Dear Visitor,
This page forms part of the policy on this subject released on 29 April 2009 for public comment. Please note that FTI releases the same policy on two blogs.
a) The first blog (here) is for public comment.
b) This blog is only for FTI members to comment, but you are invited to read the comments posted by FTI members on this blog.
Once again, please note that general visitors will not be able to comment on this blog, but we welcome your input and request you to to go here to provide your comment. Thanks!
—–
Attached Original Word Document: [download id=”2″] [download id=”21″]
The Freedom Team of India (FTI) has prepared the following draft position for public comment. This has been released publicly on 28 April 2009 with the intention of seeking public comment. All FTI policies will remain drafts only till they are formally agreed to by a team of at least 1500 leaders who are expected to assemble in the coming years. Your comments will be taken on board by FTI, so your active participation is welcome.
1. The significance of religious freedom and tolerance
a) Members of FTI believe that religion is a purely personal matter, not a matter for government policy.
b) We also believe that religious freedom is a fundamental personal freedom; a matter of choice for each citizen. Therefore, FTI neither promotes any religion or religious activity nor opposes it unless it trespasses other’s liberties.
c) In a free society, everyone can enjoy religious freedom only by giving others similar freedom. This means tolerating (and accommodating in good faith, to the extent possible) all religious beliefs. It also includes ensuring that each citizen has the right to preach his or her religion (or not religion) and convert others to his or her beliefs.
d) But religious freedom, like all other freedoms, must be accompanied by its matching accountability. We must not harm others through our religious (or non-religious) activities. We must all remain accountable for our actions.
e) FTI is proud of India’s great history of religious tolerance. We would like India to continue to lead the world in showing how the people of all religions can happily co-exist together..
2. The need to keep the state and religion separate
a) FTI advocates the complete and total separation of the state and religion. Our religious and political goals are different domains and should not be allowed to mix. Note that this does mean the state must be secular; it is best to see it as non-denominational, and tasked with a different job to that of religion.
b) In particular, the role of government is to make and enforce laws which specify our accountabilities. While these laws can be based on precepts of morality, and should, indeed, be compatible with ethical principles, they are meant to clarify our accountabilities and do not aim to represent any particular (such as religious) moral view. All that the state asks for from the citizen is for him or her to comply with laws; the state does not preach morality which is not its domain of expertise.
c) In this vein, we believe that political groups which promote particular religions harm society by harking to particular views of the law, and thus they emphasise our divisions rather than unity under the law. FTI condemns all political organisations that want specific a religion to inform public policy
d) While debates among different religions are a natural part of free society (so long as these are conducted in a non-violent environment), the government can have nothing to say about the merits of the content of these debates .
e) Making political claims based on religion can often provike or lead to violence. A government’s job is to come down heavily on individuals and organizations that advocate or use violence, irrespective of the basis of their advocacy – including religion.
f) FTI is not disrespectful of religion. It simply asks that people politics and religions separte. In doing so, it recognises that in a society like India, steeped deeply in religion, even ordinary greetings (e.g. namaste) could at times take on a religious meaning. Many official functions in India are opened with lighting earthen lamps or breaking coconuts. Other common practices include applying tika or welcoming guests with garlands. FTI is happy for these practices to continue without attributing religious motivations to them. However, dealing with them could require good judgement on the part of government functionaries. For instance, when a government representative (e.g. a Minister) attends an actual religious event, he or she must not use official titles, and speak on that occasion purely as a private individual.
g) FTI notes that religions often specify matters such as marriage and divorce . These are to be treated as personal law because these things involve the most intimate unit of human existence, the family. FTI believes that families should be able to structure themselves freely without, however, violating the life and liberties of members of the family. Subject to such constraints, religious requirements that apply to families are outside the scope of a government’s jurisdiction. The government, for instance, cannot enact ‘religious laws’ (e.g. Hindu Laws or Muslim Laws) but only make generic rules that apply to everyone uniformly, such as minimum standards that everyone must comply with (see Section 3).
h) Clearly, this means that a government cannot financially support religious activities. For instance, subsidies for Durga Puja on the ground that these will increase tourism in a particular city are not admissible expenditures from the public purse, since they effectively fund a particular religion. Similarly, subsidies for religious pilgrimages such as for the Haj. or temple management by government functionaries is not acceptable in a free society.
i) FTI believes that a government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. In particular, a government has no cause to recognise ‘minorities’ as a specific category using religious (or related) classifications. Indeed, if everyone has equal freedom, then a separate category of ‘minority’ rights are not needed. A strong defence of liberty and the uniform enforcement of laws, as well as the provision of equal opportunity for all would ensure that no minority could harbour any fear from any majority. However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.
