The very basic definition of secularism is very simple to understand (though even more tough to implement in one's own life),i.e., unbiased orientation to any religion or some consider that secularism means any doctrine that rejects religion or religious considerations. But as we all know, legal processes have their own version in every aspect. There are two versions of secularism considered widely, one is the Indian Secularism and the other is Western Secularism. As per Indian Secularism, the state can interfere in religious sanctions, rules or anything else which it considers uncomfortable with respect to rights conferred on its citizens or residents by it which have evolved out of hundreds of debates, years of struggle for equal right towards its freedom from a foreign government or its peaceful era during a Mughal Empire which turned disastrous during Aurangzeb. Whereas the Western Secularism does not interfere with the definition of secularism at all. It has imbibed it as a principle definition, its definition strictly means that state has nothing to do with religious considerations.
**The Third Generation means the second successor of a migrant. So suppose a person moves to another country then his grandson/grand daughter belongs to third generation
Part of the problem also lies with the western society which generally does not digest easily any new comer and instead of considering her/him part of the family, considers her/him as a "resource sharer". One of the reason which may sound valid to those who are exposed to such situation is this that the westerners are finding it very difficult to cope up to the competition which they have never witnessed. And the version of their definition further reinforces that conclusion as they discriminate people on the basis of culture they pursue, and since state can absolutely not interfere with that culture (which is good but turns out to be bad), they brand those other people as "migrants". This results in this that despite living in the corresponding countries for may be more than half a century, these migrants though may not be officially a migrant any more, but psychologically they remain so. European countries are very different from USA, in my opinion the Europeans are still very conservative and orthodox kind of people. Even USA did not see such a huge participation in terrorist related organisation like ISIS by its citizen as the Europeans did. Things in America turned out bad only after the 9/11 attack.
The point is this that the two definitions are good on their own where Indian secularism, with respect to state, is not a hundred percent definition but the definition of Western Secularism could be said to be hundred percent in its character. But the point is this that India and West have one thing in common, they adhere to the Human Rights (HR) and HR should not be violated on any grounds. Now the point is this, that as per HR, Indian Parliament and Courts can direct anyone to put its religious sanction on back foot and must follow the state's decision whereas with regard to West it becomes difficult. Due to this sometimes Western nations find it very difficult to accommodate its people from other nations to adjust in its environment whereas in India, its very clear, messing with state on the name of religion is not good for health though political sector may show sympathy (often).
This clear perception, in case of India, drives the third generation to normally a no confusion state but in case of West, it often goes out of order. This has resulted into participation by the third generation into terrorist organistaion such as IS etc. from the Western countries but from India, despite having larger share of population, there is very little participation.
**The Third Generation means the second successor of a migrant. So suppose a person moves to another country then his grandson/grand daughter belongs to third generation
Part of the problem also lies with the western society which generally does not digest easily any new comer and instead of considering her/him part of the family, considers her/him as a "resource sharer". One of the reason which may sound valid to those who are exposed to such situation is this that the westerners are finding it very difficult to cope up to the competition which they have never witnessed. And the version of their definition further reinforces that conclusion as they discriminate people on the basis of culture they pursue, and since state can absolutely not interfere with that culture (which is good but turns out to be bad), they brand those other people as "migrants". This results in this that despite living in the corresponding countries for may be more than half a century, these migrants though may not be officially a migrant any more, but psychologically they remain so. European countries are very different from USA, in my opinion the Europeans are still very conservative and orthodox kind of people. Even USA did not see such a huge participation in terrorist related organisation like ISIS by its citizen as the Europeans did. Things in America turned out bad only after the 9/11 attack.
Conclusion
Leave aside the communal organisations like RSS or All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen or Indian Christian Front, the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court of India could be regarded the best on their platforms as compared to any other in the world. We allow people not only to upkeep their religion (unlike French Court which does allow Christian nuns to wear veils but does not allow Muslim women to wear Burqa ) provided it does not violate any basic feature of our Constitution but we also do not allow any body to say anything derogatory against any religion like "Charlie Hebdo" in the name sake of so called "Freedom Of Speech".
No comments:
Post a Comment