Hi Rahul, hope you are well.
I agree completely with your views. To add to them, most commercials that target the NRI community in local Indian programming here is even more hindu centric. Most of the shows feature iterations of Swamis, Priests, and traditional hindu weddings representing Indian products like rice, henna, and mehndi. It's very similar to what's happening in the US with the conservatives controlling the major media networks. Subtle family values and Christian symbolism is being associated with many major consumer companies and brands. It aids the agenda of those right wing nationalists that eventually want to sway public opinion through symbolism.

I think solutions would involve encouraging ad agencies to shy away from the use of religious imagery in commercials. This may be difficult as Hindu culture and imagery have been intricately linked to mass consumer culture in India for so long. No idea if there truly is a tangible solution for this problem.

It worries me that people within India are entrenching racial stereotypes. It's definitely not a good precedent for NRIs around the world.

Being a Hindu, I never thought in this angle. I had taken for granted the advertisements, the ceremonies and whole bunch of other religious statements we make in the day to day life in India.
You gave a whole new perspective.

Rahul - Your stance is exactly the same as that of the early Christians when they first began coming to power in Rome. All their traditions were labeled pagan and were forbidden. The entire Greek and Roman civilization was wiped out in the name of quelling devil worship.

Indians too have far reaching tradition. And this tradition expresses itself in precisely the ways that you have outlined. This is a perfectly natural and normal way for a community to live its life. It is equally ridiculous here in the US when people make such a big deal about saying the word "Christmas" around the holdiday season. There are numerous jokes about this and your article can only be taken in such a vein.

The concept of secularism arose from an urgent need to put an end to Church tyranny and interference in state affairs. It was based on the Christian theological concept that the material world is separate from the spiritual world and correspondingly the state should have sole jurisdiction over one and the church over the other.

In India we have never had religious control, i.e., legislation, as is the case in Iran etc., or as was the case with Europe for 1,500 long years. India has the concept of dharma. It is ridiculous to suggest a-dharma in opposition to dharma. The whole cognitive scheme is inapplicable to our indigenous way of thinking.

The concept of secularism is itself rooted in a theological framework. Your acceptance of this framework is not a reflection of religious neutrality whatever else it may be. You are clearly giving sole credence to one particular, i.e, western way of thinking. In the process a whole civilization will be wiped out. Gone will be the bindis, the bangles, the mangal sutras, the coconuts, in short everything that gives color and vibrancy to India. What an awful thought.

"As one-fifth of your market with their belief in other religious persuasions, notwithstanding atheists and agnostics, watches – helpless, unmoved or even resentful"

Are you assuming that the one-fifth are helpless, unmoved or resentful in their entirety? Take away the rabble rousers and I am sure less than a third of this one-fifth will object or find the rituals you refer to as distasteful or objectionable. Equally, less than a third of the 80% Hindu majority will oppose overt expression of another faith or tradition.

Since I have lived around several Syrian Christian families from Kerala I know that many respect the Hindu observances of Durga Puja and Vijaydashimi. The latter occasion is often used at a personal level to introduce a child to reading or writing. I have seen a devout Christian gentleman take his daughter to a learned Hindu college professor who guided her tiny hand barely grasping a chalk, to trace her first letter. There was no specific remembrance of the Hindu godess of knowledge on either end - I recollect it as simply being special for both parties, and very symbolic.

I went to a high school which was not a "convent" or a Christian school, yet was founded and run entirely by Syrian Christians. Come every Christmas all the students joyfully sung carols, even though the school had less than 20% Christians. Most of us remember the time fondly and there was zero friction or ill feelings. Our school prayer was in English and motivated by Christian hymns, but carefully chosen so there never was a reference to monotheistic thought or anything disagreeable (except perhaps to atheists!). Both traditions in the school continue controversy free until today, even when the management is more representative.

On the national stage, an event which stands out is when Abdul Kalam the President of (Secular) India and a religious Muslim chose to use a sentence from a famous religious song dedicated to the Hindu god Rama, as his welcoming sentence in his acceptance speech! So if we 'contemporize secularism', we must hold the first citizen guilty beyond all others :-)!!

The people who find fault with such activities, be they simply cultural or even overtly religious as long as they don't belittle, are people with a political card behind their intentions. The Shiv Sena will create a disgraceful ruckus if such a "Christian" school existed in their stronghold. Equally, some retrograde Muslim board will create a big fuss over some harmless Hindu ritual, only when given the right opportunity and circumstance.

It helps to note two things:

1. That one fifth of the population today is non Hindu because of the more tolerant Hindu religion, society, and culture.

2. The Hindus will lose their rightfully deserved dominant privilige of continuing their traditions as cultural and religion-neutral, if their self-appointed misguided attack dogs can't tolerate non Hindu expressions - like the Christmas carols I mentioned.

Since India is the cradle of both Hinduism and Buddhism, one can't really take the arguments supporting the overt expression of traditions and make comparisons with most of the West - certainly not the US of A.

Rahul,

First of all, you ought to rectify the distinction between Religion and culture. Griha pravesh, karva chauth, performing the aarti, has got little to do with religion and more to do with culture.What is the legitimacy of your raising such a hue and cry in the light of the above distinction. If we as Indians do not live by the choice of adhering to our culture,who will benefit or lose out?I seem to miss the contention totally.

Divya, I agree with you cent per cent and would further like to educate Rahul on the performance of the aarti. In one of the ancient texts I read, aarti had as its basis a radically different meaning and usage than what is popularly understood. Our ancient seers were in fact greater scientists and physicians than we have credited them for. They believed that the aura of an individual absorbs negativities much before it manifests on the physical body.Aarti, which included the burning of incense,saying a mantra,and revolving the thali around the uppermost region , where the aura is ,did away with negativities, which would have otherwise vitiated the atmosphere and resulted in inauspicious occurrences.You may not agree with our ancients,cluelessly.But do you have a reason not to perform this seemingly innocent ceremony?Any other connotation attributed is a fabrication of your own mind. It is not a categorical or stubborn insistence on religion but a tradition. Who is it hurting? I can give you scientific basis to all the ceremonies you have quoted. They. ideally should be adopted by all irrespective of caste, religion or whatever other man made boundaries. Dharma is not religion. Nature knows no barriers. They apply to all humanity. It is we with our cynicism who opt to color harmless and individualistic culture with shades of intolerance and doubt.How does one tolerate the intolerant?

Dear Rahul,

Firstly, Hello! I didnt know you contributed here, as well. Interesting article. Will start a lot of people debating. Should be interesting to come back and check how it rages :)

You have said, "Occasionally when I have raised the point I have had Hindus say I am making too much of the issue. That these symbols have now taken on a pan-Indian significance", I am curious to know what many of the people from the other religions feel about this. Does it make them feel excluded? I mean, is it something an indian jew, for example, whose family has been living in india for centuries, feels bad about, or have they accepted it like say I have accepted sending christmas cards, as a local, social, way to reach out to people, and not as a religious activity.

The other thing is that, if we get to a point, where any kinds of religious gesture is avoided, in any social / public ceremony, will we not have shifted to the 'exclusion' part of secularism? "(2) prohibition of religious associations in state activities" extending it to 'any activity any where in india?

I am not sure how to explain it, but I feel that when you are welcoming a foreign dignitary to india and we do a aarti, theres something beyond the religious there. i'm not sure what we feel, what pass on, share at that moment is not just a 'come lets pray' type of a feeling, but also a see how gracious our india is, kind of a feeling. If we ban everything from everywhere, slowly we will move to a unnatural state of being, I feel.

I think its a bit like the feminist movement dictating every woman HAS to be driven and ambitious, whether you want to, or not.

Treading a thin line with communism are we Rahul? I don't think the Muslim girls in France are going to agree with you.

75% of the American population is Christian. The fear of upsetting the rest 25% doesn't keep us from making a big deal of Christmas or Easter, or sometimes even using religious beliefs in policy making. Texas recently added a clause in their constitution to ban gay marriages and civil unions. Heck, even the president uses his message from God as a reason to wage war. But fact of the matter is, everyone loves Christmas.

Religious symbolism isn't as prevalent in America, not because we're being politically correct. Its because religion is not a very significant part of the culture, unlike in India. We talk a lot about the rich Indian culture and heritage and we enjoy showing it off every chance we get. It just so happens that culture and religion are severely intertwined in India. Many of the Hindu rituals we practice today probably began long before Hinduism even came about as a recognized religion.

I'm sure there are Hindus who get to listen to the Muslim prayer call everyday, or come home singing hyms they learnt at their convent school... Point being, you're going to find religious references everywhere, and the minute you start cutting it out off public domain theres going to be a whole lotta unhappy people, followed by some culturally lost NRI kids (I can personally attest to that). If paint companies believe they're going to mint more with ads aimed toward the population majority, so be it. What we need to be worried about is the lack of education, awareness, and appreciation for the variety of cultures and practices we have in India, or for that matter in the whole world. Religious harmony comes from each of us as individuals and as a community taking the effort to spread that awareness, and maybe even embracing different cultures into our own.