3. The role of the state in regulating the ‘excesses’ of religion
While not involving itself in any religious matter, as clarified above, a government must establish and enforce rules of accountability to ensure equal justice and liberty to all citizens. For instance:He’H
a) FTI believes that India must enact uniform minimum standards of accountability for all citizens. This will ensure that all citizens receive equal justice and equal liberty. While not a Uniform Civil Code, it would effectively mean that uniform standards of accountability apply to all. As a corollary, all specific personal laws and religious laws enacted would need to be repealed and substituted by a single Law of Minimum Standards to protect everyone’s life and liberty. These standards would include prohibitions against social ills like sati, child marriage, etc.
b) All religions have legitimate rights to compete for loyalty and seek to extend their influence. To the extent such activities lead to conversion, the state has an interest in ensuring that no coercion, bribes, or misleading conduct is involved in the process. FTI would ask religious bodies to come up with self-regulatory (and binding) Code of Practice by which all religions will ensure that misleading conduct is eliminated. This Code should have provisions for concerns, if any, from any affected party to be adequately addressed.
c) Religious freedom is not license It does not give anyone any rights to encroach on public land, harbour criminals and terrorists, harass or threaten those carrying on civilized discourse, or otherwise create public nuisance such as by feeding stray animals, fouling rivers and ponds, and disturbing peace by blaring loudspeakers at unseemly hours. FTI believes that religions are as accountable as anyone else to maintain order and public calm. No religious organisation should disturb the public order. Illustrative regulations are outlined below.
- FTI believes that all religious activity in the common spaces of society must be regulated for public order and discipline. This means, for instance, that religious symbols should be on permanent display only in private property that is owned by relevant private individuals or organizations.
- FTI believes that while any religious group should be fully entitled to buy land and build an appropriate structure on it, this should be done keeping the general tenor of the ambience, and in any event, no religious structure should be built on public spaces like roads. If such structures are detected on public land, these must be respectfully removed and handed over to suitable religious organisations where these structures can be rehabilitated.
- On a similar ven, while it valid to hold religious events in public spaces, on payment of appropriate fee as may be admissible to any civil society organisation, they must fully comply with the conditions of behaviour set out by the government, particularly where security is demanded at public expense.
- In particular, just as no private citizen is allowed to use amplifiers at certain hours, so also religions occasions or announcements cannot be exempt from such regulation.
Just made some cosmetic changes (typos etc) to the policy document above ! Also allowed me to experiment with this blog. Anubhava – thx for setting all this up. Looks really good !!
Sanjeev, Anubhava : What is the process of editing the document above ? If we feel like changing anything, shall I just go ahead and do it ? … That could potentially lead to problems … if everyone starts doing that.
I want to propose that
“Indian state must take on a positive and proactive role to promote religious tolerance, dialogue and secular values.
We must consciously preserve India’s heritage of being a land which encourages spirituality, religious dialogue and fusion of religious ideas. India has been and should continue to be a fountain-head of religious ideologies, beliefs and philosophies. A guiding light for the whole world in this matter.
We must continue celebrating our religions, in a collaborative (rather than competitive) spirit. We must continue celebrating and strengthening our unity in diversity.
The state should not shy away in creating and supporting social platforms which encourage people from different faiths and religions to come together, share their practices and beliefs, and engage in constructive dialogue. And platforms which encourage cultural displays and celebrations, possibly rooted in different religions and faiths. Ofcourse, all religions, cultures and ethnicities must be treated equally in this matter.”
Dear Dipinder
Could you please provide a few examples of what you mean by the following statement:
“The state should not shy away in creating and supporting social platforms which encourage people from different faiths and religions to come together, share their practices and beliefs, and engage in constructive dialogue. And platforms which encourage cultural displays and celebrations, possibly rooted in different religions and faiths. Ofcourse, all religions, cultures and ethnicities must be treated equally in this matter.”
You are perhaps aware that there is no single agreed definition either of religion or ethnicity – both being cultural and fuzzy constructs. Within Hinduism, for instance, the Arya Samaj vehemently opposes idol worship which is commonly practiced in other branches of Hinduism. We don’t even know what a Hindu is, leave alone a Christian (there are at least 40 types of Christianity) and Islam (at least three major types of Islam).
My question (leaving aside theoretical objections to such a proposal) is practical. How would the state identify whom to support? What would be its criteria?
Regards
Sanjeev
Example 1 : Organise public events inviting people from different faiths discuss their religious beliefs in a cordial manner. eg. ‘World conference on religions’.
Example 2 : Fund ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara’, ‘Unity in Diversity’ kind of National Integration media campaigns, movies. Proactively promote secular values, and help dispel myths. Help common people, children and new generations understand the follies of divisive politics.
It is important to proactively promote and strengthen secular values, to counter anti-secular sentiments. The state should consciously promote an RSS like grassroots ‘secular’ ‘India’ movement. It is also important to ensure that secularism is not understood as being anti-religious, but rather as ‘equal respect for all religions’, and ‘celebration of all religions’.
—
“How would the state identify whom to support? What would be its criteria?”
Simple : state should not identify anyone to support. It should support ‘everyone’. For example, if a religious debate is organised, people from all faiths and beliefs should be invited. If there are too many applications, speakers could be selected randomly etc.
cheers,
Dipinder
Dear Dipinder
I think you are entering pretty deep waters! But let me revert to Question 2 first.
“The state should not identify anyone to support. It should support ‘everyone’. For example, if a religious debate is organised, people from all faiths and beliefs should be invited. If there are too many applications, speakers could be selected randomly etc.”
First, What is a religion, and why should a state recognise any religion? Ie (this has 2 parts to the question)
Second, Why does the state have any role in supporting any religion? Should the state support atheism as well? (this has 2 parts to the question).
Third, if (for argument’s sake) you invite 4000 religions but miss out 20 because of a clerical error, then what happens?
Fourth: who is to pay for these 10000 delegates to attend a conference (about 2-3 per religion)? Why is that justified (2 parts to this question)
Fifth: if (for argument’s sake) 4000 religions apply but only 20 are to be invited, by lots, and ‘important’ religions like Christianity or Islam miss out on the draw of lots, would this serve any purpose?
Sixth: Why can’t civil society do this on its own? E.g. a society registered as a not-for-profit organsation whose sole job is to organise such events?
Are you familar with the history of evolution of the separation of the state from the church (religion)? From where do we get ANY scope for the state to dabble with religion? – what’s the theory behind it?
Note, national integration is a different kettle of fish from a conference of world religions or some such religious mela.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
Thx for your comments. I had done some detailed analysis on this more than a year ago : http://dipinder.googlepages.com/Secularism_Policy_India.pdf
I have progressed in my views over the course of last year based my interactions with people, and readings.
I think western understanding of secularism (separation of church from state) is not sufficient for India. India because of its unique circumstances and character needs a different treatment. My key point is that the state proactively needs to counter anti-secular sentiments, as well as support civil society in its related efforts. And it is critical that this is done positively in the form of ‘celebrating and respecting all religions’, rather than only negatively in terms of opposing fundamentalism (this latter may sometimes be strategically counterproductive). Religion is by and large a good thing, and evokes strong sentiments in a large number of Indians. It is important that these sentiments are strategically on the side of secularism rather than fundamentalism. Deeply religious should also be deeply secular.
And I reiterate that there is no need to define what is a religion etc or identify a particular set of religions to support. What is required is that secular public platforms – open to ‘all’ – which promote religious/cultural dialogues and exchange, and tolerance and understanding, be proactively supported, funded and encouraged by the state. And sure, athiests should be invited and engaged as well.
Some things are unique to India, and we cannot find western examples for that. India needs to philosophically innovate and lead in these aspects. ‘National integration’ in India requires ‘celebrating all religions’ (rather than being indifferent to all – which is also secular !).
cheers,
Dipinder
PS : It seems some comments on this thread go to the FTI googlegroups, and some do not ?? I always post on the blog on my web browser, and not using email client. It seems that these comments do not go to the googlegroups as mail notifications …??
Dear Dipinder
I’ve gone through your article briefly,but this is not about secularism. I actually don’t care a bit about that word which is vacuous and misleading, without any basis in the theory of freedom. It doesn’t mean anything to me. Secularism is NOT what FTI is about. It is about freedom in all its forms and manifestations. In this case it is about religious freedom.
Let me suggest that if equal opportunity is a hard issue to resolve (cf. Supratim’s debates with me, and I suspect he still doesn’t agree with equal opportunity!) then how much more of a stretch is this idea of supporting civil society in its religious activities. Wherefrom does the state get the right to take any taxpayer’s rupee and spend it on religious activity? When we don’t have law and order yet, nor security, nor infrastructure, nor equal opportunity, then from where does this ‘function’ of the state arise? Indeed such a function simply can’t be derived from first principles.
I raised certain practical issues earlier which you’ve side-tracked. I’m now asking a fundamental issue of theory. How do you derive the concept of secular state? From where does it come? From where does the state possibly get the right to fund religious events?
If someone is religious, that is their private business and they can fund as much of it as they wish. They can even collaborate with others to fund religious events. But the taxpayer’s money for this purpose!
In good regulatory practice we have the cost recovery/ user pays principle. Taxation is meant to pay for a particular service (or social insurance premium at best). It is not a compulsory religious charity.
Why can’t religions pay for their own events?
Regards
Sanjeev
Reposting from gmail (EDITED):
Dear Dipinder,
I have a lot to disagree with regarding your previous post.
There is no western secularism and indian secularism – there is only Secularism – it is exactly this muddle headed thinking that has landed us in this mess as it stands today. From your position above to one of sops for various religions is just a small step away. And, why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for religious stuff, in any case?
If we are looking for a role model, I would suggest France, which, BTW, used to be the capital of the “holy roman empire” after the fall of Rome.
The state has no business in any way, whatsoever and no matter how infinitesimal, in either propagating or tolerating religion. Religion is your private matter. The state is about the collective. That “religion is a good thing” is only a matter of opinion – in practice, religions have caused more wars and more deaths in the past 2000 years, than any other cause.
People can celebrate their religions to the fullest – no one stops them – but, the state should *never* be a celebrant. And, religious tolerance can be fostered very easily in India by making it absolutely clear, through word and action, that any act of intolerance would be severely punished by the law. Intolerance for intolerance should make the latter go away pretty quickly, I would think!
Thanks
Supratim
Religion is purely personal matter. And, it’s matter of faith. Faith is blind. No logic can shake one’s faith. We should discourage any such obscuratism in FTI. We expect FTI members to be rational and analytical in their approach. Earlier, people used to have blind faith in some divine power and it resulted in to superstition and orthodoxy. We must not only doscourage such tendency but also endeavour to be broad minded and critical in our approach. I believe that state should shrink with the passage of time and every individual should be intellectually mature to decide what is good for the collective group of
people. This is real freedom. The state is a means to achieve individual needs; it’s not an end. End is flourishing of human dignity and freedom. And, this is what we at FTI must aspire to achieve.
LK
This comment is being brought ‘in’ from the http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/?file=draft-policies page since so much work has been done on this policy and the material there is outdated. This is just for the record. However, if possible, some of this can be included in the main policy at a later date.
