Secularism cannot be a one way traffic

Someone objected to my last post. This is my response :

 If I write against persecution of Muslim minority I am right, but if I write, as Taslima bravely did, against persecution of Hindu minority it is wrong. So she is wajib-al-qatl, isnt she ? Some Indian Muslims are very concerned about persecution of Palestinians or Burmese Muslims. I share their views on this. But is a lock placed on their lips when the tiny Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Ahmadi and larger Shia minority is persecuted in Pakistan ? I do not hear many Muslim voices protesting against this.

My own opinion is that no one, particularly, minorities should be persecuted. Once when I was in Allahabad I told a Muslim friend of mine that whenever there is any atrocity on Muslims Markandey Katju is among the first to speak out against it. But surely Muslims should also speak out against the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits. He said that he will write against persecution of Kashmiri Pandits in a letter to the editor in a local newspaper, but he never did.

Secularism cannot be a one way traffic. It does not mean condemnation of atrocities against Muslims alone. Atrocities on all must be condemned.

Give equal respect to all, or perish

A message I received on fb from a woman of the North East, and my reply. I have deleted the name of the sender :

Jun 9th, 10:59am

Sir how can Indians with Majoritarian view of democracy rather than a pluralistic decomcracy come to terms with India's sovereignity over peripheral states like Mizoram, Nagaland etc. which were never under any subcontinental rulers (Mughals etc.) or had nothing to do with any other parts of India before late 19th century owing to the British ruler's colonial mind-set. How can anyone with extreme hatred against the Britishers be so possessive over lands that they can claim only because of the colonisers

Markandey Katju

Jun 9th, 11:24am

It is only possible if we adopt the mindset of the great Mughal Emperor Akbar, the greatest ruler the world has ever seen, who gave equal respect to all communities and sects. Akbar was the real Father of the Indian Nation ( see my post ' Emperor Akbar-- the Real Father of the Nation ' on fb and on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ).  Nagas, Mizos, Kashmiris, etc must not demand  separate independent states, because modern industry requires a big market and immense raw materials. This is possible only in big countries. Without modern industry we will be condemned to poverty, because it is only modern industry which can generate the wealth required to provide for the welfare of our people, and give decent lives to all our countrymen. So to split up into small states means being condemned to poverty.

 However, there is immense diversity in India, because India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America ( see in this connection my article ' What is India ' on my blog ). So to remain united we must give equal respect to all our countrymen and countrywomen. Without that India cannot remain united for one day

Suleh-e-Kul

A fb message received from a Shia lady, and my reply. I have deleted her name.

Dear sir plz xpress yr views on Shia Muslims....

As Shias r d biggest victim of Sunni's terrorism....whether its Iraq,Saudi, Taliban  Pakistan... or any other

country. Now, ISI..!!!!!

In fact, by killing d innocent people they r destroying d decent image of religion...and Islam is for all Muslims including Shias

What a bigger problem for Shias at international level!!!!!

My reply :

I have repeatedly said that for peace and prosperity there must be religious tolerance and secularism.

 Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice his/her religion. Secularism means that religion is one's private affair, unconnected with the state, which will have no religion, and that everyone will be free to practise and profess whatever one wants.

 Muslims believe that there is only one god ( Allah ) and are against idol worship, while Hindus have many gods ( some say 33 crore, or 330 million ) and do idol worship. Are Hindus breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of Muslims by doing so ?

Similarly, Ahmedis allegedly do not regard Prophet Mohammed as the last prophet. Are they breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of orthodox Muslims by this belief ?

 Shias do not accept Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman as genuine Khalifas (which Sunnis do ) but only Ali. Are they breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of Sunnis by their belief ?

 Everyone should be entitled to believe whatever he/she wants, and practise and profess whichever religion he/she wants. This is particularly important in our sub continent which has so much diversity.

This was the policy of Suleh-e-Kul ( Universal Toleration of all Religions and sects ) declared by the great Emperor Akbar, whom I regard as the real ' Father of the Nation', and who ( along with Ashoka ) was the greatest ruler the world has ever seen, being 200 years ahead of his times.

And this is the only policy which will lead our country to peace and prosperity.

We must respect all religions

I have repeatedly said that we must stand up for freedom of religion, and respect all religions.

At the same time, my own personal belief ( and I am not trying to impose this on anyone ) is that there is no such thing as God or soul or angels or ghosts or fairies or witches or resurrection or transmigration. These are all figments of the imagination, and have no real existence. The only reality is matter, which is in motion according to certain laws which can be discovered by scientific research ( see my article ' Religion and Science' on fb and on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in )

 To those who ask : who created matter ? the answer is no one created it. Matter came from matter.

  I believe that all religions are superstititions, and the truth lies in science, though it is still developing.

 Now many people may find this contradictory. On the one hand I say that all religions are superstitions, and on the other hand I say that we must respect all religions and insist on religious freedom.

 However there is no contradiction.

Although I am an atheist, I also know that 99% or more people believe in God. Why do they believe in God ? It is for two reasons :

1.Poor people believe in God because their lives are so miserable that they find temporary solace in religion. Without religion to give them some comfort and psychological support they would go mad

2. Even people who are not so poor, e.g. businessmen, need religion because the chance factor is so powerful in our lives that we can never be sure of the future, and cannot control our lives.. We often plan something, but something else happens. The cause for this is the low development of science till today, as compared to what it will be 100 or 200 years hence. So we start believing in some supernatural forces which control our destiny.

 Religion cannot be abolished by decree. In fact religious persecution makes people more bigoted.

The need for religion and God will disappear when the social and economic factors which give rise to religion disappear. And this will only happen when science is so highly developed that we are able to control our lives. Then there will be no need of God or religion.

 Till that happens, and that will take a very long time ( maybe 100 or 200 years from now ), we must insist on religious freedom, tolerance and secularism.

 So when I say that we must respect all religions, I do not mean that I believe in the metaphysical truth of religions. I mean that since most people are religious we must not hurt their religious feelings, and insist on freedom to profess or practise any religion, but with the  

proviso that the state will have no religion.

Secularism in India

The soil of India is such that India can never be a Hindu Rashtra or Muslim Rashtra or Rashtra of any other religion, but always be a  a secular Rashtra. No doubt there may be temporary aberrations, but after some time it will again revert to secularism.
 Secularism does not mean that one cannot practise one's religion. Secularism means that religion is a private affair,unconnected with the state, which will have no religion.