Comments on: Religious Freedom and Tolerance – for public comment

By: ramesh

ramesh — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:27:27 +0000

Dear Sabhlok,
Excited to see you replying to me. Surely it has clarified the matter to the extent to which I have commented. I am satisfied to see that you have agreed to the fact that Dharma is quite different from the Religion and that approach of the FTI is dharmic in nature. But note that the FREEDOM AND JUSTICE are JUST A FEW ASPECTS of the greatest Dharma. Greatest wonder to me is the fact that FTI is trying to establish an ideal society by establishing the Freedom, Justice and few similar things which are only a few insufficient aspects of the Dharma.
The essence is that without understanding the Dharma- which includes the study of the human instincts, its behavior over the period of time and other scientific aspects so abundantly and indirectly dealt with throughout the Indian tradition and to some extent by other religions and that DHARMA abounds in ADHARMIC APPROACH FOR THE SAKE OF DHARMA- there is every possibility of implementing Freedom, Justice and similar things in a bit distorted way and thus bound to fail over the period of time.
Note that wikipedia or similar things don’t have the authority to define it or describe its nature. Only Jnanies are apt to say what Dharma is. Now the subject enters altogether a very basic, philosophical (nay scientific) discussion which is indispensible and without which any approach (FTI or any other) is bound to fail horribly. This subject needs to be entered into only with your kind permission.
[I am talking of Dharma so much because Freedom and Justice are quite a relative terms when isolated from the Dharma (and cause havoc when established as such) and the same become absolute when they are in consistent with the Dharma and brings in ideal society only as such.]
I have just begun reading your two books. After I complete the same I will be returning to comment with more understanding of yours and pinpoint few flawed points of the FTI alongwith the remedial measures for the same.
However if you understand the exact intent of mine, waiting for your reply.

By: Ashish

Ashish — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:51:16 +0000

Dear Ramesh,

I have just posted my reply to your comment on my Blog and being relevant to the same discussion on this thread, am reproducing it here.

Thanks for the comment. Understand your viewpoint and very briefly would like to distinguish between Dharma and Religion as follows:

Religion is derived from the Latin word Religio, meaning bind or connect together. The purpose of religion through the ages has been to help respective groups stay firmly bonded together and in part clearly distinguished in ideology & belief from other groups.

Dharma is described in Wikipedia as –

Many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology).

The word dharma translates as that which upholds or supports, and is generally translated into English as law. The antonym of dharma is adharma meaning unnatural or immoral.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma)

I believe you have referred to Dharma in the context of Law and not Faith or Belief.

The dharma of FTI is to offer a clean and transparent government, free from all evils and bias, including religious.

I hope this clarifies!

Regards / Ashish.

By: Sanjeev Sabhlok

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:59:56 +0000

Dear Ramesh

Thanks for your comment. I can assure you that your concern about things becoming disastrous is totally unwarranted!

The sum and essence of freedom is justice. Justice is nothing but the Golden Rule or categorical imperative. In particular, the Bhagavad Gita talks about the ideal person as ‘one who does not hate any creature, who is friendly and compassionate, free from (the notion of) “I” and “my”, even-minded in pain and pleasure, forgiving’.

When a statement is made that politics and religion should be kept separate, the goal is that the good is extracted from all sources and enforced by the state. The ideals of the Golden Rule and the Gita are 100% compatible with FTI’s vision for the laws of the state which, in essence, boil down to justice.

Once the laws of the nation are based on justice, and enforcement is precise and proportionate, then the society will flourish. Freedom and justice are the greatest dharma. Once these are assured, then the rest of the belief system (e.g. people’s belief in God or not, or which name of God) should become a private matter. Whether one wants to worship in a temple, church or mosque, should remain off-bounds for the government.

I trust this clarifies your concerns.

I assure you that FTI stands for the HIGHEST ethics, the highest dharma, the highest justice. Once the state can guarantee that, then surely it is not appropriate for religious agendas to be thrust on the state. Religion as practised has not always been Dharma-friendly. Adharmic actions by so-called religious leaders have often led to major problems across the world (and India!). Let us extract the good out of all philosophies.

As the Rig Veda says, “Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.”

Regards
Sanjeev

By: ramesh

ramesh — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:34:27 +0000

Dear friends,
It is the ‘Dharma’ which gives the animal the form of ‘Being Human’. It was the Hindu Dharma which gave the now thinking animal a form of Being Human. Similar efforts were made by the Jain, Boudha, Christen, Islam etc Dharmas including Hindu which were turned into Religions (English term) due to Veil nature of this animal (Human Beings). It is originally the Dharma which defines the Politics, Governance, Society and so on. Religion is the term which the foreign culture has given the name to this Dharma. Due to inappropriate conceptions of the Dharma, the term Religion not necessarily implies the same thing as the Dharma does.

When Politics is separated from the Dharma, the politics become the law of the animals not of the Human beings. If problems are created with the Politics, then effort to establish the Dharma with its pristine purity should be made and that it could never be separated from the Dharma which is its seed, the father.

At FTI if it is true that the Dharma is being separated from the politics by confusing the Dharma with the English term Religion, it will be more disastrous than any past happenings in the history of the human race.

Is there anybody who can clarify the stand of FTI? Dear Sabhlok, Shantanu……..

rkumarane@gmail.com
idealworldkrishna.blogspot.com

By: Anupam

Anupam — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:01:53 +0000

I see what you are saying. I agree that state shold not succumb to the demand of religious organizations to breach the freedom of othes.

By: ashishvdeodhar@gmail.com

ashishvdeodhar@gmail.com — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:51:14 +0000

@Anupam
I think you misunderstood me on this. I have explained in my second line how I see a clear difference between individual beliefs and organized religions. There's nothing communist and definitely not dictatorial about my view because I don't propose a blanket ban on religions. I simply don't expect the state and society to be dictated by religious beliefs, that's about it.
So for example, someone saying that Sania Mirza shouldn't wear short clothes is an individual's personal opinion and s/he is entitled to hold that opinion but that person has no right to impose that opinion on others through his/her religious office by releasing fatwas.
Banning books is not violence. Demanding ban on contraception is not violence. Caste system is not violence. So I think we can't look at aggressions only in terms of violence and non-violence. Many aggressions on freedom are done in a very non-violent way but they are aggressions nonetheless. Again, anyone has freedom to believe that contraception is a sin but a state should not succumb to demands to ban contraception just because someone's religious book says so.
That's what I mean when I say "curbing religions", not an outright ban on all religions.
Hope that clarifies my position!

By: Anupam

Anupam — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:18:09 +0000

@Ashish,

I saw your comment today. I strongly disagree with your statement - "I think it's not enough to simply disassociate the state from religions. Religions should be actively curbed in order to protect our freedoms in all aspects of our lives."

This is not a liberal view at all but an communist/dicatatorial view.

"I strongly believe that such mass delusions should not be allowed to dictate our social, cultural and political lives, demand subsidies, reservations and so on. Aggression on freedom of speech (Taslima Nasreen, M F Hussain, Danish cartoons etc), on healthcare and scientific developments (opposition to contraception, stem cell research), on cultural (mangalore attacks, V-day attacks etc), and socio-economic freedoms (caste system) among many other aggressions should actively be curbed in a free and liberal nation."

Any pepetrators of the violence should be punished by the law. And it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order in the society.

By: Ashish Deodhar

Ashish Deodhar — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:21:08 +0000

I think it's not enough to simply disassociate the state from religions. Religions should be actively curbed in order to protect our freedoms in all aspects of our lives.
I make a clear distinction between individual belief and organized religion and when I use the term "religion", I use it entirely to mean organized religion.
Belief is purely a private matter and everyone should be entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe in. For me, PRIVATE is a keyword here. Every individual should also have the right to freedom of association (organized religion in this case). I do not advocate curbing individual thought/belief or an individual's right to association. What I advocate, however, is curbing the freedom these associations should have in a liberal society.
I strongly believe that such mass delusions should not be allowed to dictate our social, cultural and political lives, demand subsidies, reservations and so on. Aggression on freedom of speech (Taslima Nasreen, M F Hussain, Danish cartoons etc), on healthcare and scientific developments (opposition to contraception, stem cell research), on cultural (mangalore attacks, V-day attacks etc), and socio-economic freedoms (caste system) among many other aggressions should actively be curbed in a free and liberal nation.

By: Narinder Bhatia

Narinder Bhatia — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:24:44 +0000

I seek that all public places of worship need to compulsarily register themselves, so that it can be identified as to who manages or owns these places, what activities etc are carried out in these premises, what people occupy these premises, how assets (premises etc.) have been acquired and what persons can be held responsible for breaking laws such as encroaching/ grabbing land, creating noise and other nuisance or disregarding safety norms.

Narinder Bhatia

By: Sanjeev Sabhlok

Sanjeev Sabhlok — Thu, 28 May 2009 10:23:24 +0000

Dear Arun

I was not sure what you were referring to because you wanted to debate the “‘minority’ category issue”, which is anathema to me. However, apparently you were referring to broader economic policy matters. This blog post, however, is dedicated to FTI’s draft religious freedom policy. FTI’s economic policies are still being debated and drafted.

Therefore it is best to stick very literally to the religious freedom policy on this blog and point out where it may be insufficient. Discussions on HDI, water, electricity, school education, health insurance, etc. are not appropriate on this particular blog.

As for the concern that the single point agenda of FTI re: freedom is in potentially flawed. Is that really so? I do believe that there are only two things a government must ensure: our life and freedom. The rest is none of its business. From these two, though, arise a range of economic and other policies which will be discussed separately. Free interaction (subject only to accountability) is proven to produce innovation and wealth, among other things. Policies of freedom are extensive and comprehensive.

In any event, please therefore hold on to your thoughts on economic policy matters: FTI will come to these things in the coming months.

Thanks, and regards
Sanjeev