Mod-01 Lec-19 Religion-V: Religion and society

Mod-01 Lec-19 Religion-V: Religion and society

Well friends in the previous lecture, we talked
about religion. The purpose was to demonstrate, how sociologists who have worked on the issue
of religion have conceptualize religion. What they have said about religion, it is obvious
that sociology of religion is not religion by understanding sociology of religion, we
do not understand what religion is, by what religious feeling is or what religiousness
is. Most of you are religious, if and you belong to some or other religion mostly to
Hindus, but there are some Christians and some Muslims, there are some Sikhs and most
of you engaged in some other religious practice. None of us can say that we do not engage in
any religious practice, there can be different aspects of religiousness. Religion is about
knowledge, religion is about beliefs, religion is about practices, religion is about deeper
meanings and religion is about a broad world view or cosmology or our understanding of
relationship between man and the universe. In some or other sense we are all religious,
but still when we use the term religion in common parlance, we mean something and sociology
of religion is not to discover, so much about the essence of that religiosity, sociologists
of religion need not be religious persons. Most likely, they are not the purpose of sociology
of religion is to understand the connection between religion as one social fact and other
facts of society. So, like as in case of family, state or we will see in case of education,
stratification sociologists are more interested in how does something evolve? How does it
change with time? What factors are responsible for change? How does something compared with
similar things in other societies? How does it influence other trends in society? How
does it get influenced by other trends of society and what is future? When looked at from this perspective, let
me show a few connections. Although I mentioned some of them earlier, but not so clearly and
I will confine my discussion in this lecture to two or three small things, which are of
general interests one the relationship between religion and society. There is a very close
relationship between religion and society, what kind of religion you have depends on
what kind of society. Society determines what kind of religion you are likely to have, if
you make a typology of religion on some basis, for example, you made a typology of religion
on the basis of polytheism or theism. Atheism to begin with or even before that
magic, witchcraft sorcery, superstitions. So, superstitions including magic, witchcraft,
sorcery, then theism and in theism, we make a further distinction between polytheism,
monotheism and pantheism. So, what kind of religion you have? What kind of what type
of religion you will have, depends on what kind of society you have and what kind of
society you have depends a lot on the religious world view or the ideas which are propagated
by particular religion. So, there is a connection, I at least in a religiously plural society
like ours. Actually I do not have to stress on this point, this is so obvious.
We know that in India politics is based on religion, we are a plural society and all
world religions are found here and all religions are quiet significant in number. Muslim the
second majority or the biggest minority, they are quiet sizeable 13 to 14 percent of the
population consist of Muslims. Then Christians, Sikhs they are also very sizeable number and
there is a so much of regional diversity, that there are several states or regions in
which minority religions are in majority. So, in Kashmir, Muslims are in majority, in
Kerala Hindus are in majority, but the difference between Hindus, Muslims and Christians is
not so large as in other states of India. In several North Eastern states, Christians
are quiet sizeable and in some cases in majority. In Punjab, Sikhs are in majority. You see
that in Indian politics religion has been one of the most vital forces, it does not
mean that economic forces, ideology, nationalism, these things have not mattered, certainly
they have mattered. But religion has played a big role, sometime
the relationship between religion and class is so close, that for commentators or for
historians or for sociologists it becomes difficult to attribute an event, a movement,
a change, a fight, a civil war or a communal tension to this or this and there are so many
instances of this. Just to revive your memory and the whole idea of partition was based
on religion, but there are issues many historians and many commentators believe that religion
was intertwined with class actually. Like in forget about what happened in today’s
Pakistan. Interestingly the demand for Pakistan was not so vocal, so effective, actually it
was counted there in today’s Pakistan, the area which has actually gone to Pakistan.
There was no demand for Pakistan, Pakistan was not demanded by Pakistani Muslims, Pakistan
was a demand mostly of Muslims of UP and Bihar to some extent Gujarat or Rajasthan, this
part North India. Like Mahatma Gandhi, Jinnah was also Gujarati, a lawyer, a nationalist,
who got closely with Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi for a very long time, only
towards the end of his life for a few years became communal.
Then nature of Islam, the nature of reaction of Islam to independence or natural liberation
struggle was so very different, because the Muslims are not a monolithic community. In
the whole of this Indian subcontinent Muslims were not of the same type. Muslims of Kerala,
Muslims of Kerala gets surprised when they see behavior of Muslims of UP. I have guided
some Ph D students from Kerala who were Muslim. I have also guided one Muslim student from
Bihar, I I know their mentality. Kerala Muslims again although it becomes more of narratives,
but I think in introductory sociology class I can afford to give more narratives or stories
to clarify the point. One of my students is working on palliative
care and in some districts of Kerala we are palliative. Palliative care means when somebody
is terminally ill, he or she cannot be cured. Now, we can only add or we can expect to add
only quality to remaining years, we cannot add years to his life. We can reduce pain,
we can take care of some of his unresolved family problems, children’s education, house
construction, house repair or religious or spiritual services or other issues, but we
know that the person is not going to survive. No medical treatment will work, in certain
cases as of advanced stage of cancer, HIV, kidney problems, there are problems paralysis,
stroke. In some extreme cases, you do not expect anything that the persons will survive,
you can only reduce their pain, improve their quality of life keep them more happy. So,
in Kerala we are the palliative care is more of community based, some Muslim religious
organizations are quiet active in organizing palliative care. According to one Islamic
concept, there is the other day I said that there are certain principles of Islam that
everybody has to follow. Among those principles you have prayers, first
of all the belief that there is only one God, one almighty Allah, then prophet Muhammad
is the messenger of that God, then prayers, then pilgrimage, once at least in life aspiring
to go for pilgrimage and fasting. Like that there is a small concept of akika, they call
it akika. Akika means when a child is born, then for from their perspective when a child
is born a gift of weight equivalent to weight of child’s hair is to be given this is called
akika. There in Kerala, Muslims are giving gold and silver in weight equivalent to hair
of the new born child and this akika is going to palliative care.
This was not so interesting for me, till I came to know that this fund under akika and
contributed by Muslim organizations is going for palliative care and not confined to muslims
only, everybody is beneficial. Hindus are taking palliative care from those people,
Muslims are taking, Christians are taking, very liberal. This is one phase of Islam,
very liberal phase of Islam. During the freedom struggle, in today’ Kashmir.
Kashmir has a complex interesting history, but during the freedom struggle in 20s, 30s,
40s communal riots is started, appearing in different parts of the country, but never
in Kashmir. Kashmir was one area where communal riots did not occur ever. It was so secularized
society at the time of partition of the country. Also nothing it was not touched, they had
their own problem but more secular and then came a time around 1990, when the kind of
atrocities done against Hindus. Hindu means pundits there, were unparalleled, in no other
state even during worst times of communal riots perhaps such atrocities such killing,
such cruelty were shown by some people against Hindu pundits in Kashmir.
In Pakistan, when Pakistan was born, there were communal riots, killings and in according
to some estimates millions of people died. Both Hindus and Muslims and Hindus include
Sikhs, those who came from Pakistan, trains full of dead bodies of Hindus and Sikhs came
from there. Khushwant Singh has written a book Train to Pakistan, one must read that
book sometime. Similarly, dead trains full of dead bodies of Muslims went from there.
Religion is very important, we cannot forget religion. How religion affects society? The
Muslims who who actually agitated on the issue of division of the nation on the basis of
religion did not gain anything. They were not the Muslims of today’s Pakistan,
they were mostly the Muslims of UP and Bihar and when these Muslims went to Pakistan, they
became Muhajirs. They are called Muhajirs, in a pejorative sense and they are suffering
from discrimination. It is like in, although they are all Bengalis, but Bengalis who are
native of West Bengal and Bengalis who are native of today’s Bangladesh. They discriminate
against each other, they do not accept each other so easily.
