The picture below, showing the devastation of a church caused by the super storm Sandy, is from an article in The Economist [1]. Hurricane Sandy blew the walls of a church in Bay Head, New Jersey and hence the heading reads Rebuild the wall.
There is a controversy and it is all about whether the US Federal Government money can go into “reconstruction of houses of worship.” You must note that this is quite phlegmatic. Around the time of Christmas it used to be the case that some public space or the other would be “commandeered” by Christians to put up Nativity scenes. Then, it was decided that all religions will have claims to such places and the sites are to be so notified.
Likewise here, though the “house of worship” under the implied reference is a Christian Church (and also possibly a synagogue, in Rockaway, Queens), the law tries to bring in a spurious inclusiveness by avoiding specifics about the religion. But, there can be no doubt that this is a majoritarian conception.
A “bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives” passed a bill that permits such allocation which waved a red flag for the rigid Church-State separation lobby. Obviously, the House of Representatives carries a majoritarian majority. Thus, every which way one looks at it, the secularism is majoritarian.
The federal agency who controls the distribution of such monies does not agree with such majoritarianism. ACLU is also on the same side. No surprises there. The New York Times is against the bill. The Anti-defamation League, a Jewish organization with a mandate to fight anti-Semitism, did a curious flip-flop – opposed the bill first, but later switched sides (maybe the synagogue helped).
Well, I have not much to say on what is happening in the US. But, I do want to bring a certain instance where a supposedly secular nation supports religion, but the matter does not even cause a ripple. This, to my mind, evokes a majoritarian parallel.
There is a temple for Lord Nataraja in Satara, Maharashtra, modeled on the temple for the same Lord at Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu. I was visiting my parents and brother and his wife in Satara in April 1996, 17 years ago, to the month. I went to this temple, which was, as the story goes, established not too many years earlier under the auspices of the Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. So far so good and as an atheist I had the run of the place to myself while my family was doing all the religious stuff.
I learned the following, and I vouch for what I am giving below because this comes directly from my personal notes in the immediate aftermath of that visit. “[T]he Governments of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu donated money for the construction of the four ‘gopurams’ (ie) the entrance edifices. The Government of Kerala, not to be outdone, provided all the woodwork including the Dwajasthamba (m) (ie) the flag mast.”
I had a few questions as I scribbled the above in my personal note and I still do.
1. Have the state governments provided funds for new construction of places of prayer for other religions? (Kindly note that funds provided for renovation and restoration of historic monuments, though they might be places of prayer, do not come under this category).
2. What strength can there be in any argument which goes to prove that the above mentioned state governments are secular in nature?
3. Don’t you see “appeasement” of the majority in the instance?
The above is what I wrote, word to word in 1996 when “minority appeasement” was the reigning mantra and nobody had even defined Indian secularism. Therefore, the second question must be read as a challenge to define Indian secularism. Obviously this challenge was not taken up, because it was not thrown open to the public! Now I am doing it. Any takers?
The way I see it, donations to the temple came from the majoritarian majority in the state governments.
It is this majority that binds the current instance in the US, about restoring the church, and the donations to the construction of the new temple.
If the US and India claim to be secular, as they indeed do, then they are of the majoritarian variety. And, this is crucial – when it comes to majoritarianism, secular or religion do not make any difference.
Majoritarian secularism is precisely equal to majoritarian religionism.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Rebuild the wall, The Economist, March 7, 2013
There is a controversy and it is all about whether the US Federal Government money can go into “reconstruction of houses of worship.” You must note that this is quite phlegmatic. Around the time of Christmas it used to be the case that some public space or the other would be “commandeered” by Christians to put up Nativity scenes. Then, it was decided that all religions will have claims to such places and the sites are to be so notified.
Likewise here, though the “house of worship” under the implied reference is a Christian Church (and also possibly a synagogue, in Rockaway, Queens), the law tries to bring in a spurious inclusiveness by avoiding specifics about the religion. But, there can be no doubt that this is a majoritarian conception.
A “bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives” passed a bill that permits such allocation which waved a red flag for the rigid Church-State separation lobby. Obviously, the House of Representatives carries a majoritarian majority. Thus, every which way one looks at it, the secularism is majoritarian.
The federal agency who controls the distribution of such monies does not agree with such majoritarianism. ACLU is also on the same side. No surprises there. The New York Times is against the bill. The Anti-defamation League, a Jewish organization with a mandate to fight anti-Semitism, did a curious flip-flop – opposed the bill first, but later switched sides (maybe the synagogue helped).
Well, I have not much to say on what is happening in the US. But, I do want to bring a certain instance where a supposedly secular nation supports religion, but the matter does not even cause a ripple. This, to my mind, evokes a majoritarian parallel.
There is a temple for Lord Nataraja in Satara, Maharashtra, modeled on the temple for the same Lord at Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu. I was visiting my parents and brother and his wife in Satara in April 1996, 17 years ago, to the month. I went to this temple, which was, as the story goes, established not too many years earlier under the auspices of the Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. So far so good and as an atheist I had the run of the place to myself while my family was doing all the religious stuff.
I learned the following, and I vouch for what I am giving below because this comes directly from my personal notes in the immediate aftermath of that visit. “[T]he Governments of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu donated money for the construction of the four ‘gopurams’ (ie) the entrance edifices. The Government of Kerala, not to be outdone, provided all the woodwork including the Dwajasthamba (m) (ie) the flag mast.”
I had a few questions as I scribbled the above in my personal note and I still do.
1. Have the state governments provided funds for new construction of places of prayer for other religions? (Kindly note that funds provided for renovation and restoration of historic monuments, though they might be places of prayer, do not come under this category).
2. What strength can there be in any argument which goes to prove that the above mentioned state governments are secular in nature?
3. Don’t you see “appeasement” of the majority in the instance?
The above is what I wrote, word to word in 1996 when “minority appeasement” was the reigning mantra and nobody had even defined Indian secularism. Therefore, the second question must be read as a challenge to define Indian secularism. Obviously this challenge was not taken up, because it was not thrown open to the public! Now I am doing it. Any takers?
The way I see it, donations to the temple came from the majoritarian majority in the state governments.
It is this majority that binds the current instance in the US, about restoring the church, and the donations to the construction of the new temple.
If the US and India claim to be secular, as they indeed do, then they are of the majoritarian variety. And, this is crucial – when it comes to majoritarianism, secular or religion do not make any difference.
Majoritarian secularism is precisely equal to majoritarian religionism.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Rebuild the wall, The Economist, March 7, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment