Secularism misunderstood

These are my personal and random thoughts 

B D Narayankar writes

Why is it that the Indian journalists use or coin terms so liberally when they need to understand the damage they do India and bring shame to the noble profession. Why they liberally and irresponsibly use the terms as Hindutva, as though it is something to do with violence as it is perceptible in other religions. Let me explain.

India boasts of the presence of excellent intelligentsia, but the problem with them is they speak chaste English and quote Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle, Freud, Marx and many others, and are abreast with the latest trends in the West including the secular concepts in vogue, but totally ignorant of their own culture and worse still, make fun of treasures as the Bhagavad Gita, Ayurveda, pranayama with their nasty pen.

These intellectuals are a product of a man called Macaulay, who had a job cut out to make Indians not only more British than the British, but also make them ashamed of their own culture, spirituality and ethos. 

Looking at the so-called secular politicians, journalists, bureaucrats and the whole westernised cream of India - talking and emitting fire against Indianised and spiritualist education, and blindly lauding anything Western, must have made Macaulay roll with great ecstasy in his grave. And what is even more disturbing, most of them are Hindus, unlike the majority Muslims and Christians who do not go public against their teachings, fearful of inviting a fatwa or an ultimatum.

And what India is getting from this education is a youth swearing by anything Western including liberalism and secularism.

Now, let me come to the concept of secularism as understood by the intelligentsia including loud-mouthed journalists. How do they understand it? Let me explain.

The concept of secularism developed in Europe in the heat of religious wars, which were the results of the dogmatic and dominating spirit of Christianity. 

Christianity recognises the hegemony of Church and sees truth and justice as the monopoly of their faith. It is quintessentially a vision where there is hardly any scope of seeing the whole of the human species as comprising one family. 

In contrast, the Vedas do not recognise the hegemony of the priestly class and do not see truth and justice as the monopoly of any class, caste or race. It is quintessentially a universal vision that sees the whole of the human species as comprising one family. 

The ability to cope creatively with religious and cultural plurality has been an integral part of the Indic Soul from time immemorial. In that sense, it could be argued that the seminal patterns and principles of secularism lie embedded in the Vedic vision, to an extent.

Now, do the loud-mouthed journalists and intelligentsia appreciate this - after all how can they. They are the children of Macaulay! Hence, it is not at all that surprising for them to have the misunderstanding of using the word Hindutva as though it is hostile to other religions.  

Hindus are the only race on the planet which hasn't attacked nor ruled any other country for any sort of gains because of its inherent and eternal concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam  - World is A Family - from which stems the secular values of Indian culture. So, there was no struggle from Hindus as Christians had to free themselves from the shackles of religious institution - the Church - to develop the concept of secularism. 

Hindutva, the Supreme Court in its 1995 judgement observed that it is a way of life and not hostile to any organised religion nor does it proclaim its superiority over any other religion. However, the Hindu-bashing secular sceptics relentlessly disseminate "Hindutva" as a communal word, something that has also ingrained in the minds and language of politicians, media, civil society and intelligentsia. This brings into contention whether they are casting aspersions on the Supreme Court order or believing they are living in a Banana Republic?