===
D) Things on which the Freedom Team will not comment as a group.
The role of religion in life.
Religious laws (except that we will abolish all parliamentary laws which relate to religion).
Reasons
Some members on the Team believe that we must acknowledge the positive contributions of religious bodies. Other members believe that most religious groups have, on balance, harmed mankind, and that it is only science and reason (unrelated to any religious activity; and in fact often in opposition to relentless and violent religious intolerance) that have helped mankind to progress whatever little it has done so far.
It is not the job of a policy/ political group to talk about the role of religion. That discussion must remain a purely personal matter for each of us. There the team will neither promote any religious activity nor oppose it. Everyone’s right to hold a view on religion is fully respected, but there will be no ‘Group’ view. We are assembling to advance good governance and freedom. No more.
An individual should remain free to believe or not believe in the role of religion (or even God) so long as that individual does not destroy property or kill others. That’s all a free society asks for. That is the essence of freedom of thought (which includes the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression.). The membership of the Freedom Team is fully compatible with any belief such as atheism, agnosticism, and religious fervour. That is why even members from existing political parties are most welcome so long as they remain, like Rajaji was, focused on their personal belief system; not involved in demolishing property. We all come together to create a society where everyone can think their own thing so long as we don’t injure others.
The essence is that a government must not either create religious laws, nor support religious activity of any sort, nor allow anyone to use religious activity to interfere with the ‘common space’ of the society. Religion can flourish if it wishes to, but within its own private spaces, and without disturbing the public order. The business of religion is the individual’s soul; it must provide its services privately, like any other business. For instance, no one has the right to wake up people at 6 am in the morning through a loudspeaker blaring religious bhajans, kirtan, or the call of a muezzin. One solution for that could be for the relevant local governments to impose a noise curfew between 10 pm and 8 am, as found in most Western societies.
The government is a law maker – of laws which must apply uniformly to everyone in every way, irrespective of their personal beliefs or relationship with God. A government’s job is to stick to the delivery of security and justice, not to dabble in religious matters. Second, the government has nothing to do with morality. It is each individual’s task to maintain his or her morals. The government is concerned only with the law. The laws can, of course, be based on morality, if that is what the people think these laws will do. But the only real morality we want is of accountability: that people remain free so long as they are accountable. Freedom = justice = morality, for the most part.
About ‘minority’ rights. A government does not have any business to recognise any ‘minority’ based on religious classifications. The government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. It must only implement the law. In the end, each of us is a minority of one, and each of us needs the same protection from the government.
This policy completely de-links the roles of the government and the church/ temple/ mosque, while acknowledging that individuals can choose their own beliefs to deal with the future of their own soul, but only within their own private spaces.
For instance, a religion can buy land and build a great huge temple, church, or mosque, or whatever else, but it can’t build a temple in the middle of a public road. Such encroachments must be respectfully removed and handed over – through consultation – to a private temple or society that is able to take charge of them.
Some nuances for the Indian context
In the context of India, religion is a bit more diffused than commonly understood. The construct of “religion” applies very well to Judeo-Christian traditions and less well to eastern traditions such as Hinduism or Buddhism (dharmas). Even Namaste can be said to have a spiritual meaning, though it is used in many non-religious setting as well. In principle, religion should be left to the people and the community and the state will not advocate or support any specific religion, nor comment on religious matters as a government. The difference between religious and non-religious markers is best left to good judgement. The key is respect.
Some implications:
*
The government can follow local customs like lighting a lamp, applying tika or welcoming guests with garlands on purely secular occasions or functions.
*
Not only can individuals (including members of the Freedom Team) continue to uphold their own beliefs, but they are at liberty to preach them and persuade others to join their belief system as well.
*
When proselytisations result in conversions then the government, in the interest of consumer protection, should perhaps require a cooling off period of 1 year or so to allow other contenders for a person’s soul to chip in with their arguments as well.
*
A government representative (eg. a Minister in the capacity of Minister) cannot attend any religious function or speak on behalf of government. The same individual can of course attend such a function and speak as a private individual without in any way using the title of Minister.
*
The Tourism department cannot subsidize Durga Puja in the belief that it will increase tourism. Two reasons: (1) tourism is a business best left to the private sector, and (2) Durga Puja is a purely religious festival. No government subsidy of any sort can apply to it.
Dear Babu
I’ve decided to do all further discussions re: religious freedom on this blog else I’m finding myself wasting a lot of time searching for earlier comments. Please therefore log in and reply only on this blog. I’ve added the following section at the bottom of the religious freedom policy. I guess you’ve finally persuaded me to hold off on total ‘derecognition’ of minorities at least till law and order is restored in India. I trust we can move on now, and publish this document for public comment (after reviewing its language once again).
Regards
Sanjeev
MINORITIES
As Hayek said, “Differences in wealth, education, tradition, religion, language or race may today become the cause of differential treatment on the pretext of pretended principle of social justice or of public necessity. Once such discrimination is recognised as legitimate, all the safeguards of individual freedom of the liberal tradition are gone.”
FTI believes that the strong defence of liberty and uniform enforcement of law, and ensuring equal opportunity would ensure that no minority (no matter what the basis of this ‘minority status’, whether religious, linguistic, geographical or otherwise) would have any fear of oppression from any majority in India. The strongest possible ‘minority rights’ are implicit in the general defence of everyone’s freedoms.
However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.
Dear Sanjeev, Supratim, LK – Thank you for your comments. Sorry for my late response.
Sanjeev – please do not let this debate stall publishing of document for public comment. If required, we can always edit it in future revisions.
After carefully reading your comments, I am left with a practical concern, which I want you to answer :
How do we ‘in practice’ plan to prevent Godhara like riots, Babri like demolitions, religion based terrorism in India ?
The policy and comments above seem to rely on strict application of law eg.
“religious tolerance can be fostered very easily in India by making it absolutely clear, through word and action, that any act of intolerance would be severely punished by the law.”
I do not think this will work, atleast not in the present circumstances. Because as you know, faiths inspire people not be afraid of laws/punishment or even death. Suppression by use of law, punishment and force is not always adequate. What I was proposing was – in addition to laws – proactive ‘education’ (based on dialogue) to attempt to solve the problem at the root. On the supply side. State should not shy away in proactively promoting peace, law and order using taxpayers money ?
In summary, given peculiar conditions of India and world today, and history of religious conflicts, I ask – how do you practically propose to ensure peace, law and order in the country ?
If there is complete freedom, and if one can enforce laws 100% – fine. But till that happens, what do we propose to do ? I guess my question is similar to – how do you propose to improve people’s understanding of ‘freedom’, and respect for laws in practice ? How do you propose to convince them that religion is best left to their private spaces ?
Regards,
Dipinder
– If required, we can move this to ‘law and order policy and strategy’ ? Or ‘communication, information and education policy and strategy’ ?
PS : A debate or religious dialogue between different religions and atheists could very well reduce people’s religious sentiments (ie atheists may win the debate), or increase people’s religious sentiments (ie religions as a whole win) and/or may shift people’s faiths, may lead to birth of new religions, positive evolution of current religions etc. I am not suggesting that the state proactively promotes any religion, or even religion as a concept. I am only suggesting that the state facilitates dialogue, communication, education so people could get all necessary information and use their reason to make the right decisions. And I am not stuck on this particular method (as long as you can suggest better alternatives). I am only trying to think of means to avoid/minimise religious/ethnic conflicts, and thus improve law and order.
I find this blog rather hard to use – very difficult to find comments in chronological order. Could Anubhava pl. set it (if possible) so that there is simply a chronological listing of comments?
Dear Dipinder
How does FTI aim to “prevent Godhara like riots, Babri like demolitions, religion based terrorism in India”?
The answer is simple: by ensuring that the law applies equally to all in every case. All educational activity must be undertaken by civil society (NGOs) not by government. Not only would that be pratically difficult (as I’ve outlined) but impossible to justify on a theoretical basis – in terms of the role of the state).
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev ji,
Comments were using default setting that is “oldest first” with a threaded setting thus showing replies of a comment in a separate block. I have changed it to show “newest first” and removed the threaded setting. Now all the comments are individually displayed in reverse chronological order.
I hope this new setting will be more user friendly.
Regards,
Anubhava
Dear Ashok
May I suggest we work on this policy only at http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/archives/21
As you are aware, I’ve proposed an amendment to accommodate Babu’s concern and to be clear on the broader strategy of non-discrimination by government.
Regards
Sanjeev
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Ashok Sagar wrote:
Dear Babu,
Any which way you look at it, what you are proposing is discrimination even though it might be positive in nature wrt the religious minorities. This path will lead us towards even further discrimination based on other criteria.
What you are looking for can be easily achieved by guaranteeing that no one whether part of a majority or a minority shall attempt to limit any one else’s liberty. Every citizen of India should be treated equally and should not have any special rights or liberties or protection on the basis of their caste, creed or origin.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM, babu joseph wrote:
Hi friends,
In my view minorities should not expect any financial support from the Govt;wherever they accepted it ,it has invited undue interference from the govt;But the present situation is that even when an educational institution is self financing the socialist and communist govts are not giving any freedom of operation.You look at the self financing educational institutions in Kerala.Govt;wants reservation of 50% seats at a fee fixed by the govt and the institutions are asked to collect capitation fees from the balance seats.Under the circumstances students belonging to the minority institutions have to pay higher fees than the students who come from the govt; quota.Our liberal position is that there has to be uniform fee and the poor brilliant has to be given scholarship irrespective of their caste or color.
Iam merely against taking away minority rights from the existing constitution since it gives lot of confidence to religious and linguistic minorities and puts their right to run educational institution of their choice beyond the pale of a brute majority.
Babu
Dear Sanjeev,
Thanks for your response.
But I find it inadequate, practically.
Anyway, I will stop here, and keep thinking.
Regards,
Dipinder
PS : I have read social contract theorists (Locke, Rousseau).
Just for the record, came across Minoo Masani’s views re: secularism in the book, Freedom and Dissent (published by Democratic Research Service, 1985. p.15).
Apparently, the Concise Oxford Dictionary says that ‘secular’ means: “sceptical of religious truth or opposed to religious education”.
Masani therefore suggested we don’t use the word secular but the word, “Non denominational”. I think that is an excellent suggestion. What do others think? In other words we could say that FTI advocates a non-denominational state.
Regards
Sanjeev
Sure, we could use non-denominational (instead of secular) and ‘fanatics’ (instead of ‘fundamentalists’).
The problem with non-denominational is that no one may understand what we are talking about, as it is not well that well known.
The problem with ‘secular’ is that its meaning is sometime confused or differs from individual to individual. Just like the meaning of the word ‘freedom’ for example.
Regards,
Dipinder
Dear All
This is a comment on FTI’s internal blog: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21
I’ve gone thorugh the draft Religious Tolerance policy and cleaned up the language as far as possible without changing the intent/content (All this of course need further polishing in due course). The version 13 of the document is therefore available at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21 (as also the previous version) with tracked changes for those who want to see what has changed.
I’ve also created a public blog at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432 containing only version 13 (revised policy).
In addition to the fact that we can keep discussing the religious policy further before releasing it, we have the following choices:
a) Release only the public blog at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432
b) Release both the public blog as well as our internal discussion (http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21). Our internal discussion will be released as read-only. In other words, people across India will be able to see our ‘internal discussions’ but won’t be able to comment on our internal blog. They will, however, be able to post their comments on our public blog.
If we don’t accept (b) then we are better off by not bringing policy discussions to FTI’s internal blog since it is far more cumbersome to manage the blog discussions than the Google Page discussions.
I am, however, in favour of option (b) above which was agreed to in the past. The advantage is that people can see we didn’t arrive at our policy by magic but through iterative debate, and that we still have some differences of opion that need to be resolved. They will also be able to see our internal debates evolve over the next two years till FTI’s policy is totally finalised. I think that will build our credibility as a democratic organisation, not one where policy is decided by a small ‘core group’ (coterie!). It will also encourage others to join FTI.
Note that I have NOT released http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432 yet, though it says on that blog that it has been ‘released’ today. I can change the date if we don’t agree to go public at this stage and discuss further. I will need your objections right away, given that we have already decided earlier to release this.
Note that I’ll adopt the same procedure for the Population policy once this is finalised.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear All, I just lost a huge comment I had submitted on the religious freedom blog. Don’t know what happened. Doing it again. Will really shorten it.
==
Information 1: I’ve revised the religious tolerance policy for language (not content) and published new one with tracked changes Word document (old one is still there as well) at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21
Information 2: I’ve created a public blog ready for public release at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432
We have already decided to publish this policy publicly.
NEXT STEPS:
a) I’ll publish the public blog http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432 for public comment
b) I’ll publish our internal blog http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21 as public-read only blog.
We will now keep working on the FTI internal blog (#21 above) while the public can comment on the #432 blog.
I’ll do the aboove things in 6 hours from now unless there are any vehement objections. Note, everything is up for change and improvement, so there should be no worries.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear All, I just lost a huge comment I had submitted on the religious freedom blog. Don’t know what happened. Doing it again. Will really shorten it.
==
Information 1: I’ve revised the religious tolerance policy for language (not content) and published new one with tracked changes Word document (old one is still there as well) at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21
Information 2: I’ve created a public blog ready for public release at: http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432
Sorry. The comment got truncated somehow.
The rest of the comment:
We have already decided to publish this policy publicly.
NEXT STEPS:
a) I’ll publish the public blog http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432 for public comment
b) I’ll publish our internal blog http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/21 as public-read only blog.
We will now keep working on the FTI internal blog (#21 above) while the public can comment on the #432 blog.
I’ll do the aboove things in 6 hours from now unless there are any vehement objections. Note, everything is up for change and improvement, so there should be no worries.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
Although we have covered the religious tolerance and freedom in detail, I would like to pose a few questions:
a. How do we protect people belonging to say the Sikh community on religious excesses like those happening in Pakistan these days
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Taliban-seize-Sikh-houses-shops-in-Fata/articleshow/4469796.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India-conveys-concern-to-Pak-over-harassment-of-Sikhs-in-Swat/articleshow/4473042.cms
b. How do we react to consequences of the same happening in a literally failed state like Pakistan where the government has virtually lost all authority to control?
Obviously, slow diplomatic route, and, even international pressure cannot stop killings and excesses on people belonging to a community immediately. Also, slow action will be harmful to and may lead to equal or worse repercussions in India.
I would suggest, that the FTI should take up the task of building a global task force with authority to actually act and suppress all such attempts.
Thank you
Ajay.
Dear Ajay
Re: “How do we protect people belonging to say the Sikh community on religious excesses like those happening in Pakistan these days”.
Note that similar issues are what prompted Babu Joseph to insist on a clause for religious minorities. We have this draft policy at the moment:
i) FTI believes that a government must be ‘religion-blind’, ‘caste-blind’, ‘tribe-blind’, ‘language-blind’. In particular, a government has no cause to recognise ‘minorities’ as a specific category using religious (or related) classifications. Indeed, if everyone has equal freedom, then a separate category of ‘minority’ rights are not needed. A strong defence of liberty and the uniform enforcement of laws, as well as the provision of equal opportunity for all would ensure that no minority could harbour any fear from any majority. However, until the rule of law is well-established in India, FTI recommends preservation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, while ensuring that no subsidisation of any religious or other minority takes place.
I believe that this implies that the government that FTI recommends will need to be VERY strong and ensure the religions freedoms and life of all, irrespective of their denomination. That is the crux. The Pakistan case is simply not comparable in theory, it being an Islamic state, and not based on freedom.
You other matter is a foreign policy matter, best dealt with offline as we don’t have a public domain policy on that matter yet.
