Spiritual Democracy

Spiritual democracy together with spiritual secularism is the antidote to the malady we encounter - the crisis of morality. There is a downside to secularism if morality is treated like a fly in the political ointment to be taken out.

The pendulum had drifted towards the other extreme end of the continuum to lay all emphasis on the present life and total disregard for the ecclesiastical. The duality was the concomitant, which is expressed in the words of Christ: "My Kingdom is not of this world and Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." God is banished from this world to dwell and remain supreme only in the world hereafter (God forbid). In his brilliant chapter 'Man without Values' in the book The Tower and the Abyss, Erich Kahler has pointed out the folly of secularisation, which, in essence has "pushed the divine farther and farther behind ever growing scientific technological and economic material, behind the manifold orders of intermediary causations and evolutionary processes... We no longer live our days in nearness to the divine; we do not sense its permanent presence in every form of nature as the ancients did...The divine has been banished into a far removed sphere of vagueness and silence. Such silence and absence of God have been bitterly felt by various modern minds, such as Rilke and Simone Weil, who were only too disposed to listen and respond to the voice of the divine."

Science has, unfortunately, given a new form of fatalism. When everything is determined, it robs an individual of the quintessential value of 'choice', which is not possible without some degree of 'free will'. Human beings do not enjoy absolute 'free will' as that is only in the domain of the divine, but its limited quantum makes one accountable for one's behaviour. Unlike animals, humans discriminate between what is right and what is wrong. It is here that the moral force - the conscience - enables one to make the right judgment in his thinking - as per the Cartesian axiom Cogito ergo volo. Secularism, to the extent that it takes the temporal world and provides the guidance for promoting the spirit of tolerance for diversity, accommodates all faiths and lends them dignity. Professor Hamilton Gibb describes Islamic society as a "fully rounded society on a religious basis which comprehends every aspect of human life". Iqbal, in his profound book Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, explains why duality between the 'sacred' and the 'profane', the spiritual and the temporal, the 'ecclesiastical' and the 'secular', the Church and the state, exists in Christianity and not in Islam: "In Europe Christianity was understood to be a purely monastic order which gradually developed into a vast church organisation. The protest of Luther was directed against this church organisation. ..If you begin with the conception of religion as complete other-worldliness, then what has happened to Christianity in Europe is perfectly natural...Islam does not bifurcate the unity of man into the irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter. In Islam God and the universe, spirit and matter, Church and State are organic to each other."

Secularism was wrongly attributed to Quaid-e-Azam by Justice Munir on the basis of his famous speech of August 11, 1947. I have not come across any statement by Quaid-e-Azam in which he mentioned the word 'secularism' to be the guiding principle of Pakistan. Of course the temporal aspect of secularism is inherent in Islam. R Smith in his book, Mohammedanism in Africa, has mentioned: "Islam has given to its Negro converts a status, dignity and self-reliance which are all too rarely found in the pagan or Christian fellow country-men. " R C Reddy remarks: "The age long problem of racial equality has not been solved by any system of religion or ethics except Mohammedanism. In every other polity or religion, reason, ethics and spiritual ideas have been broken on the rock of race and colour."

Just one letter that Quaid-e-Azam wrote to Mr Gandhi on January 21, 1940 will clear the notion of how 'secular' was he in the sense the West conceives it: "Today you deny that religion can be a main factor in determining a nation, but you yourself, when asked that what your motive in life was, whether it was religious, or racial and political, said - purely religious. The gamut of man's activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. You cannot divide social, economic, political and purely religious work into watertight compartment. I do not know any religion apart from human activity. It provides a moral basis to all other activities which they would otherwise lack, reducing life to a maze of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Rousseau, the great apostle of democracy has made a startling statement. "No state has ever been founded without a religious basis." About Islam he said: "Mohammed [PBUH] held very sane views and linked the political system well together and as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs, who succeeded him, that government was indeed one and so far good."

To conclude, I would like to stress what Erich Kahler said: "When the individual is supposed to submit unconditionally to the will of the secular powers as instruments or substitutes of the supreme power, then the will of God is stripped of its actual influence on earth." Pakistan's destiny is towards harmonising the 'secular' and the 'spiritual', and discarding the theocratic notion of Islam.

http://www.redgage.com/blogs/advokatku/secularism-sacrosanct.html

'A positive secularism should be based not on Gandhi and Nehru but on Phule, Ambedkar and Periyar'

Sociologist Dr. Gail Omvedt, emails answers to BIJURAJ's queries on Mayawati, dalit movements, Hindutva and the modern-day communists. What is the position of Dalits now in general? Is theirs a story of progress or setbacks? I think there are many instances of progress. One of these is Mayawati’s victory. Questions could be raised about her strategy but there is little doubt she has electrified dalits all over India and sent a scare to Congress and other parties in the establishment. This carries a speck of dalit movement in politics, and it should not be ignored. A dalit woman as CM, in striking distance of becoming the PM, is a major achievement. But there are also many negatives too. Many activists may feel the need of ‘Shudra’ or a ‘Bahujan’ alliance, a dalit-non Brahman alliance, to annihilate caste. But this alliance appears to be in tatters today. The mental backwardness of the backward castes, their ongoing mental slavery to Brahmanism, remains a problem, illustrated by Khairlanji and numerous other atrocities. Unless this is overcome, there can be no real victory. The UP majority was possible because of the particular caste equations there – 20% SCs, 12% Brahmans, 12% Thakurs. This is true of much of the “Chamar” belt, and so BSP’s strategy makes sense. But the same strategy cannot work elsewhere. There are also differences within the Dalit castes. The Mala-Madiga conflict has become so severe in Andhra that some Madigas are demanding that Malas be taken off the reserved list. Similar splits can be seen elsewhere, for example among Matangs and Buddhists in Maharashtra. Nor is there any sense of a Dalit unity in regard to demands to include Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims in the reserved list. While the courts are barring additional reserved seats, the response of many dalit organizations has been entirely negative. There is the need for a sense of solidarity.  There is the other side to Mayawati’s victory: corruption, nepotism, opportunistic alliance. Also ‘sarvajan samaj’, her controversial slogan. Politics is a dirty game; I don’t think she is more corrupt than any of the other political leaders. When Babasaheb said that dalits should become a ruling community, he meant that they should not simply take up their own demands but keep the interests of the entire society in mind. He continually stressed the harm that the caste system has done in terms of not just oppressing the subalterns, but in ruining the entire society. In this sense, Dalits can and do represent the “sarvajan.” It also has to be remembered that a political party does not represent a section of the society but should set the agenda for entire country. The call for a “sarvajan samaj” is part of an effort to mainstream the BSP. I, for one, would be delighted if the BSP could emerge as the real alternative to Congress, not just as a party protesting for the dalits. BSP used Hindu upper caste symbols and depictions for its election campaign.  Yes, but Dalits also need to use the symbols. They could point out that “Naga” was also a word for elephant in the Pali literature (see the Dhammapada) and that Buddha was called “mahanag.” “Hathi naahi Ganesh hai…” Ganesh is, originally, a non Aryan deity. It can be used to symbolise the original casteless, classless society— ganvyavastha din, gan pati as “the people as ruler.” How can the caste system be annihilated? How do you go about it, politically? Babasaheb Ambedkar had given two methods in his essay on the subject. One is inter-caste marriage. Once this has gone far enough castes are rendered meaningless. He also argued that it is necessary to renounce Brahmanic Hinduism. Become a Buddhist, Christian, Sikh or a Muslim but renounce the shastras. I’m not sure if it is enough to be an atheist since Brahmanism has been effective in absorbing atheism. Sociologically speaking, atheism does not provide the kind of family support that is necessary. People go back to old ways. Of course, it may be argued that Brahmanism also absorbs and co-opts Buddhism and Christianity. But when the majority of the country is consciously non Hindu, we will see a different picture. This has to begin from within the political sphere. There should be an end to Brahmanic Hinduism practised in schools, appearing in texts, and in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Policies of affirmative action are needed to break the historical links of caste and economic occupation and position, to bring the people on an equal footing. This should apply to the defence, science and the corporate sector. I don’t think changing names makes much difference. My analogy is “Harry Potter”. These English names bear the imprint of old occupations, but nobody takes them seriously anymore. In American culture and, to some extent, the English culture people take pride in having ancestors who were working class. We rose by our own efforts, they say. This is not true in India, where people prefer royal or Brahmanic ancestors! How are the Sangh Parivar and fundamentalism faring at the moment? I think they have had setbacks, but unless there is some positive response these could be only temporary. The problem is that the Hindutva feeds on the disgust people have with the Congress; and the “soft saffron” position adopted by so many Congressmen. So as long as Congress remains what it is, and there is no real alternative party, the opposition BJP and the Parivar will benefit. The basic problem here is that we cannot really distinguish between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva,” Why, for instance, was it the land of Gandhi, Gujarat, which had the pogroms? My disillusionment with Gandhi really climaxed then. And in this sense Congress is the child of Gandhi, more than of the so-called “secular” Nehru. A positive secularism has to be fostered, based not on Gandhi and Nehru but on Phule, Ambedkar, Periyar and other dalit-bahujan intellectuals. Do you believe that the dalit movements have nothing to draw from Gandhi's legacy? Was Gandhi’s role totally against Dalits? Yes, almost entirely. It is a fact that Gandhi was the first major opponent of Ambedkar. After the round table on the issue of separate electorates, and when Ambedkar announced his conversion, it was Gandhi who was his most vocal opponent. The Hindu Mahasabhba accepted his conversion to Buddhism. One of the serious criticisms against Dr. Ambedkar is that he didn’t take the Freedom Movement seriously. His priority lay in the uprooting of the caste system.  Without annihilation of the caste system there is no real freedom.  Is there a place for nationality, language and culture in caste movements? Do you think that dalits should go back to own culture to find the basis for emancipation? What has to be remembered is that local cultures and languages are so heavily colonised by Brahmanism that it is hard for dalits to find their own traditions. Caste discouraged change and innovation, forced people to remain in their place. Of course there are positive elements, the histories of rebellion and dissent, but these have to be recovered from brahmanic cooption. For example, in Maharashtra the varkari movement— with Namdeo, Cokhamela, Tukaram and the like—symbolized a revolt against caste, but much of this has been lost to history. The temple remains controlled by Brahmans. In Karnataka, the Lingayat movement began with Basava’s revolt against ritualism, polytheism and caste, symbolised by an inter-caste marriage that led to a state repression and a popular revolt. But now the situation is such that when a writer proposes that Basava may have been a dalit, he is met by strong protest. Thus the traditions have to be fought for. This can be done, I think, only with the help of a universalistic culture: dalits need to use the world as their stage; learn computers, English – all of which are necessary to transform the local cultures. What is your view on the Communists and the Left in India?  They are hardly communists. I don’t know if they even read much of Marx any more. Their protest against globalisation, for example, had tended to seek solace in the old state capitalist societies, looking to the nation as an alternative to a global order. I remember their predictions about globalisation in 1991 – that the Indian capitalists would be “eaten up” by international imperialism, there would be overwhelming price rise and so on. This, of course, has not happened. Indian capitalists are doing quite well, though inequalities have increased. They have failed to focus on the real problems of globalisation, the way old imperialism based on the competition of dominant nation-states with their colonies, has transformed itself into Empire (in the words of Antonio Negri), and is taking on new forms of integration, developing new methods of production. We have to go forward, not backwards. They seem to waver between simply accepting all the multinationals and investment – leading to Nandigrams – and holding to the old forms of state capitalism, in which a Brahman-controlled public sector was perceived to be socialistic. And there is no evidence that they have really changed their old positions on Ambedkar, dalits, caste and gender. Should caste struggles be violent or non violent? Whether a struggle is nonviolent or violent depends on the response of the class/caste enemy, and what people are ready for. Switching to violence when there are opportunities for peaceful mass struggle and parliamentary politics doesn’t work, I think – except in backward societies such as Nepal.  Once we saw an active Dalit Panther movement. Any lessons to be learnt there? We can say that the Dalit Panthers were an immature though militant and energetic movement. They were not organised enough; they very quickly broke up into factions. They represented the aspirations of the period but had no real strategy. Afterwards, the youth from those Mumbai slums said, “We didn’t know what was in the manifesto. All we knew was that if someone put his hand on your sister, it was to be cut off!”

Posted on Sep 12, 2008
at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ws200908positive_secularism.asp