I should think most people have the same sentiments toward paint ads whether they show a Hindu family or Muslim family or Christian family, or even a "south Indian" family. It is the lack of education that can hurt people, not the references. If artis and grihapravesh's bemuse you, travel around a bit. Oh I don't know, maybe you'll get to start a speech by lighting a candle for Mother Mary in Goa, or have Iftar with a politician in Hyderabad.

Its hard to define Indian culture without religion. We might as well make the best of it

Rahul,

You've touched up on a key debate and raised several pertinent issues in a most erudite manner.

The first tension is that drawing the line between religion and culture. With its millenia-old Indic roots, Hindu civilization is in many contexts and in many regions of India, synonymous with religion. How it is possible to adjudicate in a Western legal system what would constitute religious practice and what would constitute cultural practice? This isn't to dismiss your arguments but rather to push them further.

Second, your argument seems to suggest that the Constitution is an absolute legal instrument...as it should be! However, rather than simply say we that we should adhere to the principles of secularism laid out in the Constitution, what if we look at who and what created the Indian Constitution? It was certainly a group of Western-educated political elites (read Nehru et al) who created this legal instrument, with what I'm sure were the best interests for the future of independent India. However, their (or rather his) vision for India was 1) an idea or an imagining and 2) was a highly personal vision. Because he believed that equidistance from all religions would provide the best kind of morality to this newly created legal document, he enshrined in it principles that he belived the Indian citizen should normatively work toward. This is the second tension between what Nehru perceived to be the reality of India and what India really was and is - it is today a modern democratic predominantly Hindu nation, and the 'Hindu' can be conflated with being either civilizational or religious - the difficulty is in separating the two especially to a polity that values tradition rooted in timelessness.

Rahul, I agree with you. For many current day hypocritical Indians, secularism means the Hindu way and everything else is pseudo secularism. You will definitely get beating for your post from such people. Probably your words have a strong meaning in the current day India, where Hinduism is not seen as a way of life but as a religion and stuff like Arti, Christmas Carol, etc are associated strongly with their respective religions. Under this "new" scenario, your arguments makes sense. When Arti is identified strongly with Hindu religion, imposing it on everyone is wrong. If a Luxury car company is using Karva Chaut in their ad, they are definitely doing it to stoke the religious feelings and establish their brand with the people in that religion. It is shameful. You are talking about Hindu traditions being followed in a Hindu college. But I have seen Hindu traditions being followed in Govt. offices. When they open a new building, they do Puja using Pujari. How can this be claimed as a part of Indian culture. Even if I accept Arti as just an Indian culture, I will never accept Puja using Pujari as JUST Indian culture. This is definitely religion. This is an insult to the secular traditions of India (By secular I mean literally not Hindutva definition of secularism which many people use here). This is an insult to people from other religion and definitely an insult to people born in Hindu religion but don't believe in that religion and Atheists (this is even worse compared to the pledge of allegience controversy in US).

another secular fanatic on intent blog.thank god that ppl like rahul are not in decision making.i pray to god that these ppl should never rule my country.

Rahul, your article is well written and an interesting read. But I agree with most others here that we are really mixing religion with culture/tradition. As for advertisements using Hindu festivals for sellling products - well, that is capitalism. If such targeted advertising was really hurting sales, I am sure we wouldn't be seeing those ads in the first place!

Rahul,

One must appreciate your thoughtfulness in considering the effects such 'religious' customs have on the others. However, I also feel that the wonderful thing about living in this country is the cohesiveness all our diverse religions have brought about.

A.K. and Prerona have raised the issue of wondering how those of other faiths react to it, I think that would be an acid test. Speaking for myself and quite a few that I know, it honestly didn't strike me as such till you mentioned it. The point brought out by others that there has been much intermingling of customs and a shared culture is valid. For example, my neighbours are Christians, yet besides Diwali and Christmas even on our own Parsi new years day she sends across sweets to us and we are only too happy to accept. In our family we are very particular about stringing garlands on our cars and bikes every Dushera - it is a custom continued from our childhood and which we enjoy, just as we light diyas every Diwali. We feel good doing it. So many non-Christians attend mid-night mass on Christmas eve and I think most do it because they want to imbibe and also experience a feeling of togetherness and solidarity with their friends.

I have often been greeted with 'Ram Ram' and namaste by my Hindu friends and 'Khuda Hafizz and Salaam Malikum' by my Muslim friends. Somehow there is no religious connotation experienced.

I think India, barring a very small minority of people from all faiths, has absorbed so much from exposure to a myriad differing customs, cultures and faiths that it has a unifying effect. In fact there has truly been a tremendous of inter-mingling of customs.

Like bad news there will always be some who judge the whole because of a few bigots. I think their negativity needs to be taken in one's stride.

A.K & Dara
Well said!

Rahul

Misdirected passion if I may gently suggest.

1)"As one-fifth of your market with their belief in other religious persuasions, notwithstanding atheists and agnostics, watches – helpless, unmoved or even resentful." If advertising is your peg let's look at all the 'others' whose case you should be supporting. T.V and our dear own Bollywood has done away with all the Ramu kakas and Durga Mausi (except Doordarshan in shades maybe) and relentlessly pursues the rich, upwardly mobile and solvent populace. Mac Donalds/Pepsi/Birks solitarires etc safely out safely 60 percent of the populace. Not to mention the desire/resentment that they trigger in the others. The metaphor of the ads is upper class, uses western lingo and idiom etc etc. Cause enough to kick out the free market and return to our disastrous public sector relic? The central characters of most blockbusters in Bollywood now bring in Salaam Namaste/ Nikki and something/KKKG etc whose cultural/social context is mystifying to 'most' Indians(in India)and yet Bollywood rakes it in unabashedly.

b) All ‘popular’ T.V soaps (barring D.D again) reflect some twisted middle/upper class metro Indians whose lifestyles and mores are incomprehensible let alone 'reflective' and yet their ratings are touted ad nauseum.

c)Poor/disabled/illiterate are marginalized in huge numbers by all that is the media today. What do you think gay people who by conservative estimates make up 10 per cent of Indians(imagine if you added up the closetted) feel when wedding fever/mortgages/home loans/insurance and even technology ads only address the heterosexual happy hearth.

I'm not sure what your point on media and its accurate reflection/distribution of Indian reality/aspiration is. Or for that matter in any culture/society. For us it’s only that much worse to generalize because the heterogeneity on all fronts is mind-boggling.

However returning to Hindu 'chauvinism' per se many posts have already addressed how the 'tolerance' inherent in the Hindu philosophy allowed so many religions to prosper and proliferate. All I would like to add is that a nation that stood up and clapped for your film "Mr& Mrs Aiyar is hardly a nation treading the road to doom or fundoism. And if you want to talk Narinder Modi I would say let's talk Mr Abdul Kalam. Even you know, as a ‘pan-Indian’ role model/icon the latter would win hands down across the nation . So where are we looking for those signs of our times?

Excellento Dara and jasjit.

I think Rahul seems to suffer with "Misguided Secularism". If at all 150 million indians are marginalised, then how do you explain the success of Sania , SRK, Pathan, MF Hussein and Abdul Kalams of India. In almost every field you could find one of the so called 150 millions reaching the top most place. They made it to the top with their hardwork and they inspire millions of young indians who are from your so called "Hindu majority".

Hi Rahul,

I think the concept of secularism is grossly misunderstood by people at large (and more so by the creamy upwardly mobile intellectual class). Secularism is not sanitisation or sterilization from religion at large or a religion in particular . Secularism is all about being tolerant towards others' religions and sentiments. Besides a lamp is not synonomous with hinduism only, its symbolic of vanquishing of darkness if one sees it in an abstract way. Besides in west one lights candles and in oriental parts of the world variations of lamps are used. So its not religion rather its Indian culture, so one should not see it as a religious symbol.
This is country where majority of population comprises of hindus , so hindu practises will be more pronounced in most aspects of life, this is not done deliberately or as an onemanupmanship , its happened over the years rather implicitly.
Stripping the ceremonies, like welcoming of dignitries with aarti, will be like stripping air passing through a garden of roses of the sweet smell of roses.

Sterilization from religious practises is not the need of hour, rather one only needs to participate more other communities festivities.
In this sphere I guess the TV soaps( though they are increasing becoming tiresome)and news channel are doing a commendable job.
Its surprising you could see the coverage of Karva - Chauth, but conviniently missed the coverage of Valentine's Day, Friendship Day, Diwali, ID , etc on various TV channels. :)
Don't worry Indian people at large and especially the bad "Hindus" are very tolerant.For
Heavens sake the word 'Hindu' is not synonomous with "Trishul wielding Shiv Sainiks", may be you need to know more hindus and also move out of the coitre of good human beings that surround you or you surround yourself with.

Hinduism was not been copy righted by Bal Thackeray .

Though it was nice to notice that you have decided to break your hibernation just before the onset of winters.
Though I had already read this article of yours on www.sabrang.com in guest's column.
Ispita Saha

Dear Rahul,

I too agree with the majority here that the points you have raised never even occurred to most of us. It is clearly a case of misdirected passion.
Surely, there are more important issues than discussing whether greeting guests with an "aarti" is a way of "religious domination" by one particular community.

Cheers!
Navin

Interesting article by Rahul. I agree with the majority here. The very definition of Hindu as a religion can be questioned. By nature it has been more inclusive than other religions and at a fundamental level does not regard followers of other religions as "incapable of attaining salvation" or being "kafirs". So most practices Rahul has attributed to Hindu religion should more correctly be attributed to Hindu culture.

I am surprised that Rahul did not bring Yoga into the picture. After all Patanjali was supposedly instructed by Shiva into this practice. If Aarti is religious, Yoga should be too.

Minor point. Shouldn't "contemporizing" be "contemporarizing"?

Rahul:

I can understand your issue with the Govt. observances.. but you are trying to overlay your sensitivities on commercial interests of Advertisers - which I think is meaningless. Using Karva Chauth as a way to sell is no different from using Sachin Tendulkar to sell a kid's toy or a bike. They use what sells in the audience they wanna target.

Now about secularism - I still believe that secularism in India is alive because of the "hindu" (I dont believe Hinduism is a religion but a collection of philosophies) core philosophy of open-ness. And this belief of mine has become stronger in the last 7 years since I have been in the US.

Sarv Dharma Sambhava - All religions are same - IS the only way forward. Neutrality can be achieved when YOU explicitly say that all are equal and achieve the same end. Anything short .. is OStrich like! You are just delaying the inevitable strife.

And Rahul, by the way, there are other minorities OTHER THAN MUslims! Therefore, when YOU forget the Delhi Massacres (AND NOT RIOTS!! for they werent! It was a massacre of a community by a political party!).. you make the same mistake that other pseudo-seculars make. To me there is NO difference between Rajiv Gandhi and Modi - they both led a group of devils and then finally justified the acts!

And I have a certain contempt for the do-gooders who kept quiet then .. and during the trials of Tytler and others .. and CANNOT stop shouting hoarse on Modi! Selectivity is a weapon that only Hypocrites use. So when you talk about secularism - STOP being selective! For you undermine YOUR argument!

Just as you argue that all religions are bunched under Indian by these rituals - you have also BUNCHED all minorities into ONE - Muslims. They are the largest .. but they are NOT the only ones who have issues.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hello Rahul and Everyone,

As a person who is non-religious I think our American forefathers got it perfect with the separation of Church and State. It was one of the greatest gifts this nation has received.

If it were up to "certain" religious camps, though, that would be history and we would tripping over the "Ten Commandments statues" everytime we walked into a school, government building or courthouse.

I think religious neutrality is not very realistic when it comes to our human personality.

As to using the word Christmas, in holiday slogans, I agree it should not be used. We are celebrating a "Holiday Season" for everyone and Christmas is only for those who want to celebrate it as Christmas. There is a Jewish holiday that falls around this time, Hanukah, and in using the term "Happy Holidays" this includes the religious observances of others that fall during this time.

A few points. If lighting a diya is not religious, and is about vanquishing darkness, why not light a candle, Ipsita? Or a laser light in urban offices? The "aura' driving the negativity should still work, right? And when you talk of our ancient seers, they also had customs of human sacrifice, untouchability, polygamy, right? So let us accept that no seer from any religion or culture can say the right things that will be right till eternity. Only religious fanatics ( of whatever faith) believe that.

Then , Childish Love of Maps says that western-educated elite like Gandhi and Nehru that wrote the constitution. Precisely. Because its the vision of people like them that created the Indian nation as against fragmented Hindu kingdoms. Will they not be the ancient seers for the generations to come? After all English is today what Sanskrit was then. all the high thinking of the day is done in that language. And if secularism is Western so is the modern state. And democracy. Nationalism. Universal franchise. And monogamy. Not everything Western is bad, my friends. Might not be good for the ego of people who like to invoke our ancient seers at the drop of a hat. ( Remember the line from Swades? Where Shahrukh says, "Whenever we start losing an argument we talk of our parampara , our tradition. They too have their traditions. And that's why they have progressed. and there is some good and some bad in all traditions."

So there, let us not think that the American public life is the ultimate in secularism or openness. After all, Atheism and communism are respected words in India unlike America. Thank God for that!

But the problem with Hinduism is that it is so amorphous. You find the highest and lowest ethical standards in its practices. There is ahimsa and vegetarianism. There is also suttee and untouchability. imagine, dalits are not allowed in temples. Even converted Hindus are not allowed in some temples, let alone non-Hindus. It is tolerant, yes. But look how some in this forum take the superiority of Hinduism over others for granted. And some seem to be feeling not so good about this tolerance. Come on, make up your mind. Is religious tolerance a good thing or not? Is it a strength of Hinduism or no? If it is, why try to follow what is happening in Iran or Bush's America? You want to be like them? I am proud of being a Hindu and I don’t want to follow their intolerance, like many among the misguided and ignorant Hindus would like us to do.

And finally, to the basic question of whether religious symbolisms can be removed from public life, well, In India it might be difficult, but it does not mean that it will not help in better integration of our people as a strong nation.

Hi Rahul,

I think you are and will always be the most intelligent actor in India. I look forward to reading more of your articles.

Janelle

One of the social activists from Delhi who I most respect is a woman by the name of Madhu Kishwar. She puts up a good strong fight against social injustice *without trashing India and her traditions*. In fact, she uses indigenous means to achieve her goals.

Recently, she took up the cause of street vendors who were being harassed by the city government. While deciding to fight on behalf of the street vendors, Madhu Kishwar decided to give them an education in cleanliness and hygiene at the same time. She got a broom and christened it Mata Swachh Narayani (Goddess of Cleanliness). She then got her group of street vendors and did a little puja (ritual) to this broom goddess and began her hygiene education in this manner every time. Now, there were several Muslims in this group. They had absolutely no problem in joining in in this little ceremony. They waved incense and placed flowers just like all the rest of the Hindu street vendors. Would you say ritual is a divider or a uniter?

It boggles my mind that the secularist brigade has objections to natural and traditional expressions of behavior that form the heart and soul of our country. Indians do puja to their pens and books, to their bicycles and cars. The whole world is our altar. On what basis do you separate the spiritual from the material? There is only one basis for your thoughts - and that is the western Christian culture. Do you not see the irony of inflicting foreign religious thinking on our country in the name of religious neutrality? I would call it hypocricy but before I do that I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have never reflected on these matters. You just accept the gospel truth that your white masters dish out without bothering to contemplate the indigenous treasures of other cultures.

By the way, under your way of thinking the poor little Buddha boy that Mallika recently posted about would be carted off to prison. Do you really want the Indian subcontinent to go that route?

Rahul,

My initial reaction to your post was with indignation. But as I continued to read the post, I began to appreciate your point of view.

Let me explain my initial indignation. As an Indian , my pride emenates from our deep Hindu cultural heritage, which pre-dates the Islamic ,Christian or the Buddhist era. Its hard to let go of that. Its a way of life, has nothing to do with the religion you practise. Many Christian denominations in the south still retain their pre-Christian roots, like wearing a Bindi. Thats their Indianness, has nothing to do with their faith on Jesus Christ . I am sure there are Muslims in India ( especially South), who retain many of their pre-Islamic traditions in subtle ways, and yet pray to Allah. Therefore I do not think its a big deal that pop Indian culture is borrowing from Hindu roots. Its just natural!

But I think your post conveys something more subtler than cultural/religious neutrality ( which is an utopian dream anyways) . What I do agree with is the need for Cultural appropriateness ( Which you say is a topic of another post).

Utkal Mohanty,

Very well said.

Madhu Kiswar has written a book called "Religion at the Service of Nationalism". She is more of a religious activist than just social activist. Religious agenda is hidden behind her social activism much like the religious agenda behind the social activities of RSS. I am quoting from one of her articles which speaks about where she stands

"serious scholars who do not trash the religious and cultural traditions of India or do not join partisan campaigns on behalf of left leaning political parties run the risk of being dumped in the RSS-VHP camp and are assumed to be responsible for everything from the Gujarat riots to the demolition of the Babri Masjid."

