It started with Thapar writing on the “Modification of Indian Politics“. Nitin picked up the gauntlet to define the debate on clear terms. Offstumped carried the debate further with?posts on?inclusivity and national interest. Sandeep added his perspective on the subject.
With the BJP announcing Mr. LK Advani as its shadow Prime Minister and Narendra Modi’s Gujarat Model or Moditva as some refer to it, continuing to intrigue commentators to the Left and Right, Offstumped has decided to do a series of posts on the twin subjects of Hindutva and National Interest. The reasons are straightforward. The media and the Left have hijacked this debate with disingenuous application of labels – “secular and communal”. This is an attempt to frame the debate the “Right” way rather than leave it to the likes of Sardesai and Thapar.
A lot has been said about what “Hindutva” stands for over the years. One aspect that comes to mind foremost is if it stands for a Theocracy that calls for a Hindu State Religion. The source of this controversy the label “Hindu Rashtra”. Offstumped had in an earlier post clarified how such a label could be consistent with a minimalist secular state where separation of church is intact and governance is secular i.e. laws are applied unmindful of an individual’s religion.
It is an insult to our collective intellect that we have allowed the Left and the media to succesfully label what has come to symbolize governance in India since Independence as “Secular”, for what we have today in India fails even the “minimalist secular state” test.
Why is that so, is there not separation of church and state ?
Not exactly. Today Relgious Institutions across the country are governed and managed by the State.
It fails the second test as well as we have personal laws by religion as well as laws specifically targeting Minority Institutions.
The more serious issue however is that it is the writ of the State that determines how religious shrines are managed and who gets to enjoy the spoils and privileges from the revenues generated by these shrines. In fact State control of religious institutions is such a high stakes game that the Office of Profit Bill ensured that Congress MP’s unquestioned right to be the Chairperson of Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanam, TTD, had Constitutional Sanction. We see a similar row brewing in Kerala over Sabarimala where the supposedly atheist LDF Government has been going out of its way to influence how the Devaswom board is run.
Offstumped had in two earlier posts first on the Sabarimala Tantri issue and then on the Babri Masjid issue had called for freeing religious institutions from state control. There is a very good rationale for doing this which is both secular and right of center. The secular argument is it separates church from state control and intervention. The right of center argument is it gives religious institutions freedom to be run as their stakeholders i.e. the devotees and the local communities deem fit.
As Hindutva looks to define itself for the 21st century it would be appropriate for it to begin with this issue for it offers a path forward to resolve the intractable issues of last century as well as provides a clear contrast and distinction on what it stands for in this century. Freeing religion from state control would also serve National Interest for the State would no longer be seen to be acting in parochial interest by speaking for individual communities but for the people of the nation as whole.
So in closing Hindutva must unambiguously stand for freeing religion from state control irrespective of whether it is the majority faith or a minority faith. Such a Hindutva would be minimalist secularism as well as serving National Interest.
Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Uncategorized
>> So in closing Hindutva must unambiguously stand for freeing religion from state control irrespective of whether it is the majority faith or a minority faith.
In that case the first step is not calling it “Hindu”tva. The name too must be independent of religion.
Rishi – you are confusing the state with the ideology. It is the state which is independent of religion not the ideology. In fact for the ideology to have the freedom to draw its inspiration from any religion it desires to it needs religion to be free from state control. So hindutva as an ideology draws its inspiration from centuries of hindu thinking and for it to have the freedom to do so it requires the indian state to leave hinduism alone and not interfere with hindu institutions.
[...] NA wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptOne aspect that comes to mind foremost is if it stands for a Theocracy that calls for a Hindu State Religion. The source of this controversy the label “Hindu Rashtra”. Offstumped had in an earlier post clarified how such a label could … [...]
The seperation of religion and state is an admitable thing and absolutely should be encouraged. What i find strange is that a religious movement would be pushing for this.
e.g. A seperation of the state and religion would entail
1. No state support for setting up or running of temples.
2. No state support for religious fairs and pilgrimages like the Amarnath yatra or the Hajj.
3. Removing of all laws regulating or banning conversions.
Would all these be acceptable?
Absolutely desirable. In fact any ideology that seeks otherwise wud not be about being inspired by religion but it wud be only abt seeking entitlements from the state and nothing to do with religion or ideology.
Well, my reading is quite the opposite. It is not that religion needs to be freed from state control ( I would use the word influence rather than control) but the other way round……..State should be freed from the influence of religion, which is the root of many problems.
Secular by definition means exactly that…. State being free from religious influences but it is practiced in a distorted way by many parties.
As regards Haj, Amarnath subsidies …I don’t see a issue there. Or providing security to religious processions etc…yes of course. Secularism doesn’t mean Absence of religion, it is irrelevance of religion in state policies. Religion being such a volatile issue, there is no harm in having some or unobtrusive form of control over it by the state. But the reverse is unacceptable. No religious influences in State policies i.e no theocratic tendencies/inclinations.
Cynic my friend I am afraid you are illiberal you don’t stand for freedom for you seek to impose state control on my right to choose what inspires me and what guides me and what is to be my moral compass. This is exactly what Nitin meant when he said that they the media and the left (congress included) are illiberal.
Yossarin, I am not offended by labels because I do not subscribe to any of them.More so when the labeling is done without understanding the views in entirety.
“right to choose what inspires me and what guides me and what is to be my moral compass”… of course anyone should & has that right today. Why even talk about an imaginary issue that doesn’t exist. State influence ( not control as I said that you ignored) is limited to finance,law & order primarily which is fine. ( Akal Takht today deigned the killers of Indira Gandhi “martyrs” – would it have happened if it was state controlled? So I don’t think there is any real control of state over “right to choose what inspires me and what guides me and what is to be my moral compass” And whatever minimal influence it has over religion doesn’t cause any problems.
But influence of religion over State – Now that is real problem we have on our hands !!
“Secularism” now means rallying Muslims (and Xtians) along religious lines and politically divide Hindus along Caste.
Nehruvian ideals was not free from defect. Still, ‘principled secularism’ of Nehru was not as exposed as today’s “secularism”.
Selectively, ONLY Hindu temples are under Govt control in large parts of Southern India. Money collected from Hindu temples are used to (1) feed cadres of psuedo parties, (2) build masque/churches.
THE VERY FACT THAT ADVANI, FINEST EXAMPLE OF HINDUTVA, TALKS ABOUT PSUEDO-SECULARISM SHOWS HINDU RIGHTS IS FINE WITH CONCEPT OF SECULARISM. HOWEVER, THEY RESENT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES GIVEN TO MINORITIES.
Cynic is right. Religion should cease to be a factor in Politics. BJP should not be vouching for Ram Setu, neither should Congress be listening to the Mullahs.
Government having a say in running religious institutions is desirable to a certain extant. When left to themselves, temples would encourage untouchability and corruption. Besides Temples have historical value. The state has a responsibility in preserving national treasures. But ofcourse the govt should also have an equal say in running mosques and churches.
While Haj subsidy is deplorable, state appointed Waqf boards deciding who gets picked to go on Haj is unavoidable.
Hindutva is political Hinduism.
The Hindu society has over the centuries developed several responses to the assault it has faced from Islamic oppression and Christian missionary zeal.
The bhakti movement, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, the Ramakrishna movement are all examples of the relegious responses.
Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Vijaynagar empire are examples of the military responses.
Finally, Hindutva is a political response, by Hindus that feel slighted and marginalized in their last refuge, India. Hindutva, is a political response of the hindus perceived threat from communism, marxism, jihadi terrorism, and christian missionary zeal.
Just to clarify, Hindutva is against over zealous missionaries, not christians.
Hindutva is against jihadi terrorism, not muslims.
Hindus are very socialist by nature, the interests of the community or caste always taking precedence over the individual. But Hindutva is against nehruvian socialism and godless communism/marxism that has infected the academic/political elite of India because it has tried to bastardize the Hindu culture, history and relegion.
Balaji my friend you are demonstrating classic confusion which is neither secular nor liberal. You can’t have it both ways and selectively have the state legislate on religious matters which btw makes u no different from a theocracy and then turn around and selectively demand secular governance. Issues like sethusamudram and now the ganga expressway have a more to do with stakeholder consensus and less to do with religion. Will address them in a subsequent post. Bottomline state control is not secular/liber
But influence of religion over State – Now that is real problem we have on our hands !!
You bet we do!
Hmmm, lezsee, would tempering terror investigations outta respect for ‘religious sensititivites’ come under that definition? Has happened on multiple occasions, after all.
Would restricting the freedom of speech and conscience when it comes to criticising a certain religion fall under it?
Would special privileges based on religion in bank loans and police jobs etc fall under the same?
Just wondering is all.
/Have a nice day.