Regards
Sanjeev
Thanks Ajay (your response below)
I see this in three parts:
a) A good leadership part. Good leaders will nip the thought of any retaliation against innocents, ideas “like the Sikhs may retaliate against the Islamic fundamentalists”. Good leaders need to show people why killing even one innocent is a dastardly crime that can never be excused on any ground. In that the role of FTI leaders can prove very important.
b) Law and order part. This will require very strong vigilance on behalf of the police in India to prevent untoward incidents created by miscreants. This leads straight to our draft Police reforms policy.
c) Foreign policy part: I’d like us to discuss this issue in the context of a broader foreign policy statement. Let’s discuss internally at this stage and agree to general foreign policy statements, and then this issue will fit squarely within that framework.
Regards
Sanjeev
==
Good afternoon Sanjeev,
I agree, that the government is blind – in toto. I also believe that we will have a strong government – to promote religious freedom.
I am not seeking any specific provision for any religion.
My question is: When people of one community are literally being tortured across the international boundaries, we are definitely going to see some sparks of the same in India too – like the Sikhs may retaliate against the Islamic fundamentalists – in case of inaction on the part of the government to stop such excesses in say Pakistan as in the example. There has to be some strong action on the part of the government to stop such occurrences immediately. What kind of steps do you see being taken within India and at the international level too?
Thank you
Ajay.
Sudhir’s comment at http://fti.sabhlokcity.com/content/432
But, as we can see in todays India and which our policy should also address, if we dont want conflicts is –
Clause g –
In view of this clause, how do we ensure the equal freedom with accountability, for example matters of child birth, arbitary marriage and divore or even simple issues like using services of a doctor or a religious quack.
For when the population is economically sound (may be a consequence of universal education and equal opportunity, then it is OK, but otherwise economically weaker and less educated population tends to be more influenced by religion and associated evils, that are generally promoted by some special interest groups.
So either we wait for the majority of population to be economically robust, which shall take decades or accept some state involvement in regulating certain religious practices that cant be considered good in a free society (for freedom not only means freedom of a particular religious group, or a family but also of each individual of that family, be it a man or a woman).
===
Dear Sudhir
The law of minimum standards will ensure that your concerns are uniformly met for ALL Indians. What exactly are your concerns? Can you please list them very precisely. What should we prohibit? You mention: “child birth, arbitary marriage and divore or even simple issues like using services of a doctor or a religious quack”. What exactly should be prohibited? Such things we can discuss and agree to prohibit for everyone irrespective of the person’s religion.
If that makes sense for ONE Indian it should make sense for ALL Indians. A free society can uniformly prohibit or penalise BAD things. But we must focus on those bad things and define them; not create an arbitrary encroachment into personal life and family.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Sanjeev,
When I read the policy and made comment, the specifics that were in mind are given below –
(i) Permission of multiple marriages
(ii) Ease with which divorce can be given in particular communities
(iii) Non-use of family planning methods in the name of religion/god.
(iv) Girl non-education in the name of god/ religion
I think, there are numerous examples and I have just listed some.
Shouldn’t there be some state involvement in deciding
(i) Mandatory education for girls, irrespective of the community
(ii) Single valid marriage at any given point of time, irrespective of the community
(iii) Incentive (as penalty is a non-option) for using family planning methods (it may be present now also, but if it is, will it also not qualify as a state involvement to some extent)
Please note that the mentioned evils in the draft policy – sati, child marriage, etc. were once as strong religious sentiments as the ones mentioned above and it required some encroachment of the state and social reformers into the religious beliefs of the people.
And when I say state-involvement, I mean enforcable in a law of court, uniformly for the entire population, irrespective of the community. Doesn’t leaving it to that community violates that administration of justice, which we see as one of the fundamental reasons for why the state machinery should exist at all (apart from providing security)
Dear Sudhir
May I suggest we frame the discussion precisely in the following format:
X be prohibited/punished severely because it harms Y in the following manner ….. (precise harm be identified).
In other words:
(i) Permission of multiple marriages
to be restated in the form as:
– Multiple marriages be banned? because … (and you’ll have to prove that harm)
(ii) Ease with which divorce can be given in particular communities
– Divorce be banned? because …
(iii) Non-use of family planning methods in the name of religion/god.
– Having ‘excessive’ children be banned? because ….
(iv) Girl non-education in the name of god/ religion
– Not educating the girl child be banned? because …
In each case you’ll have to be precise about the harmful act, and be precise about the penalty. The crime must apply to EVERY Indian irrespective of religion/caste, etc.
Once you start identifying the specific harm and addressing that harm alone we can begin further analysis.
Thanks, and regards
Sanjeev
(i) Multiple Marriages be banned because they signify –
Gender Bias – Normally only men are allowed to have more than 1 wives and not the reverse. They also lead to discrimination as distribution of family resources between the multiple wives shall depend solely on the wish of the husband.
Penalty is already there as in case of a Hindu married man, having a second wife is a punishable offence.
(ii) I do not propose divore be banned. What I propose that the ease with which divorce may be given in certain community be banned as again it results in gender bias and total subjugation of wives to their husbands
The treatment for divorce cases is already available in law where the husband or the wife should have valid ground for divorce, the case has to be settled in a court of law and the wife has to given a justified allowance for herself/children.
(iii) Having excess children be discouraged (I dont think forceful ban justified) as this shall put pressure on the available resources within the family and on the nation as a whole. The families that are well to do are thus demanding unjustified share from the national resources where as poor families are thus depriving their children decent living conditions for life, personal and career development
In this case, there should be wide-spread awareness of the evils of many children. Also, the Indian state should give incentives for having one or two children which should be so well designed that they appeal to the masses.
In towns, economics has already started deciding the no of children. However in rural areas, urban slums, backward and orthodox areas, effective combination of negative publicity of many children/ positive publicity of few children and state sponsored incentives may bring in some good results.
I restate, I strongly deny any possibility of imposing any punishment against having many children.
(iv) Not educating the girls willfully be made a punishable offence as this shall lead to gender bias, social evils, soical diadvantages such as having many children (assuming them to be gift of god and so avoiding family planning measures), depriving the girls to be financially free and thus playing major roles within the family, society and at any level.
This violate the fundamental right to equality – discrimination based on gender. So it should bu punishable in a court of law. The question is, a daughter may not go to court demanding a punishment against her parents. So there has to be a mechanism where in the state monitors the enrollment of women for education, although I am not sure what shall be tha appropriate method for this so that this does not become a tool in the hands of authorities to exploit the people. Further, it is also to be ensured that this does not turn out to be coloured communally.
Dear Sudhir
Thanks for this. That’s helping us tease out the issues better.
a) Multiple marriages (Polygyny and polyandry). Pl. read p.61-62 of http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book1/BFN-Notes.doc. There is nothing ‘normal’ in this space. Both polygyny and polyandry have occurred in the past. The fact that Hindu laws of 1955 ban polygamy is irrelevant since the state has no business to enact religious laws. These are totally illiberal laws. The matter must rest on totally uniform prohibitions of things that harm someone.
The nearest you’ve got to identifying the harm is this: “they also lead to discrimination as distribution of family resources between the multiple wives shall depend solely on the wish of the husband.” The solution to this problem (if any) is not to ban multiple marriages but to require that the distribution of family resources (to be specified) will need to be made with the consent of all concerned, and to leave open the possibility of civil suits to fix this arbitrariness. In other words, a ban is only defensible if harm is clearly proven. I am personally inclined to a ban, but I think we need an objective reason. In the absence of fool-proof objective demonstration of harm, the case breaks down.
b) Divorce: You’ve identified the harm thus: “the ease with which divorce may be given in certain community … results in gender bias and total subjugation of wives to their husbands”. I think there are other options (apart from a common judicial divorce standard) as well, including making it easy for wives to divorce husbands. But the point is broadly well-taken. Could you more precisely formulate what has to be prohibited?
c) The argument of ‘excess children’ has no basis. Pl. read BFN – and also FTI’s draft population policy which is available on the Google page. This matter is best dropped. I don’t believe FTI should squander public resources on “positive publicity of few children and state sponsored incentives” given that the factors driving the decision to have children are totally unaffected by these things, but affected strongly by economic growth, low infant mortality, and education. In any event, this is not a matter to do with religion so not relevant on this policy discussion. It is best discussed under population policy.
d) “Not educating the girls willfully be made a punishable offence”. I’ve discussed this in BFN. I do not believe you (or I) have the right to forcibly educate anyone’s children. However, as I’ve shown in BFN, this ‘wilful’ neglect of the girl child can be totally eliminated by good education policy. In any event, this is not a matter to do with religion so not relevant on this policy discussion. It is best discussed under education policy.
Regards
Sanjeev
I think we have to differentiate between the funding of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other activities for our Ministry of Culture.. I support religion neutrality. We should consider every act which is unjust as unjust, voilence as voilence.. regardless of getting into the flavor of it.. whether it was religious, caste, creed, gender, tribe etc. We must stick to the law of minimum and not get carried away with religious sentiments.. Easier said but I know there will be outslash against us if we try to ‘change’ religious beliefs.. We have to stop entertaining such sentiments.. but smart diplomatic stand as per the situation.. Honestly none of us.. knows what religion or humanity is.. but we all understand rational reasoning. Lets stick to that.. Public places must be make national/state property.. All other so called public functions and ceremonies must take place in banquet halls.. private grounds etc.. with necessary regulations and disaster management. Lets make people responsible for their actions and beliefs now rather than allowing them means to blame us..
I would like to comment on Polygamy.
Even though, putting a ban on polygamy may seem to be aginst the principles of liberty and freedom, the opposite can be true too. Many modern nations built upon the principle of liberty and freedome have banned Polygamy. I quote from Wikipedia:
Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, lamented the modern arguments increasingly being made by various intellectuals who call for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, “Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.”
I am for effective laws to ban polygamy. Polygamy puts a woman at risk for exploitation by the man (husband) both socially and financially.
Dear Pedia
“Polygamy puts a woman at risk for exploitation by the man (husband) both socially and financially”.
There are many risks in life. A government only has a role in THOSE risks that arise from harm caused by other humans. Please identify these risks, and let the government regulate these risks. Assuming that all such risk of HARM are addressed, can you identify an other reason to regulate a person’s personal choice of marriage?
Note that many polygamous marriages did not lead to legally punishable harm. Dashrath, the father of Ram (cf. Ramayana) comes to mind. Also the father of the current Bhutan king. Many others, too.
So let’s identify the harm, and discuss that issue more closely.
s