I may partly agree with her first part of the statement. What I want to emphasize is the second part which says RSS-VHP camp are assumed to be responsible for Gujarat riots and Babri Masjid Demolition. The word "assumed" is significant because only people associated with these organizations tend to use sentences like above. For every other sane human being, it is a well established fact that they are responsible for Gujarat riots and Babri Masjid Demolition. I wouldn't give too much importance to such Hindutva social activists.

Well first of all Utkal let me clarify something I don't hide behind traditions to justify anything , besides I don't know how come long forgotten ills like untouchability come into the perview of the present topic.
Besides the debate was not about western values , for Christ sake u r missing the point , many western values are highly admirable rather (90% of them) the best thing in them is that they are straightforward.
But this was not the point of discussion as , let me ask u one thing if eat a pastry out of a plastic plate or a ceramic one, or an earthern plate does it make a difference. I think no. But if u r living in a colony of potters may be u r more likely to use earthern plate , right.
So thats what I said lamp, candle,laser all reflect the same theme. Perhaps my dear friend u probably are forgetting these(candles+electrical bulbs) are used by intolerant hindus during diwali without any grudge.
Besides I don't know if u noticed that during the Late Pope's visit to India he did approve of the use of Indian forms of holding service, like burning inscence or lighting lamps (I think u r right western people are more rational that way they got the point of geographical effect without fussing over riligious bigotry). Plus isn't use of inscence more of muslim practise sweetly adopted by all Indian religions. :) One more thing though a bit offmark , in India a Christian bride won't wear a gown , she will wear a gorgeous south silk saree (I have seen some of these weddings), so its not religion effect , its geographical effect sir.
Let me tell u one thing if I see something cute in the market I will purchase it for my parents , simply because it is cute and will look cool when they use it , I don't sink into nitty gritty of religion it never occurs to me.
in same spirit if i see something in the utensil shop which is traditionally used for muslim or buddhist ceremonies it won't stop me from buying it for my pooja wares. So it really has nothing to do with religious bigotry or imposition of one's will on others , but if someone wants it to be expressly abolished , it ok do it.
Besides I think people should raise their voice against things like reservation , even women's reservation bill because I think reservation doesn't help anything to rectify the divisions and imperfections of society only education and awareness does. What good is reservation if a SC/ST cannot manage to get the certificate made for the same as they can't afford the bribe.
Give it a thought.
Besides I remember when I was in class X the , we never thought about caste , I was living in a casteless society, but then came the Mandal commission and caste was a rude reality. I don't know how constructive these reservations were , but as far as I am concerned I went back by 20 years , as I returned to a casteist society, something I was alien to till then.

Ispita Saha

Krish - You have confirmed what I always suspected about you. Either you don't understand what you read, or you simply do not read. What Madhu Kishwar is saying is that people who support Hinduism are automatically lumped with the RSS types and are assumed to support the Gujrat riots. The word *assumed* is not being related to the Hindu perpetraters of the riots but is being used to show that people who support Hindus are automatically lumped with riot supporters.

Thanks for clarifying it. I appreciate it. I stand by what I said based on what I have read in her writings.

Right Divya , I second u.
The word hindu is being used like ,what we say in hindi "GALI".
If every Hindu is a Bal Thackeray then every Muslim is an ISI. Such a parallelism is stupid. The way you write it seems being a hindu is such abig crime, and blood thirsty hindus are lynching others on roads everyday.
Shabana may be your favourite actress but she is not unbiased , mind u.
If hindu bashing helps u get acclaim in the west , go ahead do it.
All the best.

Uspita, I don't understand. How can Hindutva bashing be considered as Hindu bashing. Please understand that Hinduism is different and Hindutva is different. What I am up against is Hindutva and some stupid traditions in Hinduism. It doesn't mean Hindu bashing. I really find it funny that many people club Hindutva and Hinduism in the same wagon and say things like "If every Hindu is a Bal Thackeray then every Muslim is an ISI. Such a parallelism is stupid". Accusing Hindutva and certain traditions of Hinduism doesn't mean Hindu bashing. Hope you people understand the difference.

Sorry for the typo. It should be Ispita.

Divya, not sure if you got me write. When I said the word "assumed" is significant, I meant the tone and not the usage in the statement. I stand by my statement that she is more of a religious activist.

Another typo:

replace "write" with "right".

Yes Ispita - It is indeed a tragedy that the word Hindu is treated like a curse or something to be abused and kicked around. The worst offenders in this respect are the english-educated Hindus. The author of this article would not dare to question any other tradition, and neither has he done so in this article. What a rat.

Indians are among the most "traditionalist" people humanity has ever known! Seriously. Consider "secularism" which was a reactionary evolution to intrusive forces. Indians, however, want it even though there is no action that can spur such reaction.

Would Muslims or Christians object if they are greeted by Tilak/garlands or by other Indian manners? Most wont! At least sane people like Bill Clinton will not.

These traditions, niches and cults have been present in this land for more than 5000 years. Moreover, they have been present throughout India's multicultural/multi-religious history without many significant conflicts. Why should the last 50 years (after M.K Gandhi) change it?

Mahatma Gandhi would find this "exclusive secularism" to be ridiculous and insulting. For even he chanted "Allah Tero Naam, Ishwar Tero Naam" while fighiting western imperialism.

I find Rahul's comments a bit contradictory. On the one hand he agrees with Amartya Sen's neutral secularism while on the other hand he 'objects' to religious (more cultural) manners of the land.

For instance, I dont mind a big Christmas tree in front of my office (I work in US). I also dont mind my mind tax dollars being spent to celebrate new year - which comes from a Christian calender year!

" Indians, however, want it even though there is no action that can spur such reaction."

Wow. Another Hindu fundamentalist misusing secularism. Only the naive will believe that there is nothing in India to spur a secular reaction. Come on guys, people are not dumb fools sitting out here believing that India is safe from the fundamentalist forces in the Hindu religion. Just keep your eyes open.

Krish,

Please stop your ad hominem comments and discuss/argue the issue.

Divya,
As you mentioned about puja and muslims participating in it...it reminded me of my childhood.my brother and me we would go to our neighbour's house and enjoyed all hindu festivals with great fervor and participated in puja.Ramlila dusshera was the most charming part of my growing up.Our neighbor was a sanskrit scholar and perforned pooja.We called him pandit ji and his wife was chachi.My parents never objected to it or neither told me not to attend any of the festivals.
I am so grateful to my parents for this kind of upbringing.
I have been to other hindu pilgrimage places like haridwar,gomukh...etc and have stood and prayed.I believe there is only one GOD and my GOD and God of hindu's is same.We just have different ways to express our love towards GOD.
If you respect all religion and culture it doesnot mean you cannot respect your own religion.Madhu Kishwar is a very dynamic activist. I hope she continues to do her good work.She is out there in street working with the poor for the poor(unlike us).Atleast i would appreciate if we refrain from commenting on her.She does a lot of good work with Manushi,and is committed to women welfare.

hammer_sickel,

It doesn't help in the cut and run attitude. I am discussing the issue and the issue is that Hindu fundamentalism is the reason for secular reaction. Claiming that there is no issue like that in Indian society doesn't help. Can you prove that such issues doesn't exist in Hindu society and the secularism is unwarranted. I can prove my statement.

I do agree that Kishwar is doing a lot for poor. I don't dispute that part. I am just talking about her religious activism. I think I can talk about her related to her religious activism. I have read few of her articles and I am troubled by her views. I have every right to talk about religious activism. It doesn't take away anything she has done for the poor and needy.

Krish, thanks for replying and for coming back to the issue and not the issuer!

Anyway, I have given my explanation right after I said there is no warrant for presence of secularism in India.

Read from "Would Muslims or Christians object if they are greeted by Tilak/garlands or by other Indian manners?..." to "new year - which comes from a Christian calender year!".

My concern is that by your and Rahul's definition, even Mahatma Gandhi would be non-secular for mixing "God" in politics. Even he didnt find a need for secularism in Indian polity. Moreover, he preached an inclusive and sometimes neutral policies as evident.

"Would Muslims or Christians object if they are greeted by Tilak/garlands or by other Indian manners?..." to "new year - which comes from a Christian calender year!"

