The new Big Tent would fall woefully short of its objectives if it doesnt address head-on the fundamental problem of lack of freedom to faith in India.
On several issues over the last 5 years from when to celebrate New Year to how to sport eye brows we have witnessed an unawarranted invasion by the State into matters of faith.
Today Religious Institutions across the country are governed and managed by the State.
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 a Congress MP’s unquestioned right to be the Chairperson of Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanam, TTD, had Constitutional Sanction.
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 frees faith from State control and intervention. The right of center argument is it gives religious institutions freedom to be run as their stakeholders (the devotees and the local communities), deem fit.
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.
The White Umbrella must stand clearly and unambiguously for this cardinal principle that the State shall have no role to play in matters of faith beyond upholding the rule of law.
This cardinal principle will also provide the new Big Tent the degree of openness and assurance needed to reconcile the intractable issues of last century while guaranteeing that Truth and Justice shall ultimately prevail.
A possible approach for closure on the Ayodhya issue can be found with this cardinal principle of freeing Religious Institutions from Government Control and reverting the ownership of these institutions to the local communities.
A first step towards such a reconciliation would be to agree to a democratic process by which the Local Community can make choices on how to directly reap the benefits from all the economic activity resulting from religious-tourism making it a win-win for both communities.
Such a democratic process that provides a stake to the local community would also set a precedent for how to democratically resolve similar intractable issues on public projects that are intertwined with matters of faith.
It would also spare the Courts from answering absurd questions on matters of faith as well as prevent forcing the hand of Federal/state governments into legislating absurd laws that override local sentiments.
In closing let it be said there will be no Freedom to Faith as long as there is no Freedom to the Community and the Individual. It is in this Freedom Triad lies Justice to all when it comes to matters of faith.
More on Justice and Reconciliation on acts of Adharma committed in the name of faith in the next post.
Filed under: DesiPundit, Shveta Chhatra
Ajay,
2002 and 2007 assembly elections in Gujarat never reflected in 2004 and 2009 general elections. The way voters see state elections and general elections are different.
In 2009 elections BJP got a lead in shivajinagar segment which is predominantly minority locality in Bangalore Central. Is it because of Hindutuva?
Even by your argument Mangalore is own because of Hindutuva. Then what about remaining 18 seats.
swamy on sethu.
The Sethusamudram shipping canal project was taken up without conducting tectonic studies, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy alleged here on Thursday.
The expert group of the National Institute of Oceanography of the Ministry of Science and Technology had informed the government and the Dr.R.K.Pachauri Committee, in a report dated March 2009, that the project as designed under the stewardship of T.R.Baalu as Minister of Shipping, was without “any study on the potential impact of tectonic events on the Sethusamudram Canal,” Dr. Swamy claimed.
Table report in Parliament
It had pointed out that “between February 1948 and January 1949, tectonic events had led to the submergence of a part of Danushkodi town.” It had recommended that “an answer to this question is clearly needed to estimate the impact and viability of this project itself,” Dr. Swamy told a press conference. He demanded that the expert group report be tabled in Parliament.
He claimed that the report had stated that “there exists no baseline data to permit a conclusive statement to be made regarding the potential impact of a switch in alignment (so as not to damage the Rama Sethu), as asked for by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.”
Dr. Swamy said that the expert group had recommended a full-fledged environment impact assessment to assess the possible impact of alignment 4 A [suggested by him] and alignment 6 on the marine biosphere reserve.
This would take another five years
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/05/stories/2009060559370900.htm
Guys
Konraad Elst’s perspective. It is again scathing on LKA.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/177112/BJP-apes-Congress-fails.html
aru is right. The 2002 and 2007 assembly elections in Gujarat didn’t make an impact on 2004 and 2009 general elections.
Ajay – No resentment all criticism is welcome. You say there are holes and scope is small, please be specific, list atleast 5 issues that you see not getting addressed and then we can have meaningful debate.
Maidros – That is where National Interest comes in and the Federal Government has a role. On National Security grounds such a proposal by any “Islamic” country will be dead on arrival.
Palahalli – You have misinterpreted my remarks on OIC. My point is simple without compromising national identity or national interest in anyway if the OIC can be useful like any other international economic cooperation entity we must use it to our advantage that is all. If OIC in its current avatar doesnt satisfy above then it is of no use to us.
To the rest of your argument, I can sum it all up to a basic question on why is there appeasement despite the fact that some nation is supposed to be secular ?
It is a fair question and it has to do with the nature of politics, if there is an electoral incentive to appease, there will be appeasement.
No amount of top down constitutional ammendments can prevent that for the nature of selfishness is such that there will always be workarounds and backdoor routes to appeasement of one kind or another.
The best solution is to leave it to state governments and local communities on the degree to which they will tolerate such appeasement via direct or indirect democracy that reflects local/regional sentiments/aspirations rather than mandate a one size fit all national solution.
This also addresses Ajay’s other question on how Culture conflicts with Governance can be resolved.
I am closing the debate on this thread with these remarks.
[...] « Newer Older » [...]
[...] is clear from the discussion in the last post on Freedom to Faith that at the heart of all angst in India are apprehensions about Culture [...]