civilizational construct. For a nuanced exposition of the notion of Hindu Rashtra, please refer to my piece in The Times of India -- Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Rashtra. Word Yindu/Indu (Arvind Sharma), was used by the Chinese travelers much earlier in antiquity. Word Hindu was used for the people of India before the advent of Islam (6th century BCE, according to Gavin Flood). Word Hindustan was used by the Islamic marauders and invaders prior to Islamic colonization of India.
If there is one word that has always been in vogue in referring to India is Bharat. There is nothing modern and 'Sanskritic' (not even sure what that means) about it. The author contradicts himself in the very next paragraph (#4) where he cites the Vishnu Purana. Word Rashtra is used in the Vedic literature, as the author points out through that citation, to describe the national identity of the Bharatvarsha -- a contiguous sacred landmass between the Himalayas in the north and the deep sea in the south. India is a civilizational state, hence the constitutional definition of "India that is Bharat...". Bharat is an ancient nation, not a nascent state with more than 5,000 years of continuous recorded history.
Comparing modern concept of secularism with India's civilizational pluralism in thoughts and practices is as problematic as it is anachronistic. The author, however, is right when he mentions the essence of India's civilizational pluralism by the Rig Vedic एकम सत विप्र बहुधा वदन्ति. Suffice it to say that unlike monotheistic-Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism has no concept of 'kafir' nor 'heathen'. India, however, did take a pause from this civilizational pluralism when large parts of India became a theocratic state first during the heydays of Buddhism and then under the Islamic rule when non-muslims had to pay jijiya tax. During Islamic colonization, Hindus and other non-muslims were subjected to persecution, and genocide. Thousand of temples were destroyed and many more thousands were desecrated, moortis were demolished and dismembered (Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Sita Ram Goel; Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples Episodes from Indian History, Meenakshi Jain).
Designating India's national movement for independence to be for 'democracy' primarily is far from the reality. The demand for a separate state by the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent because they could not live under Hindu 'majoritarian' rule was not a movement for democracy. Founding of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a theocratic state proves just that.
In conclusion, this oped piece is yet another attempt at obfuscation and meaningless identity politics. Devoid of any substance and and facts, the piece indulges in rhetoric and trite tautology.
The author of this piece is Najmul Hoda, an IPS officer and a friend from JNU. He often writes on issues related to Muslims.
The author appears to be obsessed with, at least in his piece, with identity politics. The common refrain of his piece is minority-majority, and Hindu-Muslim. In his above-mentioned obsession, he ignores the fact that at about 12% of indian population and 200 million strong, Muslims in India are not a minority by any stretch of imagination. In his entire discourse Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Bahais, etc. do not appear even once. These religious groups comprise roughly less than 10% of the Indian population combined.
The premise that India is a 'Hindu Rashtra' because it is 80% Hindu is oversimplification of a thousands of years old civilizational construct. For a nuanced exposition of the notion of Hindu Rashtra, please refer to my piece in The Times of India -- Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Rashtra. Word Yindu/Indu (Arvind Sharma), was used by the Chinese travelers much earlier in antiquity. Word Hindu was used for the people of India before the advent of Islam (6th century BCE, according to Gavin Flood). Word Hindustan was used by the Islamic marauders and invaders prior to Islamic colonization of India.
If there is one word that has always been in vogue in referring to India is Bharat. There is nothing modern and 'Sanskritic' (not even sure what that means) about it. The author contradicts himself in the very next paragraph (#4) where he cites the Vishnu Purana. Word Rashtra is used in the Vedic literature, as the author points out through that citation, to describe the national identity of the Bharatvarsha -- a contiguous sacred landmass between the Himalayas in the north and the deep sea in the south. India is a civilizational state, hence the constitutional definition of "India that is Bharat...". Bharat is an ancient nation, not a nascent state with more than 5,000 years of continuous recorded history.
Comparing modern concept of secularism with India's civilizational pluralism in thoughts and practices is as problematic as it is anachronistic. The author, however, is right when he mentions the essence of India's civilizational pluralism by the Rig Vedic एकम सत विप्र बहुधा वदन्ति. Suffice it to say that unlike monotheistic-Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism has no concept of 'kafir' nor 'heathen'. India, however, did take a pause from this civilizational pluralism when large parts of India became a theocratic state first during the heydays of Buddhism and then under the Islamic rule when non-muslims had to pay jijiya tax. During Islamic colonization, Hindus and other non-muslims were subjected to persecution, and genocide. Thousand of temples were destroyed and many more thousands were desecrated, moortis were demolished and dismembered (Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Sita Ram Goel; Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples Episodes from Indian History, Meenakshi Jain).
Designating India's national movement for independence to be for 'democracy' primarily is far from the reality. The demand for a separate state by the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent because they could not live under Hindu 'majoritarian' rule was not a movement for democracy. Founding of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a theocratic state proves just that.
In conclusion, this oped piece is yet another attempt at obfuscation and meaningless identity politics. Devoid of any substance and and facts, the piece indulges in rhetoric and trite tautology.
Comments
Post a Comment