There are prejudices, there are symbols, some is Bengals or some is some or some there are
people use different term for different communities, by or for the purpose of discrimination you
know. In this way they express their prejudices, religion has been a very powerful force, it
is only because of religion that Punjab was found. Otherwise, it was all a big Punjab
and Punjab University was not located in Chandigarh. Punjab University was located in Shimla. At
some point, then some religious cum political leaders and that show that religion interacts
with politics, to ordinary people it does not matter, how does it matter to ordinary
people? Whether they are living in Uttar Pradesh or
Uttarakhand or Jharkhand or Madhya Pradesh, but there are political interests. There are
ambitions of politicians, who manipulate people’s religious sentiments. So, at sometime some
people started thinking, that if there can be an independent country for Muslims, an
independent country of Christians were perhaps not possible in India, because nowhere in
any part of main land India Christians comprise any significant majority except in Kerala,
but there also they were in minority. So, why not a separate state for Sikhs, the issue
of identity? It becomes a political question and religion becomes an identity.
So, religion is not religious beliefs are known, religion is not subscribing to certain
books or ideas or practices or totems or symbols or world views or cosmology or ethics or metaphysics,
religion also take the form of identity. I am Hindu, I am Muslim, I am Sikh and once
religion becomes identity and enters politics, then it becomes a very complex thing it goes
beyond our hands. I was at one time, I took lot of interest in reading Gandhi and I virtually
cried that at one stage Gandhi said Gandhi is known to be one person whose faith in communal
harmony and whose action towards bringing different religious communities together is
unflinching. Nobody can doubt Gandhiji’s intention, there
were actually two persons in India at that time, nobody could doubt their intension when
it comes to religious or caste question. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, I was reading
somewhere that Sheikh Abdullah, Sheikh Abdullah did not want to go with Pakistan. If today
Kashmir is in India it is because Sheikh Abdullah did not want to join Pakistan, but in place
of joining India he gradually started thinking of an independent country and the main reason
was, that by that time a new political outfit in the name of Jan Sangh by someone a close
associate of Jawaharlal Nehru. These are the interesting questions of history,
Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of Jan Sangh was not communal from beginning. He
was a member of constitution assembly and in he worked closely with Jawaharlal Nehru,
but once Shjyama, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee forms a Jan Sangh and an outfit of that kind
in Jammu part and they become quite active, Jan Sangh becomes quite active. Then Sheikh Abdullah started thinking, it
is okay Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is alive, as long as Jawaharlal Nehru is here, there
is no problem. India will remain a secular country, but what will happen after Jawaharlal
Nehru? If people of the type of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, he thought so these are historical
figures and there are many good points, bad points in each one of them, but this is what
Sheikh Abdullah thought. Sheikh Abdullah thought that tomorrow when Jawaharlal Nehru will go
and other political leaders of the type of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and by that time many
other… There Sheikh Abdullah could not trust on religious
question any other leader, including the top leaders of congress party other than Jawaharlal
Nehru, so what will happen? So, Sheikh Abdullah thought that let Kashmir become an independent
country and then he, the reason was religious. Although Sheikh Abdullah was as secular person
as Jawaharlal Nehru and they trusted each other at tremendous friendship and faith in
each other, but Sheikh Abdullah thought what after Nehru?.
So, it became now a religious issue and the same Jawaharlal Nehru who trusted Sheikh Abdullah
so much, history shows how he was imprisoned, when the intelligent showed that Sheikh Abdullah
has joined America in building an independent nation of Kashmir in India, outside India
actually. Independent nation of Kashmir and he is negotiating that in Kashmir certain
thousands of American soldiers, American bureaucrats officers, intelligence forces will remain,
this was the negotiation. So, Kashmir will become an independent country and virtually
it will it will remain under the leadership of America, military leadership of America.
Then it was an issue for worry and Jawaharlal Nehru will not accept this. If a small area
like Kashmir a sort of captured by American forces, it will not be good for the balance
of power in this region. It will also not be good otherwise economically politically
and Sheikh Abdullah was captured. So, this then came to the situation when in 1990 and
subsequently Hindu pundits was just butchers, how from secular society develops a communal
society? So in Punjab, then some people thought that
we are Sikhs we are different from others, they forget the fact that for a long time
Hindus and married, Hindus and Sikhs married each other and Guru Granth Sahib’s full
of prayers retained by saints revealed by both Hindus and others belief systems are
similar. You cannot, sometime I find it quite interesting to watch when television is showing
Guru Bani. I have also interacted with some old Sikhs on the campus you know father of
some staff members, faculty members fathers come, they spend some time go for a walk.
Some old Sikhs also was there on the campus, I had close interaction and they told me that
actually to you cannot understand Guru Granth Sahib, you cannot interpret Gurus Bani truly
unless you are rooted in Hindu religious philosophy. Guru Granth sahib is nothing but Hindu religious
philosophy. The idea of Jiv, Brahman, Athman this or Ram sometime actually, I sometime
I show it to my wife also that see when Guru Granth Sahib is recited Guru Bani is coming
it looks much more Hindu than Hindu recitations of Ram Charita Manasa singing of Hindu bajans
because they do it more seriously. Hindu singers are more careless, more dependent
on parodies, more on sound and some I find when some Hindu preachers from Mathura, Vrindavan
you know they are coming and organizing Srimad Bhagavat, it is very cheap. So, even for recitation
of I tell my wife you watch Guru Bani. But, identity no we are different and the politicians
in their own ambition, politicians are very ambitious people. Politicians will say, they
also know in their heart, that it it may not lead to or it will create more problem for
people both Hindus and Sikhs at the grassroots level it will create more problem than it
will solve, but they want separate state for Sikhs.
So, then gradually it is a long history then demand for Punjabi, so a hilly part was given
to or was carved out from Punjab it became Himachal Pradesh, a Hindu majority area was
carved out from Punjab it became Haryana and the rest of it became Punjab, a Sikh majority
were its very thin majority. The number of Hindus in Punjab is not very less than the
number of Sikhs. Very small majority Sikhs have there, but identity, politics and politics
makes religious question. So, I was telling that at one place when I
read Gandhiji, somebody who worked for Hindu Muslim unity for such a long period of time
with greatest devotion, unflinching faith, that if India is to survive and India has
to be a prosperous developed country, a civilized nation, then a communal harmony is very important.
He said till now nothing can be done, Gandhi realized at one time that nothing can be done.
The communal question or the religious question has gone into the hands of God.
Now, whatever God will want that will happen. When I was reading this, I was sad and I felt
under what circumstances a person like Mahatma Gandhi must have said this that now nothing
can be done. What would have been circumstance? Religion is such a potent force and religion
when religion can be extremely a positive thing, a very humanistic thing, but it can
also be a very dangerous thing, when it comes to relationship between religion and society
very dangerous thing. So, politics identity when religion is combined
with politics and identity, then it becomes a problem for society. So, religion affect
society religion has affect, India is best example of how religion has affected Indian
society? It is still affecting, the latest issue is whether there should be 4.5 percent
reservation for Muslims under OBC, the latest one of the most significant constitutional,
political, educational issue of this week is this whether there should be 4.5 percent
reservation. High court has not accepted, now the government has gone to supreme court.
There is also an issue that more than 300 students who got admission under this policy
last year in IITs, what will happen to them? If supreme court also says that this reservation
on the basis of religion is wrong? So, religion is very important. These things are debatable,
what side is right, what side is not right? We can talk about that, we can debate for
a long time, but the issue is that religion is a very important social force, which interacts
with other facts of society. It interacts with politics, in India people are known to
be voting on the basis of religion. It affects, it is affecting education, it is it affects
everything family, even laws civil marriage property laws, it affects them.