I agree. They won't object. In fact, it was not the case among Indians too (as AK has clearly pointed out). However, it was a case a decade or so back when Tilak and Arti were considered as Indian traditions rather than Hindu tradition. The hijacking of Indian society by Hindu fundamentalists in the last decade or so has changed the situation. Hindu fundamentalists have identified the copyrights of Tilak, Arti, etc with their brand of Hindu religion. In bombay riots, they had put a tilak on me to identify me as a Hindu and save me from other Hindu fundamentalists who are on a hunting spree. Bal Takheray (not sure of the spelling) has clearly identified Arti with his brand of Hinduism. What is the identity of Hindu fundamentalists now? Tilak on the forehead and Trishul. I have a muslim friend in India who dreads at the sight of Hindus with a big Tilak on their head. I wouldn't blame him for this. It is the bombay riots and Hindu fundamentalists who are responsible for this. Knowing what he underwent in the hands of Hindu terrorists, it is a natural reaction. It is my argument that in the changed times like what we have in India, whatever Rahul says makes complete sense. Why would non hindus and even hindus who don't subscribe to fundamentalism be welcomed with Tilak and Arti which are clearly identified with Hindu fundamentalists now. What is the assurance that the guy who welcomes with Tilak and Arti is not a Hindu fundamentalist or a fundamentalist supporter. Under the changed scenario, Rahul's argument is relevant. If you want it to be like how it was a decade or two back when Tilak and Arti are considered as Indian traditions, abolish Hindu fundamentalists totally or atleast limit them to the level in which they existed in those days. Then I will accept Arti and Tilak as just Indian traditions rather than Hindu traditions.

Hi Andaleeb - What you say is very true. It's fun to participate in different sorts of festivals and it is a great pity that our "enlightened intellecuals", so bewitched by the West, are out to annihilate our traditions. As some others here have mentioned, we happily sang christian hyms in school. I still sing Lead Kindly Light sometimes as this was my favorite hymn and the only one I remember.

Our neighbors in Lucknow were Muslim and we ate ourselves silly on each other's festivals. This probably still goes on in India. Unfortunately, there are a lot of troubled areas and fundamentalism is a serious enemy.

It is a myth that the west is secular. Is George Bush secular? In European countries a certain percentage of the GNP is given towards the upkeep of churches. Is this secular? India too is pseudo-secular. We have reservations based on caste and religion, a separate law for Muslims, and privileges afforded to minority religions which are not afforded in any other country.

Secularism is a huge cognitive failure in western philosophy. It is based on christian theology and does not hold up to logic. This is an ancient debate and no-one has ever been able to draw the line between the secular and the religious.

Yesterday, PBS had a show on Hawaii and how the natives there are full of sorrow at the annhilation of their culture. Let us learn to cherish our traditions without blindly following bad theology in the name of secularism. What a joke.

I don't understand why people talk about secularism in west when we talk about secularism in India. Secularism in India is a reaction to the fundamentalism exhibited by different religions in India. It includes Hindu, muslim and even christians. Some politicians may be sucking up to one religion in the name of secularism. But people who fight for secularism use the same yardstick against all the religions. They don't need an example from west.

krish,
Well said. I think no matter how much we do or try to be secular the majority people in the country who practice whatever religion or language and their practices going to dominate.

One can't really sacrifice majority people's thirst for minority ( I am talking about in reality). Even democracy is all about majority.

As you said if tilak is only an Indian tradition, how we can consider other religious beliefs is a big question. It’s a matter of acceptance by the others what matters.

Like French law can we bring something to stop everyone practicing their religion in the streets and in common places??? So that secularism can be spread!!
(Just like smoke ban)

How do we deal with fundamentalist forces??

There is something to debate!!!!!

it no surprise that because of ppl like bose word secularism has become a joke

Well Divya I agree with you but I would like to add one thing, the author of this article is a concerned citizen + a compassionate human being and for the other good work he is involved with and the vast talent that he has , lets not use words like (rat),etc.
For that matter we should abstain from such usage as much as possible.
I may not agrree with many of his opinions but I have immense respect for him.
So lets agree to disagree without being abusive.
Please don't get offened Divya for this. Ok . Be a sport.
Ispita

Point well taken Ispita. I don't know the author of this article and read the first couple of lines of his bio and found out that he's an actor. Will refrain from abuse but as yet do not have a basis to grant that he is a concerned, compassionate citizen who has done good work. I can only go by what he says in this article which does not reflect too much concern or compassion.

I do appreciate the balancing voices on this forum - Aurora, LPB come to mind from recent discourses.

Well Divya even I donot agree with his views expresed in this article, but as far as his being a concerned citizen , there is no doubt about that, as during the Tsunami disaster he was among the first ones to rush to Nicobar Island to apply healing touch to the people there.
Not only that he keeps reviewing the progress made and has beeen following up the relief measures there.
There is another post by him, which clearly states the same.
Keep the faith.
Ispita

Some people think that this brand of secularism is new to India and is more relevant now than before. I disagree. We have had such since independence, for whom secularism translates to anti-hindu/indian culturism. For example, when Amitabh Bacchan was an Congress MP in the 80s, he refused to participate in a social function, just because they wanted to start the function with a prayer and aarti. Same brand of secularists will participate in functions where other religious/cultural (particularly islamic) activies are practiced. This is sheer hypocrisy.

In my opinion, culture and religion are inseparably intertwined. It is foolish to try and separate them, as you will never find widespread acceptance.

As Divya points out frequently, our intellectuals base their concept of secularism on western model. India has always accepted everyone; the biggest proof of this lies in how India has assimilated several different invaders throughout history. It is even enshrined in our philosophy by statements like "Vasdhaiva Kutumbakkam (whole world is one family)" and "Sarve Janaha Sukhino Bhavantu (Let everyone live happily)".

I agree that some hindutva forces like RSS and particularly Shivsena and VHP have hijacked hinduism and are distorting it beyond recognition. We definitely need to contain them before it is too late. But the so called secularists are attacking our cultural heritage in the name of secularism and that does not serve any useful purpose. If you want to attack fundamentalism, bigotry and hatred expressed by these groups, I am with you.

Rahul and Krish, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

I think this has been a quite sicere and enlightening discussion so far. My summing up would be something like this:

1.Let us not fret about whether secularism is Western or not, or whether West is truly secular or not. We in India believe in secularism. and modern nations can prosper and live peacefully if they are secular. To be secular is to treat all religions equally, and the state should not side with any religion in particular.
2. There are overlapping areas between religion, culture, and social rituals. Many of the rituals with religious origins can be accepted as secular rituals ( eg lamp lighting, but no arti perhaps!Lighting crackers on Diwali. Sending Christmas cards maybe. Or celebrating Valentine's Day )Both majority and minority communities have to show a spirit of give and take here.
3. Living in pluralistic societies, we have to create more imaginative secular rituals acceptable to all. Like most offices today would have a modern paiting rather than a god's photo. Secular art, music, literature and philosophy is serving many of the functions that religion was serving earlier. We have to take our cues from that.
4. By and large secularism is a flourishing tradition in India. RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal are the aberrations that must be fought.
5. The existence of theocratic states anywhere is deterrent to secularism in general. The world opinion shoud denounce non-secular forms of goverment, the way dictatorship is generally denounced by liberal democrats everywhere. Which means, thumbs down to countries like Southie Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh and whichever country treats practioners of minority religion discriminiatingly.

Hi all,
It is wrong to identify all Hindus with the likes of Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal activists.....just as it is wrong to identify all muslims to the Muslim League and other Islamic fundamental groups.

I quote Ravi: "I agree that some hindutva forces like RSS and particularly Shivsena and VHP have hijacked hinduism and are distorting it beyond recognition. We definitely need to contain them before it is too late." Unquote

Dear Ravi,
They are already being contained by the Indian voting public. Shiv Sena is not as strong as it used to be. It recently lost a major election in Bombay. Rest assured that the voting public have some intelligence too. Even Lalloo Yadav, who has various corruption cases pending against him and is a pseudo-secularist, has been voted out.

Dear Krish,
You seem to be heavily prejudiced against the Hindus as you keep using the term "hindu fundamentals" half a dozen times in each of your post. (ok, I'm exaggerating....but u get my drift). I have hardly read you typing the term "Islamic fundamentals" when they are the ones who have spread their span of activities across the globe.

In my opinion,raising non issues like whether we should greet guests with aartis or not and what should or should not be a part of the Indian culture, is a meaningless waste of time. Do we want to unite or do we want to divide?

Just chill,
Navin

"Mainstream Hinduism does not have a body of dogmas which must be believed in by everybody, and which can be established as the state religion. One may believe in one God, three Gods (the trinity) or ten thousand gods, and yet be a Hindu. That is why India cannot have any state religion but only a moral order. And that is why India is secular. Indian secularism is not a concession to the minorities. It is only a recognition of the eternal character and culture of the country, reflecting the underlying Hindu identity of the people and its role as the unifier of India.

The only time pre-Muslim India had an established church was more than two thousand years ago, when Ashoka, that hero of fashionable secularists, declared Buddhism the state religion. No wonder he failed!"

Dear A.K.

Very well said.

"One may believe in one God, three Gods (the trinity) or ten thousand gods, and yet be a Hindu."

Or no God at all.

Regards,

Ravi

Please don't slip into another bout of hibernation, take some inspiration from mallika.

Mr.Rahul,

An interesting perspective, but I think it's flawed. The first thing you should do is "define Hinduism", delineate where culture stops and religion begins.