Here is an example where the newly elected BJP government in Himachal Pradesh just went ahead and decided that the state should not control temples (which obviously implies hat under Congress Raj the government was controlling temples)
“State government shall not indulge in functioning of temples. It shall add facilities to the temples so that more pilgrims and tourists visit them…My government will lift state’s control over temple management,” he said.
Sud – Hmm..lemme see if I can answer.
1.Yes
2.Yes. Criticism of ANY religion. But of course the criticism has to be within the boundaries of civil behavior, respect for fellow citizens and above all law of the land. I know two of these are subjective… !! Too bad.
3.Yes & No. Yes if the intention of the State is to gain political capital. No if the intention is upliftment of socially weaker sections. But why based on religion? Same argument as why reservations based on caste.
yindu – Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here? If the state doesn’t control the temple management, how can one add facilities to it? Isn’t it the job of the temple management?
Comrade Cynic,
I actually agree with you, but I don’t think you have fully understood the implications of your claims.
Indeed,
1) Religion should not influence state, and,
2) state must have some sort of control over religion.
Let us take up the first one first.
Secularism emerged in the West. It was the means by which the state was freed from the infleunce — rather the clutches — of the church. There was a time when Chruch ran governance, and framed rules and laws for people to obey. Secularism put paid to this practice. In other words, secularsim ended rule by religious laws and religious institutions, and made sure that people were governed by secular laws and secular institutions.
The major impediment to India calling itself secular is the prevalence of personal laws; most importantly the application of Muslim Personal Law. There is even a parallel court system in this country where Shariat courts rule the roost.
Ironically, it is the “Hindutva” types that want this existing theocratic order to go, whereas commies have emerged the biggest defenders of theocracy and religious fundamentalism. Ergo, I believe that secualrism is not safe as long as Marxism is around. The two are as mutually incompatible as, for example, secualrism and the Catholic Church are.
Coming to the second:
Indeed, the state must exercise control over religion. What sort of control should it be? It should be the same sort of control that the state wields over secular institutions and entities. In other words, no religious institution, body or practice maybe granted an exemption from any law or rule that a secular institution or practice is NOT given. Again, we notice that the Indian state fails miserably in this department. It has laws that rightly bar secular institutions (state-funded or otherwise) from discriminating against people on whatever grounds, but these don’t apply, for exmple, to chruch-run schools. The latter are at liberty — even when receiving funds from the state — to deny you admission because you are not a Christian. Worse yet, they are at liberty to turn you out after granting admission if you refuse to sing Lord’s prayer. The state has no control over these religious institutions.
Again, to the best of my knowledge Hindutva types want this type of governtment-approved communalism to be eradicated, but it is the commies who are opposed to secularism.
If the insight I’m giving you opens your eyes and helps you turn a secular leaf in your life, I’d consider my long writeup as well worth the effort it took to produce it.
yossarin,
Lets say, in future, a company operating in secular India starts manufacturing skoolar underwears. So now you have undies with cross, Om, moon-bat crescent over them to choose from.
The very next day you’ll find that ‘activist’ like John dayal and co. have petitioned the Christian West, our englees media, NGO’s to get the Undie with cross to be banned. Also, ‘moderate’ muslims will tumble out of the cupboard and ask Ummah, UN, OPEC, Jihadis(only if riots don’t work) to pressure India and ask for the muslim undie be banned.
All we (Hindus) will be left with is: moral high horse of secularism and the OM undie.
Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here? If the state doesn’t control the temple management, how can one add facilities to it? Isn’t it the job of the temple management?
Does the state ‘control’ the wakf board, for example? Aren’t they able to ‘expand facilities’, btw? For that matter, does the state ‘control’ the TATA corporate empire? They’re able to expand facilities using revenues generated internally and buying in the open market. No?
So tmy answer to your first question (or should I say rhetorical flourish?) would be: Yes. Because there need be no contradiction in the first place. And there wouldn’t be unless one persists in an extraordinarily warped reading that says the state *must* control entity XYZ for XYZ to even sneeze. I mean, really??
(There’s my rhetorical finesse….am already regretting using it. Well, almost).
/Have a nice day.