From looked at from one perspective it makes sense to say that if India was to develop
as a secular nation, then criminal and civil laws of all the people of India should be
same what is communal in saying this. But civil court became a communal issue, if you
say that this criminal and civil laws of the land should be same for all the people of
India you are a communal person, you are BJP because the Muslims did not accept this. There
is a separate Muslim court bill or or Muslim law or Muslim personal law according to which
Muslims are permitted to maintain their own Islamic law in matters of marriages, inheritance
of property and other civic matters. Today we have come to that situation that
anybody who will say, that let the law of land treat everyone equally will be called
communal and somebody who will say that no Muslims be guided by Muslim law, Sikhs by
Sikh law, Buddisht by Buddhist law, Hindus by Hindu law they will be called the secular
persons. You know something wrong or something unique of wrong or right, but unique about
the definition of secularization in India. In the west secularization meant, fall in
religiosity. Our sociologists Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Talcott Parsons
later edition, Karl Marx they all thought that magic, witchcraft, sorcery and religion
they exist in relatively less developed stages of society.
When society will develop with arrival of education, science education, technological
advancement, more rational attitude towards life not only magic and witchcraft will go,
religion will also go and people will become more secular. It will be a process of secularization.
In many senses in western society secularization, yes has taken place. Number of persons going
to Church, Church attendance has declined. Political family, legal, cultural, large number
of other institutions of society have become autonomous.
When it comes to the issue of women, when it comes to the issue of family property or
education or jobs or other cultural issues, church does not play any important role in
western society any more. But situation in India is different, here secularization was
defined as a concept according to which state will not treat people belonging to different
religions differently. There will be no discrimination on the basis of caste, creed or religion,
that was the definition of secularization. Indians Indian political leaders thought that
India will never be a secular country in the sense of fall of religiosity. So, we have to manage with with the situation
in which people are religious and state secular. So, they decided that in case of India secularization
will be defined not as fall in religiosity. In the western context it means fall in religiosity,
but in india secularization does not mean fall in religiosity, it meant our planners
leaders meant that it means non discrimination on the basis of caste, creed and community
on the basis of religious community. State will pay equal regard state will not discriminate
in appointments of civil servants in education institutions, state will not discriminate
against anyone on the basis of creed, religion or faith, that is secularization in India.
So, we we have a very peculiar situation you want to…
Sir this definition of secularization is allowed all the religious all the religions in India
to run rampant and you know the I think that is the reason government government has not
been able to institutionalize all the things in our system in making them independent of
religion. this definition is like you are trying to please all the religions and you
cannot do that, if you want to develop as a country.
Yes, it is a big problem. Last Sunday last to last Satyamev Jayate has become a very
popular program of Aamir Khan and they brought members of Khap. Normally among intellectuals
and educated people today, these Khap panchayats and Khap leaders Khap leaders are portrait
to be some kind of villains of society. They are saying that we will not accept the law
of government of India when it comes to marriage means civil matters, we will not accept the
law of government of India. We will accept our own traditions our own customary laws.
They are not asking for anything else other than this and if according to tradition and
according to their customary law, certain things are prohibited like marriages within
gotras are prohibited. You all the people males and females from
the same gotra are like brothers sisters, so we will not permit. Now, if Khap leaders
say this they are treated like villains, but then what is the difference between leaders
of Khap and Islamic leaders? Today we have a separate law for Muslims because Muslims
want to be run in civil matters according to their own law, what is wrong if Khap leaders
are also asking for the same thing? If Khap was powerful, they are quite powerful in Haryana
percentage of Jats is very large and all the elite, educational, political, NGO, bureaucratic,
elite they are all Jats. Irrespective of political party they have
a sort of understanding among themselves, but still they are not so powerful and because
of their dependence on Hindus outside Haryana. They are not so powerful that they can ask
collectively and more vocally for a separate law for Jats of Haryana. But if Jats of Haryana
could afford that, they had more number, their dependence on other states was less and they
did not belong to a common fold of Hindus, then what is morally wrong if Khaps say that
they should not be governed by Hindu law, if in the same country Muslims are not governed
by Hindu law or by. Actually Hindu law is not Hindu law, there
was a demand when at the time of constitution making, there was very interesting fact I
I was surprised to read somewhere that of all the states the demand for such a thing
came from Bengal, from Calcutta. In Calcutta there was group of high caste Hindus, which
had demanded first, that the constitution all of India should be based on Hindu religious
texts. But Hindus in other parts of the country, Hindus in Bengal itself laughed at them. A
concerns had developed that no law of India should not be based on any Smriti or Sastra
or any Hindu law. Law of India must be human, there was a general
agreement, irrespective of regional differences, caste differences, linguistic differences,
we will have a general law for everyone. But problem arose when these general laws for
everyone is not to be implemented for 13 14 percent population of India. Now, if this 13 14 percent population of India
Muslims can ask for this, what is wrong if some people belonging to Khap are also asking
for this. As far as demand is concerned, I can only see that they are not Khaps are Jats
of Haryana or numerically and politically not so important, not so powerful as the Muslims
of India are. So, then it means that religious issue is becomes a issue of power, it is not
a religious issue 4.5 percent be reserved for Muslims education. In education religion
enters education, religion enters politics, religion enters family, family laws, Madarsa
the issue of Madarsa. I was reading in though when an ordinary person
says, when a ordinary person says that certain schools of India run by religious foundations
are making people religiously more fundamentalist kind, then the intellectuals or secularists
they may criticize them say that this is a demand of BJP type of people. But when the
government itself takes such a view let me read one paragraph from eleventh 5 year plan,
which will show how religion enters and this is not a document from communist party of
India or BJP it is not part of manifest of BJP or…
It is a paragraph from eleventh 5 year plan the latest 5 year plan is still under implementation
of government of India There is a section of Madarsa’s and Makthab’s in the chapter
on education and one part of that is education in human moral values, civic duties, environmental
protection and physical education will be built into the system, whereby every child
is prepared to face the future with a healthy frame of mind and body and become a responsible
citizen. Good, no problem in this? Education will faster, what are our expectations from
education the next lecture, spirit of liberty, freedom, patriotism, non-violence, tolerance,
national unity and integration, cultural harmony, inquisitive reasoning rationality and scientific
temper in young minds. First I was wondering that what they have
written here liberty, freedom, patriotism, non-violence, tolerance, national unity integration,
cultural harmony, inquisitive reasoning rationality and scientific temper, why does this paragraph
not appear just in the beginning of the chapter on education in eleventh 5 year plan because
these values are the general values. We expect education to promote this values why is education
in Madarsa’s only expected to promote these values? Does it not show a kind of communal
mind of government of India? Does it not then, what is wrong if BJP people or RSS people
say that Madarsa’s promote values just opposite to them.
So, you are also agreeing with them and then you are saying that an attempt will made in
eleventh 5 year plan to promote such values in Madarsa’s and Makthab’s. Why do not
you say, if these values are secular and these are secular values, we want these values to
be promoted, then such a paragraph should not come under the section or subsection of
Madarsa’s and Makthab’s. It must be the opening paragraph of the chapter on education.
This show the communal mind, religion is affecting all of us, whether we are Hindus or Muslims
or Sikhs or secular or communal, we are all in some other way a communal type of person.
Every school and EGSAIE center will receive special grant to celebrate national festivals
of independence day and republic day. You will give special grants to Madarsa’s and
Makthab’s for celebrating independence day what does it assume? If government of India
tomorrow says that are in what conditions will government of India be forced to say
that IIT Kanpur will be given special grant to celebrate national festival and independent
day and republic day? That will happen only if they come to know or the assumption is
that IIT Kanpur people are producing anti-nationalist and IIT Kanpur people do not celebrate republic
day or independence day or national day, do something to encourage them also to celebrate
independence day. Why should government of India give special
grant to celebrate independence day? You want to buy nationality? You want buy patriotism?
You want buy, first of all you accept the idea that muslims are anti-national, even
after independence you accept the idea that those who are going to Madarsa’s and Makthab’s
are anti-national and not patriot. There is a need to give money to them to celebrate
independence day. Then if somebody says that in cricket match Muslims side with Pakistan,
what is the difference between their mentality and mentality of government of India?
Our secularization is nothing but communal. India’s secularization is communal and I
have seen that many important sociologist in India including one T N Madan in his writings,
T N Madan was a Kashmiri pandit and a very renowned is he still alive a very renowned
sociologist from Delhi. He has written several books, he takes the position that the problem
of secularization in India is not this, that some people are secular some are communal.