Is greeting a guest in the traditional Indian way Hinduism? If so, what would you have us do instead? Are ancient Indian epics (which all of us Indians share as heritage) Hindu? Should we alienate the Buddha as "Buddhist" rather than Indian? Many Indians say Insh'allah or Khuda Hafiz or Hai Allah. Should we now say these phrases are only for particular groups? Should we disallow the azaan, the Muslim call of prayer, which we listen to multiple times every day from public spaces? Should we disallow the Bandra church from ringing its churchbells in the public domain? In the East, all of these are celebrations of culture we all enjoy.

The people you call "minorities" are also of Indian extraction and justly proud of our culture.
Our President, who happens to be Muslim, is a shining example of Indianness. I don't know a single Indian who isn't proud of our unique traditions and complains of the things you are.

By sowing ideas like Hindu symbols and Hindu rituals, you're causing people from all religions to dlineate what they should or should not accept as their own culture, and take up fundamentalist "pure" positions when what you should really encourage is intermingling and synthesis.

Let us celebrate all religions rather than shun them all and compartmentalize them into divided "pure and fundamental" groups! Our President has greeted leaders from Muslim countries with as-salaam-alaikum and also offered prayers with them. Should we disallow this?

Mr.Bose, in the US, people from all over have settled and hence you have the problem of tolerating separate groups. In India, we are already one gene pool, with an ancient shared culture and heritage, a result of millenia of religious and cultural intermingling and synthesis. And therefore, our solution should be for each one of us to celebrate all our religions and customs, not the opposite which you're encouraging a la US where the situation is different. And most Indians already do this, have we ever even thought of what's Hindu or not!? It's ideas and articles like yours that are going to cause people to define, delineate and divide, and result in strife.

Wanted to add that karva chauth is not a "Hindu" festival such as Diwali is. It's more of a "North Indian, specifically Punjabi" tradition. Also, what's retrogressive about it? If you think it's onesided, maybe it might evolve into a new unique Indian tradition such as both spouses sacrificing food a day for the other's health and wellbeing. Or it might die out on its own. It's there because people like it. Democracy, anyone?

Views expressed in this article is simply marksed by intellectual extremism. It represents that class of thought which emanates from pure thinking which has little to do with the realities of the socio-cultural life. I am not questioning the honesty of intention of the auther, even though, the practicality of the intention is worth questioning.It is simply natural to have respect for the ancient, and adopting some symbols from our tradition is no way amounting to violating tenets of secularism. Yes, there must be some logical limitations to the use of such symbols in a plural and democratic society. these limitations are important in warding off a sence of elianation in the minority communities. in a healthy society like us such general symbols are taken from every community. the auther has failed to notice those symbols from other religious tradition.

Rahul, govt equidistant from all religions is a good idea. Like the govt spends taxpayer money to ferry Muslims to the Hajj, it should do this for all religions. Christians should be get holiday trips to the Vatican. And as a Capitalist, I'd like my annual pilgrimage to my mecca, the USA, funded a la Hajj. I'd also like to blare out hiphop and rap songs from my Capitalist minaret at full blast 24 times a day. And the Shiv Sena would like to hold loud maha-aartis and occupy all our streets 5 times a day to compete with the Muslim madness. Fair's fair! Seriously, get real, dude! Different groups value different things, and they're accomodated differently by the govt. Don't create fissures where there aren't any (yet). Lighting a symbolic lamp to start a function. What the f**k is Hindu about that and how does it impinge or deny Muslim beliefs? And let's not claim they're seething with resentment over such things when one isn't a Muslim. I'd like a Muslim person say this to believe this is what they feel.

Tomorrow you'll tell us folding hands in the traditional Indian greeting is Hindu and only shaking hands is "secular". Whatever!

Indian culture has traditionally been an inclusive one. In a heterogeneous society like ours, where customs, traditions, rituals et al change almost every 100kms, most people respect (not merely tolerate) other traditions. 'Hindu tradition' is a catch all phrase that gathers under its umbrella a mosaic of traditions. In the not too distant past 'Hindu' meant everyone east of the Sindhu river. Over time the Muslims, then the Christians, then the Sikhs and so forth started being separately identified and those leftover were classified as Hindus. They and their traditions are not monolithic, but variegated. So to classify these groups of people as a part of an 'ism' called Hinduism is itself a modern project under the influence of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic lens of looking at the world as being divided into groups by 'religion'. Our traditional way of dividing people was by jati, which are in keeping with our heterogenity, prolific in their thousands. Keeping this as the background, let us try to look at the concerns of this article.

"150 million Indians watch in resignation everyday as a car maker uses karva chauth to sell its latest luxury model" says the author.

Why should only 150 million Indians be resigned? As someone mentioned, Karva Chauth is supposed to be a 'North Indian Punjabi' tradition. Shouldn't everyone south of the Vindhyas, who have never heard of Karva Chauth be offended as well?

If some group of people are going to take offense to some traditional ritual that they don't practice, we are going to have a majority of the people offended all the time in India over any use of ANY symbol, religious or otherwise!!!

One group gets offended beacuse they are greeted with arthi, another because they were greeted with a garland, another because they were greeted with a tilak, aother because they were greeted with a shawl, another because they were greeted on a red carpet. The pacifists are offended that heads of state are greeted with a martial, 21 gun salute. Others get offended because they are greeted with a bugle call or a bagpipe or to drumbeats. If such were the case, there would be no end to taking offense. Remarkably this kind of thinking is uncommom and hence all ways of greeting are acceptable in India and people greet others in their own traditional ways, whatever they maybe. In our heterogenous society all of these ways are going to persist, while some ways will be more widespread than others.

OK, let us stop breaking coconuts to launch something new like a film. Perhaps we need to launch it by breaking a bottle of Champagne as ships are routinely launched in the west or popping a bottle of the bubbly. We need to hold a glass of wine, clink the glasses and toast each other, that would be secular, right? Trace back any of these 'secular' practices and you will find some 'religious' association.

From the state not favoring one group over another (religious or otherwise) to asking ad agencies not to use symbols identified with one or the other groups to prove India's secular credentials would take it to ridiculous levels of 'political correctness' as it is termed here in the US.

Symbols, customs, traditions, rituals et al are not static, but dynamic. In modern societies with widespread communication these are all going to jostle in the marketplace of ideas and practices. Some are going to become more widespead and adopted by more groups of people, while other practices may shrink. Demography and numbers play a role. So too does construed elite practice. That is natural. It is the narrow, rigid and compartmentalized mindset that views these as static and eternally tied to one group of people to the exclusion of others and identifies them as divisive. The Indian ethos is to celebrate this diversity joyously and partake of each others customs, traditions and rituals and strive for harmony and that is as it should be!

You've hit the nail right on the head. This is why we Kashmiris want freedom from India. As Muslims, we have nothing in common with Hindu India and its overbearing Hindu symbols, caste system and rituals. Either let us be a free country, or at least let us be part of an Islamic country like Pakistan. Hindu India has no right over Muslim territory.

Why India is afraid to hold plebiscite? Why half a million soldiers suppressing the local will? Why so afraid of Kashmiris expressing self-determination to the world? Ask any Kashmiri on the street and he will say he wants to be free of India. Indians claim to be a democracy, but why they won't allow freedom to us Muslims in Kashmir?

Rahul,

I feel that the arguments you have put forth for/against secularism being practised in india is essentially flawed.

I could easily ask you why you are posting your views on secularism in english. Isnt English a christian language ? Isnt this the language of british/americans, who are primarily christians?

During my stay in USA, i have been invited on numerous occasions to my colleagues houses for dinners lunches etc.

When i arrived, the family would always greet with a warm handshake/hug.

Now, thinking along your lines, I probably should have felt offended that i was greeted in a 'christian' way.

Thankfully, I had not yet come across articles like the ones you have written. So i was taken in with their warmth and sincerity. They were just greeting me in the best possible way THEY KNEW.

Much similar in the way the college principal greeted you with an Aarti.

If you beleive in neutrality towards all reglions, why are you so bothered about being greeting with an Aarti ?

Have you ever confronted an american/european gathering questioning them why they greet people in such a christian (handshakes/hugs) way ? Please do , and kindly note the difference in response.

Going along with your reasoning, goverment officials should not wear dhoti/kurta's or sarees, since these are essentially hindu in nature. I suppose they should just go about nude, as any kind of dress can be attributed to a culture, which points to a religion, which indicates bigotry.

Well, i enthusiastically support you on that one. The indian populace would then be electing super modes as politicians. ( atleast, i would)

Your view on the techniques used by the advertising agencies do not make much sense. During Ramza/christmas, i see many ad's on TV targetting the specific community. So i suppose that now, 850 billion ppl watch in resignation at some of christian style ads in the tv.

Your article smacks of intolerance.

But i am not surprised. Its the 'india-bashing' gene in you that makes you do it.

I really appreciate your concerns for secularism but I don't quite agree to your views. As an ad professional, I can vouch (I am sure you can too) for the fact that the motive is to sell a product and not really to bring about national integration...someone called hindu symbolism overbearing...I don't think I agree...in a country of a Hindu majority, I think the best bet is to target a motorbike at them without targeting it at the remaining minority...and by doing it, I think we are just tapping a market and not doing any disservice to the other communities...

I am sorry to say but such reactions from celebrities could just be the beginning of another national debate that we can ill afford...I mean, till today the whole issue had never struck me neither have I heard of it from any of my Muslim or Christian or Sikh friend...your friends are right, "you are making too much out of it"...about the last example of the car being sold with a karva chauth ritual, I think everyone I know loved the ad, irrespective of the religion...yes, it is debatable why such a ritual is practised at all but then again, let me just reinforce that we admen are here to sell and not to challenge the beliefs of a billion.

No offence meant, but couldn't really agree to your post.

Hey Rahul Bose,
I dont know whether you are a good actor but you are not a good writer at least about secularism.

Do you know what is meant by secularism? and secular country?

Secularism means equal respect to all religions.
Secularism means A Hindu can live as a Hindu proudly, A Muslim Can live as a Muslim proudly, and A Christian Should Live as a Christian proudly each and every individual can follow his own religion without the fear of other religions..

secular country means any individual who is born in any religion can practice a religion of his choice and that religion may not be his own.

An Indian born as a Hindu has a right to practice Islam that is what a secular country means. And that's why India Allows Conversions from one religion to another.

You contradict your own lines,

[Article](2) prohibition of religious associations in state activities

[Article] I could not agree more.

I also agree that state or Government Associations should not encourage a particular religion, it might offend citizens of other religions as such.

But Mr.Bose you went to a Hindu run college.

[Article] I recollect visiting a Bombay college owned and run by Hindus where I was greeted with an arti ceremony.

when you said the above line it means that the Hindu college is not run by any state or central Government, It is run by Hindus, when you know that you are going to be Rome try to be Roman. Hence you have no right to ask that college not to follow Hindu rituals there.

Everyone has the freedom in a secular country to participate in their own religions activities.

And you offended the poor principal by asking her why you were welcomed in a Hindu way by giving you an Aarti.What a childish mentality you have.

Ok Mr.Bose Do you know the difference between Aarthi and Jyothi. The light or candles by which you are welcomed or asked to light up are not Aarthi's they are just lights. It's a custom of all religions to welcome light.

Aarthi is camphor, but can also be a candle when a prayer is performed to a Hindu God, if not it's just light, Praksh.

Coming to religion and customs, If a Muslim invites you for Ramadan and offers kheer, and gets accused of being non-secular and that kheer should be called payasam then still it will be non-secular because it is a Hindu way of calling the same sweet, and then call it what? Milk sweet then it will become Christian, still Non-secular.

So what exactly your point is, You dont want any religion at all in India.

A Hindu not accepting Salaam as a greeting is not a secular Indian, and a Muslim not accepting Namaste as a greeting is not secular at all, and Rahul bose is Not Secular At all.

Mr Bose, by making a mockery of Aarthi, you have made a very big mistake of dis respecting the Hindu Holy light.If you are a supporter of secularism then you must have accepted the aarthi.

Coming to Bal Thakarey , if you hate Bal Thakeray that's fine why do you hate Hindu religion because of one guy, then how much should we hate other religions considering one guy. This is not appropriate.

And what you want to prove about the ADS, so you may also say that DoorDarshan should not show a live telecast of Ganapathi Nimarjjan right!.And Hence no special programs on Id and Christmas.

It is not possible Mr.Bose, try to get a big picture of what you are writing before you post anything on a public forum.

Conclusion:
I am not trying to offend Mr.Bose or his ideas, I am just trying to elaborate on Secularism and secular State.

In a Secular State A Hindu run College of Hindus By Hindus and For Hindus has the right to pray Hindu Gods and offer Aarthi to any one who attends the ritual or a Ceremony.

Same applies to minority institutions too.

And it's grave mistake to offend those institutions by asking Idiotic questions.

Rahul Bose,
Dont write anything about secularism, looks like you are not good at that.

Thank god, you are not so popular in Indian politics, people like you will ruin the spirit of Secularism and National Integrity.

Try to respect all religions first.

It has become a fashion nowadays to question religion and tradition blindly. Westernisation has influenced india so much that younger generation find it a lesser thing to go to the temple also...
and here comes rahul bose one among them....westernised anglo indian
First try to know what india is what religion and tradition is then whine about it....

Is Rahul bose an Aglo Indian?
Then Go to England, find your ancestors there.

Dear Rahul Bose,
Who cares what they show in commercials or what they do when some foreign ambassador comes to India. Live your life happily and help someone live happily if you can. Let people do whatever they want to do. That is true secularism. If you comment on what they do, then you are trying to intervene with their freedom. Ad film people want to show gruhapravesh because they want to find a wider market to their product and it is a fact that more than 80% of Indians are Hindus. The business guy even if he is a Muslim or a Christian wants to do business and earn money, period ! He does not care whose religious sentiments he is patronizing. Why should we care for that? Similar is the case with other examples that you mentioned. Most of the things in contemporary world happen based first on selfish motives of an individual. Other motives (religion etc.) always take a back seat.

The comments here are getting out of hand. Humility, kind words, that's how you discuss subjects, at least that is the supposed "Indian way". It saddens me to see such language from people who claim they're cultured and bearers of a 5000 year old civilization.

And before you rant at me (Sri & SlutMom), read my post above first.

Indojin = Rahul Bose,

Why dont you explain the concept of secularism to Deepak chopra of Intentblog.com

The Author of the Article, Is Jesus Coming Back?...

No Guts....Haah...
Then dont mess with Hinduism you buggers..

You're only showing the quality of your upbringing by such words. No wonder no one pays any attention to your ranting. And frankly, as a Hindu, you people disgust me. No culture, humility, kind demeanor, all marks of civilized people. I guess India isn't such a great civilization after all if it produces people like you.

PS. No, I'm not Mr.Bose. If you had read my first post (much earlier on this page), you'd have figured out that I think he's mistaken in his view here. Rant on.. may you get some peace.

May God Bless Indojin and Rahul Bose......

everything is but a concept and we are comfortable with some, uncomfortable with others....it is "positionality" in my opinion which is violent...most fanaticism by itslef has been an outcome of reactionary processes, irrespective of the content...

I think in one of my earlier posts I had mentioned that we should agree to disagree politely. You should know that Mr. Bose most of the times gives balanced comments though this one on lamps being anti-secular may be a bit misplaced, but he is a person who can call a spade a spade.
If u don't beleive follow this link:-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1309300,curpg-2.cms
It is about his reaction to the infamous gesturing by Mr. Chappel.
So I think Indojin has a point.
Ispita

Hi Rahul, I am a big fan of yours BTW, you're my favorite Bollywood actor. I apologize for my long comment, it's the first thing I write here. I am a German expat living in the U.S. and I have been in India several times and feel a deep love to your country. I am a Christian believer and very fond of my religion, but I am also very interested to meet people of other religions and cultures and I found India is the perfect place for that.

I liked your initial thoughts about the two ways to secularism: avoiding religious expressions in the public sphere vs being "equidistant". But in the end you seem to be suggesting that religious expressions should better be avoided because you can't do them all. Naturally when I am as a Christian in India I should agree. But strangely, I don't.

To me Hindu rituals are part of India, and hearing the call of the muhezzin from the minaret is part of India also. I enjoy lighting of the lamp ceremonies, they can be very meaningful to me as a Christian too. As long as I am not being threatened, I can go a long way with other people's religious expressions, and I love that.

I am amazed by the long tradition of tolerance in India that allowed Jews or Parsis to live in peace when anywhere else in the world they were exposed to misery. This tolerance and religious richness is unique in the whole world. I enjoy the great emphasis that Hindi cinema gives to religion. Nowhere else but in India did I bump into so many people who were curious and appreciative of my religion and with whom I had such deep conversations on our different religions.

Some Hindus are expressing an impression that their open-ness towards other religions is not reciprocated by those other religions. I think they have a point there. On the other hand, it's quite obvious in the comments on this site, that some Hindus think they ought not to be tolerant any more and instead respond to your or Nanditas view on peace with harsh and wining tone. Their tone and line of argument reminds me of the way evangelical fundamentalist argue in the West.

I wonder, what happened to the tolerance of the Indian majority? Why the communal violence as in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer? When did that start? When did people become so paranoid about a minority that they start killing? We need to understand the reasons for how the same people can expose both a world-exceptional tolerance as well as most frightening violence at the same time. I think this has something to do with a collective paranoia by the majority who feels threatened by the minority. This has been found in different places in history also, and it has little or nothing to do with religion. It can also not be suppressed, but needs to be released in an honest dialog about the real or perceived issues.

I am afraid if you start to "cleanse" the public sphere of religious expression the world would loose something, and what would step in its place? Western consumerism? Synthetic feel-good rituals? Would concerns about Political Correctness stop people from exchanging and learning about their own and each other's religion in schools? And even if you do this, would that even help fostering tolerance? The U.S. has all this secularism in its law books and the public sphere is fairly clean of religion, and yet, it feels the majority is holding all these intolerant backwards views here.

I hope that it will be possible for India to celebrate its rich religious legacy and to restore the ideal of tolerance and peace in public life.

Gunther: Tolerance, or rather acceptance into one human family, are well and alive in India. In case you didn't know, our President today happens to follow Islam, our PM is a Sikh, our majority leader (Sonia Gandhi) is a Christian, etc etc. And of course, no one cares because those are just personal aspects of those people. It's just the constant rabidness of the Pakistanis and provoking the Kashmiris using the name of Islam, and the consequent extremist reaction in India that are causing a tear in the centuries-old social fabric. Pakistan wants to justify the two-nation theory and muslims living in a secular society as equals as in India disproves that theory. So it keeps creating trouble, saying Muslim land, and Muslim majority and Muslim this and Muslim that, always dividing people on the basis of infidels and Muslims. And you're bound to have reactions to this in India. The two-nation theory itself and the birth of Pakistan itself was a huge shock to our ancient civilization. How can people of the same blood and family ties claim to be different nations just because they have different beliefs? Try telling a Pakistani (or Kashmiri separatist) that.

How wonderful it would be (or have been) if all of us Indians could have lived in our big subcontinent together, celebrating life and our wonderful cultures like we lived for centuries. Yes, the kings fought their wars, but civilians took life easy and happy.
But no, the British and their divide-and-rule fruits, the two-nation theorists had to create all this unnecessary strife and borders. The subcontinent has no dearth of food, talent, culture, nothing. Does changing your religion mean you have to estrange your family? I never understand the basis of theological countries like BD and Pakistan (which means "land of the pure", I'm told, as if we in India are all impure!). But so goes the way of history..

Thanks Arjun, that's good to hear. But isn't (and wasn't) that "happy living together" undermined by extremists from both sides Muslim League on one end and Hindu Mahasabha + RSS on the other? I don't think you can say that only ML and British are to blame. There was an anti-secular pull from the 'Hindu Rashtra' policy that got hold in parts of the INC, no? I'd agree that you could blame even that on British politics, but how will India now overcome this after the Brits are gone?

Isn't this so pertinent to the discussion of secularism, that a sizable Hindu following still subscribes to the theory of India as the Hindu state? As I said, it's fine by me if Hindus are a majority and express their religion, I appreciate public Hindu rituals. Majorities should not have to feel shame for being a majority, but they must be very gentle with the minority, and vigile to stop the bullies in their own ranks.

Where have we left our etiquette, this is flying out of control, I think the admin should implement some pronanity removal tool.
Please have some decorum.

Ispita Saha

Sorry profanity removal, pardon the slip.

Thank you Mallika, thanks a ton.
Ispita Saha.

"they must be very gentle with the minority, and vigile to stop the bullies in their own ranks"

Agreed.

have to say from this discussion that as a foreigner you have a very superficial view of things. only if you lived in india you would understand the situation, politics & dynamics. too extensive to cover here.

Could the moderators PLEASE remove hateful, offensive messages (see last post on 12/03)? It is understandable if one is in disagreement with the opinions or views expressed here but it is unacceptable to insult the writers through personal/derogatory remarks.....

its amazing how it takes any attention junkie.."oh i am so Intelectual" types to arouse such thoughts in comman indians.
for sum one like rahul bose who cant decide which side of the culrural divide is he on,its gross to say such things
WHY do we keep forgetting that INDIA though secular is a Hindu Majority State. so if we advertise/practice what is relevent to the majority's belief.. whats wrong in that.
probably Mr Rahul BOse would next say that Instead of normal prasad, wine( catholic traditon in chapels) must be distributed if ever a christian gose to a temple.

Wow, that is a lot to digest, particularly for one who is not Indian and is most certainly a novice to all things that are.

I am an American, an Asian American but not one from the subcontinent. I have always felt marginalized in this country which is still largely vanilla (though since the Korean War and other warfronts, the people landscape is slowly morphing into those GAP ads that target the changing complexion of our culture).

Having lived in Europe and Asia, I have come to see and appreciate the breadth of diversity in my home country. And I am glad that our founders had the forethought to separate church and state, at least on paper.

But borrowing from anthropological argot, there is very much a difference between the emic and the etic of what people ascribe to and how they actually lead their lives. We are a predominantly Christian society and our government and school holidays reflect as much - unfair as that may be to the Jews and the Muslims and the Buddhists and other minority faiths.

What is far more frightening to me is the uprising of what I perceive as a fundamentalist Christian sect, both in government (=domestic &foreign policy), schools, states, etc.

I am not a Christian but have been raised in what I would call the school of social decency. Tolstoy said that God gives men rules to live by, and we do not need to look far afield to know that man must follow rules to live civilly with one another. And personally, I think a lot of religions provide some good ones: don't steal; never kill what you don't eat and honor that animal's life by killing it in the most humane way possible; life involves suffering and detachment can be a way to manage that.

For me, religion and culture are entertwined and always will be. The tricky part though is that there is beauty and hatred in all people.

If you are lucky, you get to pick the religion you want - for me, it would be a matter of aethetics, a way of saying, this is what I find to be beautiful and true to my nature. But it would never give me a just cause to support violence against a neighbor or a nation whose ideas might differ from my own.

And there are many things I find beautiful in a variety of religions. I love the muezzin call to prayer. The Hindi temples and practices is art to my eyes. I love the Jewish tradition of supporting community. So there is much to appreciate in many religions. But there can be much to hate in the way people use their own personal vendettas in what they consider to be a higher belief system.

As far as democracy goes, well the upside is is that the majority rules. The downside too, is that the majority rules. There is no perfect system, and unlike many of my countrymen, I don't subscribe to the one-size fits all form of government.

And advertising, well, you do your demographic homework and based on the product you're hawking, that is how the copy is written. Should advertizing me secular? Well not if you are Hallmark trying to sell Eastercards. Making money has nothing to do with secularism or even government for that matter.

I have loved all of my trips to India and would find the poverty unbearable if it were not for the beauty that the multifarious religions infuse in peoples'lives.

I don't profess to know much about India - such a vast country with ancient civilizations and peoples and migrations and conquerors and languages and terrain. But I suspect Ghandi was on to something when he felt that the form of government needed was to be an Indian one, one that grew out of the culture of the village.

I apologize in advance if I have raised the ire of any people on this blog who are so clearly more educated than I on a country that remains so very foreign to me. I am just providing my .02 from an American perspective on church, state, secularism, and to let you know that my views are probably shared by many, tho' I may be part of a minority that feels such things.

Hi Rahul,
All the points you raised are valid and taken. But as you can see from most of the replies to your posts it’s very difficult to make people release this. As far as secularism is concerned, successive governments have failed the constitution in the hands of vote bank politics. Shah Bano, Babri Masjid or the state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat are all glaring examples of these.

The failure also extends to passing legislature to reform practices in the minority religions. So although triple talaq is banned in many Islamic countries, it is allowed in India. An implication of this is that, on one hand the rights of Hindu women have improved over the years; on the other hand the rights of Muslim women have been suppressed (triple talaq and men’s right to have four wives are examples).

So the failure on the secular front has also contributed in its way to keep the Muslims backward as well as further progressing of the Indian Hindus and Indian society in general in terms of progressive thinking. The state has to be more assertive on certain principles even if it appears to be unpopular and anti religion.

But the problem has become even bigger then secularism. In all this contemporary larger then life ways of expressing different Hindu religious practices, the essence of these practices has been forgotten. Many of these festivals and practices have now become a show off contest in which people compete to buy better gifts and sweets and have more lavish ways of expression.

A Tuesday visit to Siddhi Vinayak temple in Mumbai has now become more of a fashion and so has the Friday visit to the mosque. The higher assertion of Hindu religion in everyday life has also resulted in higher assertion of religion by the minorities specially the Muslims although in case of Muslims the show off is more within their own community.

These problems cannot view in isolation of the self centric materialistic lives with selfish goals which most urban Indians have started living. Also the false notion that Indian culture is the best and all the remaining cultures in the world are inferior especially in terms of moral has contributed to the problem.

But personally I feel that this is passing phase and the Indian Society which has been deeply religious for centuries will in the long run become less religious. I mean the importance of rituals, traditions and practices will reduce; and will be replaced by more human traits like love and compassion. This will happen when the Indian urban masses will stop thinking from the crowd mentality and will discover more individuality.