"India is secular because of Hindutva": Advani

[Guest guest]

>BJP News <bjpnews

>bjp-l (BJP Discussion Group)

>vaidika1008

>[bJP News] "India is secular because of Hindutva": Advani

>Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:20:52 -0800 (PST)

>

>Title: "India is secular because of Hindutva": Advani

>http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd1%2Etx\

t&counter_img=1

>February 15, 2003

>The Pioneer

>

>"India has traditionally been a secular country. The concept of theocratic

>state is alien to our people," says Deputy Prime Minister and Union Home

>Minister LK Advani, who was recently on a week-long official visit to

>Thailand and Singapore. Speaking to Seshadri Chari, the editor of

>Organiser, Mr Advani explains the Bharatiya Janata Party's stand on the

>issue and affirms that his position is not different from that of the

>Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), of which he became a swayamsevak in his

>early teens while in Karachi, now in Pakistan. Here are a few excerpts

>from the interview.

>

>Q: Your remarks about state and religion in Parliament drew criticism from

>some quarters. Can you elaborate on the issue of theocratic state?

>A: The speech I made in Parliament was in response to the discussion on

>Gujarat. I had stated that India could never become a theocratic state. By

>tradition we are secular. But what I said was incorrectly reported as I

>having said that we are not a Hindu Rashtra.

>

>Q: How do you differentiate between Hindu Rashtra and a theocratic state?

>A: They are two different concepts meaning two absolutely different

>things. Now, when India became free in 1947, we declared ourselves a

>secular state and Pakistan became an Islamic state. The framers of our

>Constitution did not even consider it necessary to mention in the Preamble

>of our Constitution that we are secular. It went without saying so. In the

>real sense of the term, secularism is showing equal respect to all forms

>of worship (sarva pantha samadhar) and the state considering all its

>subjects equal without patronising those professing a certain method of

>worship. Secularism is not a situation where the state turns its back on

>religion. In our history of thousands of years, we have never had the

>state telling its subjects what religion to belong to or dictating the

>religious practices of the people.

>

>Q: How do you explain the concept of Hindu Rashtra? Are we a secular state

>and a Hindu Rashtra at the same time?

>A: Yes, in a way that is right. Now, the concept of Hindu Rashtra is not a

>political philosophy. It has nothing to do with the political

>administration of the country. Majority of the people in this country are

>Hindus. Hinduism collectively represents the culture and the basic ethos

>of this country. In fact, this is what the Supreme Court meant when it

>stated in one of its judgements that Hinduism is not a religion but a way

>of life.

>

>Q: So, according to you, the RSS's concept of Hindu Rashtra also agrees

>that there cannot be a theocratic state in India?

>A: I have tried to explain what I understand by these concepts. We are

>secular because we have inherited this worldview. The idea of secularism

>comes naturally to us. In fact, Hindu Rashtra and theocratic state are

>contradictory. I would like to recall my interaction here with Shri Guruji

>(Golwalkar), the second Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh.

>It was some time in 1948, when the RSS was banned after the assassination

>of Mahatma Gandhi. The RSS had nothing to with the dastardly deed. In

>fact, Godse was a severe critic of the RSS. Anyway, some people

>sympathetic to the RSS and outside the organisation, who also had

>connections with the then Government and the top leadership in the country

>(like T Venkatramana Shastri and Mouli Chandra Sharma), tried to have the

>unjust ban revoked.

>The Government raised two issues. One was that the RSS was a secret

>organisation; it did not even have a formal constitution. This question

>was easily settled, as the RSS was never a secret organisation. The other

>issue was about secularism. The Government was then involved in the

>process of drafting the Constitution of India, which would be a secular

>one, and the RSS was believed to have been holding contradictory views on

>both. Shri Guruji cited the example of Great Britain, which has no written

>Constitution. If a country can be run without a Constitution why can't an

>organisation? Even so, RSS had no basic objection drawing up a formal

>constitution. Guruji emphasised that Hindu Rashtra has nothing to do with

>the nature of the state.

>Just as most of the Christian-majority European countries have a secular

>government, we in India have always had a secular state in a Hindu

>majority country. So, there is no contradiction between the views of the

>RSS and the view that there can be no theocratic state here.

>

>Q: Why is it that in a Hindu majority country an avowedly Hindu party

>could not ascend to political power?

>A: Hindu is traditionally liberal in his approach towards matters of state

>and society. Gandhiji's liberal views appealed to the common Hindu more

>than the views of political parties like the Hindu Maha Sabha. Gandhiji

>commanded the respect of all Hindus. But one must admit that Gandhiji

>could not capture the imagination of the Muslims. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was

>successful in creating a fear complex in the minds of the Muslims and pave

>the way for Partition on religious grounds, though he himself cannot be

>considered to be devout Muslim.

>

>Q: What according to you is the role of religion in politics?

>

>A: If by religion is meant a form of worship, then there is nothing as

>Hindu religion. It is an umbrella term for different forms of worship,

>which have originated in India. But if there were an attempt under the

>garb of what I refer to as pseudo-secularism to create an antipathy or

>aversion to religion, the country would only be weakened thereby.

>

>Q: In this context where do you find the scope for cultural nationalism?

>Is there not a religious component in it?

>

>A: Culture is not religion but certain traits not identifiable with just

>one form of worship but common to all forms of worship. Everyone in the

>country considers the cow sacred and worships Ganga, visits Kashi and

>considers pilgrimage a pious duty. In one of his speeches at Madurai in an

>AICC session, it was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who said that what kept India

>together was this practice of interlinking the country through cultural

>exchanges. "The silken bond of culture has kept the country one," Nehru

>had said. We are talking of this cultural nationalism. In the political

>and administrative sphere there is no scope for religion. But one thing is

>clear: India is secular because of Hindutva.

 

 

_______________

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail