Hindu nation is not a problem. Nation is a cultural and civilisational construct. If Mohan Bhagwat had called India a Hindu state, the debate over it would have been legitimate. A state is legally defined and internationally accepted. The way Muslims and Christians practise their respective faiths in this country has a typical Hindu touch to it, thus making India a Hindu nation culturally and in terms of civilisation. An atheist Buddhism acquires Hindu hues in several countries of Asia. That way, the Indian nation, which is a Hindu nation, is not bound by the political map of India. At the same time, it does not mean we have imperialist designs of usurping the territories of countries that are Hindu by culture. But it still misses the point. Bhagwat is a non-state actor, not a representative of the government. Besides, when the RSS and its affiliates argue that India is a Hindu nation and their opponents argue it is not, from the details you can figure out they are on different planes. It is clearly a debate over semantics not worth our time and effort. Legally, the state of India is secular by the Constitutions 42nd Amendment that introduced the term in the Preamble. In practice, India is multicultural, pluralist and tolerant owing to a Hindu majority that does not take religion seriously, or does not let it affect the world beyond ones private sphere. And none of multiculturalism, pluralism and tolerance is secularism, which means not letting any religion dictate state policy. Communal concerns do dictate governments of India at the Centre and States quite often.
Posted on: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:15:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015