Sukhdev – Two ways to deal with this and neither requires a Theocracy. Let me take an American example to explain how the first can be dealt with. No company in the U.S.A today can dare offend christians for fear of facing the wrath of the consumer and investor community. The reason for that is cohesive christian community where opinion can be mobilized via multiple channels. A runaway maverick skoolar undie company can attempt to be provocative but then it will be out of business before it even opens shop. You dont need a Corrupt State and Politicians to pass new laws to pay lip service to protecting your interests. You can protect your interests with your wallet as consumers and investors. The message will then go out loud and clear if you want to be a viable business learn to respect our sentiments. The second way is what we have in India today through laws with restrictions on freedom of speech. But then these laws cut both ways and are liable to abuse. If you argue that you can never mobilize Hindu opinion to act as consumers and investors then you have a larger Hindu problem which no amount of legislation and state control can ever address. So bottomline is dont look to laws and the State to address the rot within the Hindu society. Focus on mobilizing opinion and economics will come to your rescue. Gujarat has already shown the way here with Parzania. There was no legal ban merely a consumer and distributor social boycott. That would be the “Right” way to do it.
What happened in Gujrat with Parziana and the Amir Khan movies is not a consumer boycott. It is actually a use of force by some elements to prevent the screening of a film. This tramples on the rights of others who want to see the film.
An acceptable way is to protest without any violence or threat of violence. Then the film can run and the protesters have to convince the people not to watch the film based on the merits.
A much better way is to let the original film run but to make a better film espousing your point of view. Then there are two competing points of view and the stronger argument wins.
>>An acceptable way is to protest without any violence or threat of violence.
There was no violence or threat of violence in Gujarat. Distributors themselves decided to boycott the movie. In fact, one guy killed himself in protest against the screening of Amir Khan’s Fanaa — in a cinema that was screening the film. This is a Gandhian form of protest, like hunger strike, and quite unlike communist and terrorist form of “protest”. Commies and Islamists would have bombed the theater, and killed a dozen innocents in the process to stop the screening of the film. Get rid of this habit of swallowing what communists and Islamists tell you about Gujarat. Their intent is to deny Gujaratis their right to peaceful and legitimate protest.
>> There was no violence or threat of violence in Gujarat. Distributors themselves decided to boycott the movie.
Oh come on. Any one who has lived in India for the last 3-4 years knows that any cinema, art exhibition, play or book reading that offends ANYBODY’s sensitivities is subject to violence. It has happened upteen times.
The violence begins with but it not limited to breaking of glass, destruction of property, shutting down the cinema by force etc.
Rishi – I was very careful in mentioning only parzania and nothing else, I had a post on this one, there was not a single incident of violence or threat of violence on this one. If I recollect there were some remarks by babu bajrangi but nobody took them seriously to seek legal recourse. It was a boycott of choice. As you rightly point out one cud also choose to counter it with another view point. But that’s a choice. Communities must have the freedom to choose from either.
The fears of Hindutva going the Fascist or Nazi way are unfounded and reflect the superficial understanding of Hindutva by sceptics. In fact, Hindutva can be compared to the Zionist movement. A struggle for self respect and pride in the face of mounting hostilities from Marxists, Macaulayists, Mullahs and Missionaries. The cynics can be assured that Hindus themselves will not allow Hindutva to go out of hand. Even Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha could not get the wider support of Hindus in 40s when Islamic sessionaism was at its height. They rallied around a much more moderate Congress. Also Hindutva if it ceases to be liberal is not Hindutva anymore.
If the boycott of Parziania was truly non violent then I applaud it and hope other boycotts are like that.
However, you cannot just look at Parzinia in isolation and paint a rosy picture. Fanaa happened in the same state at around the same time. Also there are many many cases of art exhibitions being targeted, not to mention the innumerable difficulties faced by controversial plays.
The fact of the matter is that violence is used in a vast majority of cases and Parzania is only the exception.
Rishi – fanaa and parzania were two sides of the economics coin. Great examples of how economics will ultimately force u to do the “right” thing. In fanaa there was no consumer boycott so they had to run it under police protection.
OT – I am sorry I did not read a word beyond “Comrade”. I am not given to uninformed personal characterizations and if that is how you debate, I am not the one you are looking to discuss with.
Sud – I did not ask you any questions so I do not know to which question you have answered Yes. Anyway, I am not sure you have followed the thread of discussion here. The post says, free religion from state control. I said there is no significant control in the first place. Some influence is there which is fine. And both the examples you state Waqf & Tata ( I do not know how Tata is relevant but let that pass) actually buttress my view. Which is that State can be involved in an unobtrusive way. And there is no control of functioning anyway as things stand today. But if State should separate itself from temples as Yindus comment claims…..then how is it involved in trying to increase the no. of visitors or adding facilities? Mind you I am fine with State trying to increase visitors or adding facilities…only that it means state is involved in religion ( In the right measures)
As regards you regretting using rhetoric, your instincts were right.
The second para didn’t make itself clear.