The problem is that for some people secularization includes an inclusive approach, that what
is right is right for everyone. There are some other groups according to whom, secularization
has to be defined in the framework of their of religion.
What religion says, this is of God, this is of the world and accordingly our attitude
towards secularization should be and at the end it says hosting of national flags on these
days should be made mandatory. Why mandatory is the it is like there is IIT Kanpur if if
this is written for us IIT Kanpur students mandatory compulsory in all education institutions
including private schools with discipline. You know, to me it is very communal way of
looking at problem of religious minorities, but what is the solution? I do not know, it
is not so simple. I can only point out that the problem of secularization in India is
the problem of conflict between two definitions of secularization. One that secularization needs to be defined
independent of religion, must be defined
independent of religion, a, his is one definition. B, secularization what form of secularization?
How much secularization? What should be our attitude toward different things? Divine worldly
be defined in religious framework. As long as as long as this conflict remains, actually
the problem of communal conflict in India is essentially, though there are many other
things. There are some people who organize communal violences, they must be having some
vested interest political or economic or social. There are issues of association in areas where
Hindus and Muslims live in mixed localities depend on each other. That there is a Muslim
shopkeeper Muslim sweet seller and both Muslims and Hindus are buying sweets from him, that
there is a Hindu electrician and both Muslims and Hindus depending on him for electrical
repair, when there is a mixture. Very close mixture between Hindus and Muslims riots will
not take place. If there is no political interest, if political
parties do not calculate, if there are more than two political parties and there are more
shifting boards, that in each election people deicide can decide to vote for a different
party, they are not loyal supporters of one of only two major parties in the country are
at the state level. Then communal riots will not take place.
If history is not defined in a communal manner, you know in our blood most of you must have
heard stories, how Muslims and Hindus fought with each other in the past? How cruel they
were many Muslims, think that there was a time. I remember a few months back for recruitment
to faculty position a Muslim lady came from Delhi from reputed institution Ph D from the
reputed institution. While presenting her thesis she was saying she was mentioning something
about that Muslims of today feel some marginalize, specially, because they carry the memory of
being the ruler of this country for a long time. That Muslims were ruler of this country
for a long time for 100 of years and today they feel marginalized.
I asked her please tell me in which year of Indian history all Muslims of India were rulers?
A number of rulers in India, 200, 300, 400 years back, in number 4, 5, 10 persons or
families of Muslims were rulers, no doubt. But the ordinary Muslims were never rulers,
condition of ordinary Muslims was as bad always as the condition of ordinary Hindus. Now,
this way of looking by some Muslim, Muslim intellectuals that at one time Muslims were
rulers of this country and now they are marginalize, this is communal.
Likewise thinking of Hindus that Hindu civilization was great and then some invaders came they
looted Hindu temples, killed Hindus, destroyed Taxila, Nalanda you know explanation on the
basis of religion only. Barbarian uncivilized kind of persons can belong to any religion.
It is wrong to heard, but this is a Hindu communalism. So, all but at the root of all
the problem of India theoretical problem is, that there are some people who think that
secularization must be defined independent or religion.
If something is secular, it is secular for A K Sharma, for Mohammed Ansari, for Gurpreet
Singh and for Wilson for everyone for UP, for Kerala, for Punjabi’s, for Kashmiri.
While sizeable number of people in India, think that secularization has to be defined
in a religious framework. The way God or a guru or a saint or a book has defined secularization
that you can take liberty only up to this much. In this field, not in that field, so
there is a basic conflict between these two as long as you will have this conflict unresolved,
you will have communal parties and you will not have the true presence of secularization
in the country.

3 thoughts on “Mod-01 Lec-19 Religion-V: Religion and society

  1. thanks sir ,make more lectures on sociological thinkers..mostly modern thinkers like ervin gofman ,michel focolt,althuser,jaqes drida,edmund hussrel,harold garfinkle,alfrd shutz,anthony giddens,thomas lukman ,rald dehrendorf,randall collin,lewis coser,s f nadel.l berger. etc
    please please please give some brief information about them…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *