A recent local incident here (hardly to come in the news) exposes the claimed indifference to religion by the state. The incident is as follows: Here is a club (unofficially lined to a political group) that organizes a Kali Puja / Diwali (Worship of goddess Kali) on a piece of land beside a medium sized pond (governmental property) that was earlier vacant. Now that a multi-storied building has come up, they had difficult times to organize the puja. They then gradually filled up a part of the adjoining land on the periphery of the pond including a part of the pond that has been accumulating garbage for years. Thats thus a public place. For 2-3 years they have been organizing there. This time they decided, on local popular demand, to construct a small permanent structure (meaning a temple) there. They first approached the municipality, and the municipality reportedly permitted the construction, and the construction started too. Surprised? I am not really. But the issue did not end there. Their opponents (affiliating to the opposing party) objected to it – not because of the construction of a temple, but because they view the construction as a permanent structure for the club. And the objection was (naturally) semi-violent. May be some good sense prevailed in some of the elements of the contending groups. So they now decided to approach the local MLA, as if a judge addressing a legal dispute. After hearing both sides, the MLA suggested a semi-concrete structure to be built there with concrete walls but asbestos top. Thus he too had no problem with the construction of the temple. None of the opposing parties questioned the validity of the permanent construction of a temple in a public place. The only dispute they have is on the control over the consequences of it. So hail the secular state. Thought I should lecture them on the meaning of states secularism, and even to go for some legal action. But who will listen? And may be my idea of secularism – complete dissociation of religion from states function, and hence a ban on the construction (permanent at least) of a religious structure on public (governmental) property in the case under consideration – does not match with the judicial interpretation of the same. After all state has never been secular that way, and none of the parliamentary parties here even have the intention to be so, for their own interest. Hail the secularism still. I am, however, not suggesting to drop the idea of secularism as a whole form the state affairs and the Preamble, as many would suggest in desperation. [Note for Jalal : Its the same piece of land where we had intended to temporarily park your car when we first met, and we were disallowed by a kid from the opposite building.] Via Debashish Skeptic
Posted on: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:59:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015