Fanaa was most definitely not an economic boycott. It was a violent boycott. The police protection was required to protect against violence.
Such violence should have no place in society.
Cynic- You have just “mentioned” that religion is controlling the state without explaining your point. Please give examples to prove your claim.
Rishi – I think I have, but will do it again without specifically mentioning examples which would only serve to obfuscate the discussion.
When any religious group is targeted either to appease them ( Minority appeasement or majority appeasement)or to discriminate against them ( in terms of taking sides against them to violate natural laws of justice) by the government of the day…that is influence of religion on state.
Cynic, your question was ‘Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?’ types. My answer was ‘yes’.
Seems to me you’ve combined ‘control’/'involvement’ in ‘right measure’ etc with another routine and rather secular duty of the state viz. ‘regulation’ and facilitation of lawful activity.
The Waqf and Tata examples were made for a reason. Appointing trustees to the temple board ideally should be none of the gorment’s business. Does the gorment appoint members to the Tata board, for instance, despite ‘controlling’/'right measure involving’ itself in Tata firms expanding business in India? Why not? What business does gorment have to meddle in the affairs of our temple trusts and their funds?
This then ties in with YossBoss’ contention that the vocal self-styled secularists seem nowhere in demanding the gorment stay away from the temples business, no? Turns out the so-called Hindutva movement is the only one calling for what seems rationally and patently secular in this and other affairs. Hence, pardon my scepticism at being told, I’m not following discussions here or there.
Anyways, have a nice day.
[...] « Flat World Hindutva – Freeing Religion from State Control [...]
Sud, I am not aware of the Tata case per se….but this much I know whereever there is a Govt. stake in a business ( Though the majority stake is private as in case of Tata), the govt. does appoint trustees or rather nominees to the board of directors.
Yes regulation is the right word – particularly the finances and if the govt. has to be involved in regulating….obviously it cannot be totally separated from the functioning of religious bodies.
And I do not know what the “so-called Hindutva movement” is demanding or who are these “self styled secularists” but my contention remains – gorment is sufficiently away from temple business but religion is not sufficiently away from gorment business !!
Cynic – That definition looks very much like control of state over religion.
A more effective and concise way to put it would be the separation of church and state.
Rishi…quite the opposite.
I have been loathe to use the word control..I feel the apt word is influence.
And in the definition I gave….it is under the religious influence (out of love or hate for any particular religion)the govt acts in that way. So it is definitely influence of religion over state.
If it were the other way round…the examples should have been govt. acting to dictate how religion should be practiced and how it should be preached…..which in my opinion it doesn’t do today !!
Cynic,
Sud, I am not aware of the Tata case per se….but this much I know whereever there is a Govt. stake in a business ( Though the majority stake is private as in case of Tata), the govt. does appoint trustees or rather nominees to the board of directors.
Seems to me, my main point still eludes you. Either that or we flat out disagree on the state’s role in religion.
The Tatas are a private enterprise. GoI doesn’t have the right to appoint anybody to the Tata board unless it owns stock. Its another investor, thats all. Now, why aren’t temples treated as private enterprises too? Wouldn’t that be de fact ’secular’? Esp when Gurudwaras and churches are allowed to govern their own affairs? Do you now see where I am coming from?
And ’self-styled sekularists’ == Congressis, communists, fashionable NGOs and the like. Capiche?
Yes regulation is the right word – particularly the finances and if the govt. has to be involved in regulating….obviously it cannot be totally separated from the functioning of religious bodies.
And exactly how is it obvious that the functioning of religious bodies cannot be separated from the state? On what basis? Rather, I see the state’s role limited to enforcing the law from the outside – of the “make sermons calling for holy riots from inside religious places and get hauled to court” kind. Not as you suggest, nosing around on the inside.
And yup, the much maligned ‘fascist/communal’ bhajpa, its parivar members, Modvani personalities etc it seems are the only ones calling for such clear cut application of secular principle. Let me know if you dispute my logic. Coz to me, yours doesn’t seem to add up. With all due respect, of course.
/Have a joyful day.
Sud – We do flat out disagree on State’s role in religion.
It is incorrect to say that only churches and Gurudwara’s are allowed to run their enterprises as they please.
Functioning of religious bodies cannot be fully separated – basis? Regulation. If I start a religion and collect huge amount of money from sympathizers,it is imperative that I do not spend the money on anti-national activities. How will the govt. ensure that unless it has some influence on how I run my religion. From the outside? This of course is just ONE aspect of how state influence on my religion Should not be removed.
PS: I was wary of Tata example right from the beginning but now you make it more confusing for me. Tata stocks are listed on the bourses. Aren’t they? “GOI is just another investor but doesn’t own stock?” Doesn’t add up !! Unless you say individual companies like Tata Steel is listed on the exchange but Tatasons, the holding company is privately held….which will again distance the example more away from the main topic at hand.
PSS: Just so that I know, could you give me one example of a Prominent temple where the govt. is involved in the functioning of the temple?
Cynic,
Functioning of religious bodies cannot be fully separated – basis? Regulation. If I start a religion and collect huge amount of money from sympathizers,it is imperative that I do not spend the money on anti-national activities. How will the govt. ensure that unless it has some influence on how I run my religion. From the outside? This of course is just ONE aspect of how state influence on my religion Should not be removed.
Mixing up things again, I see. The ONE aspect you mention is the ONLY aspect acceptable in a ’secular’ system. Period. End of story. Anything else and what you have is *not* secularism. It is *not* separation of A and B whether A influences B or vice versa.
I could be a rastafarian for all I care, smoking pot could well be my holy duty but insofar as it breaks the law, it lands my backside in soup. Period. What OTHER aspect do you propose? That the state delve into the nitty-gritty of my spiritual beliefs even if they break no law? Why would I, you or anyone want that?
Bottomline: Upholding the Law of the land is the only, repeat, the only, way in which state regulates/influences religion. No other way is acceptable in a secular system. This ONE way, applied judiciously and unbiasedly takes care of ANY issues you can think of. Influencing the constitution of temple boards or dipping into temple funds is *not* secularism.
Tata stocks are listed on the bourses. Aren’t they? “GOI is just another investor but doesn’t own stock?” Doesn’t add up !!
What are you talking about? Looks like you missed the word ‘unless’. GoI has *no* rights to the Tata board unless it owns (enough) stock. It is and should be treated as any other investor (should it own stock). Why’s that soo difficult to grasp? The point is entities can expand their facilities and operations, lawfully, without explicit state interference/influence on the inside. That was all.
As for Gurudwaras and Churches (not to mention mosques), the point is the law itself is differently made and applied for these shrines compared to temples. That again, is *not* secularism. Why aren’t Hindu educational institutions allowed, may I ask? By law, only minority edu institutions are permitted. Why the discrimination in law? Why aren’t the self-styled secularists opposing clear discrimination? And so on.
More later, perhaps. Bye for now.
Cynic – What I believe you are looking at is the cause of the actions, i.e. the influence of religion over the state while I am looking at the effect of these actions, which amounts to state interference into religious affairs.
Anyway I am in agreement with you on that issue. It is bad and for ease of understanding it can be called as the separation of the church and state or as mentioned in the post, minimalistic secularism.
However, there is a point where I disagree with you. The government has no business to interfere in the running of temples. In the south there are many temples, including Tirupathi, where the collections are taken by the government and it appoints officers to the temple boards. At the same time I am against the temples requesting the government for money, land etc for expansion or maintenance.
comrade cynic and comrade rishi, can you two argue with yourselves a bit more? Get passionate ok? Just tear into each other. Comrade balaji will presently open another front, and comrade matt will pitch in his tent too. You might want to rope in a female comrade as well — comrade mridula maybe — so that we have the complete cast for an exciting burlesque show called Carry On Comrades. Will be good fun.
[...] the role of ideology and what it must stand for. We also established how it can stand for a Minimalist Secular State and serve National Interest while being unambiguosly for the rule of law. We also debated which way [...]
Thanks for sharing
[...] Offstumped in the past has come out clearly against state control of religion. [...]
[...] Dr. Upadhyay then goes on to make an important distinction on why Dharma must not be confused with religion with a clear repudiation of a Theocratic State. Dr. Upadhyay’s nation based on Integral Humanism is a minimally secular, non-theocratic state much like Flat World Hindutva. [...]
[...] Offstumped rerun on a Minimalist Secular State from the Flat World Hindutva series of [...]
[...] Offstumped would have viewed the first issue from the prism of Flat World Hindutva that calls for religion to be free of state control from which follows the dharmic principle that religious institutions must stop seeking entitlements [...]
[...] agrees and would like to draw Mr. Advani’s attention to Offstumped’s formulation of Flat World Hindutva and the need for freeing religion from State control Offstumped had in two earlier posts first on [...]
[...] In closing if there is one proposal that stands out in the BJP Manifesto it is the proposal to free Hindu Religious bodies from Government Control. [...]