Secularism and shit

Have we exhausted all options that political parties are fighting over who spoke about sanitary facilities first? If this is a necessity, then go and build those toilets instead of throwing up nonsense.

In his now familiar style of useless rhetoric, Narendra Modi told a group of 7000 students in Delhi:

"My image is that of Hindutva but I'll tell you my real thinking. I have said in my state: pehle shauchalaya, phir devalaya (toilets first, temples later)."

It is not his image that is the problem, but his fake attempts to wipe that image when and where it suits him. Addressing a young audience in the capital is different from repeating these words before the RSS, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and his own party, the BJP.

Will Modi say this in Ayodhya? Will he say this while talking to the sadhus who blessed him at the Maha Kumbh? Will he make this into an electoral issue and expunge any reference to temples? Will he be able to sell this idea at the woo-the-minority rallies and add other places of worship too?

It is not only Hindutvawadis who need to use the facilities.

He further stated:

"I define secularism as nation first, India first. Justice to all, appeasement to none. No votebank politics - a poor man is a poor man, where he prays is immaterial."

Why is this only about the poor? The majority that lives in the rural areas have figured out how to use waste as manure. He knows that the poor do not vote if they are promised toilets. They first need something to eat before they can digest it. They need water, they need jobs, they need healthcare, they need electricity, they need roads. They are not looking for a special place to take a dump. Not until their other needs are fulfilled.

And they really do not spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about where they can pray. They just raise their hands when they want rains, and they fall to the ground when they want the earth to sustain them. They do not need temples or mosques or churches.

Justice is not only about toilets. Modi should know that.

---

Not to be left behind, the Congress has joined in to claim credit for the toilet idea.

Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh is on surer ground here, though. He had said this last year, and now recalls:

"When I spoke, Rajiv Pratap Rudy said I should respect the fine line between faith and religion. Then he went on to say that the BJP maintains that one should not get into the debate of whether a temple or toilet is more important. Prakash Javadekar also attacked me. Activists of the RSS and VHP came to my house and left bottles of urine. I wonder where they are now when Mr Modi has suddenly discovered the value of toilets. I still believe we need more toilets than temples. I wish Modi had discovered this 20 years ago, then we would not have had the Babri Masjid episode."

The point is, has the Congress done anything about those toilets? Talk is cheap.

After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, there were many ideas floated by Indian citizens, not politicians. Among those that suggested building hospitals and schools, some even mentioned toilets.

I personally think this is reductionism. Nobody is really interested in these non-controversial issues unless they are used to promote 'development'. Imagine a basic facility being touted as development. Worse, it is not the ones who are supposed to benefit making the demand, but those with all the amenities. They start the fire and then use the smoke. A stinky smokescreen for secularism again.

© Farzana Versey

---


Images: GujaratIndia & New York Times

Deos and Deities

Who’d have thought that the government move against deodorant ads would get a saffron person to state:

“I guess these guidelines do not apply when it comes to painting Hindu gods and goddesses in nude and/or erotic positions."

Well, that was what my Inbox had and it is something that keeps coming up in discussions too. 


My reply in full:

Dear X ji:

I do not believe these ads have much of an impact, but am I to assume you have no problems with such ads? Does the Shiv Sena not routinely tear up posters on hoardings that it finds objectionable? What about protests during Valentine’s Day? Most religious groups inflict such morality on people without even taking recourse to the legal process.

The analogy of paintings of Hindu deities naked or in certain positions is not quite the same. These depictions are there in temples and ancient art. Most of contemporary art does not demean the figures. And let us not forget that guidelines or no guidelines the people behind such paintings do bear the brunt. In our country we have a very strong unofficial system of policing. Sadly, it does not come out when the country is in real danger.

I can only guess that your next query or thought would be, ah, and what do Muslims do when there is a cartoon drawn about their Prophet? As a non-practising person with some basic knowledge, I think it has to do with non-idolatory. Islam has no visible images at all; we do not know what the Prophet looks like. So, like most vain people we’d want a more Christ-like or even Santa-like image rather than some skewed Aladdin. It has to do with aesthetics.

Now, you may well ask, what would a mullah whose face is covered with a bush know about aesthetics? And what is aesthetic about shouting slogans and doing other undesirable things?

Claudia and calligraphy

I agree, but in this respect all religious proponents have the same degree of enthusiasm. Recently an Australian swimwear company had images of Goddess Lakshmi; some years ago model Claudia Schiffer walked down the ramp wearing a dress with Islamic calligraphy drawn on the top; pop star Madonna used Sanskrit shlokas in some songs, someone else belts out some exclamatory lines from the Quran; there have been occasions when even Buddhists have been hurt because some wine was called Maya. There have been objections and protests.

The protestors showing what they do not want shown!

I think the oft-quoted bit from the Bhagwad Gita can be applied across the board:


Karmani ave adhikars te
ma phalesu kadachana
ma karmaphal hetur bhoo
ma sangostu akramani

“Thou hast power only to act not over the result thereof. Act thou therefore without prospect of the result and without succcumbing to inaction.”

Everyone acts the way they deem fit for fear of inaction.

Regards,
~F

PS: Sorry about the long rant but traditionally the majority has appeased the minority so I assume some indulgence! (Please take this in the right light spirit.)

- Note ends -

I did not copy the pictures in the email, though.My views on the deo ads have already been expressed here

Does the Pope understand Crime?

For the first time since the raging allegations against the sexual abuse scandal involving a priest, Pope Benedict has publicly stated:

“Now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognize what is wrong in our lives.”

It is a telling comment that he refers to the attack from the world. It is a masochistic way of looking at things. Had there been no attack, would there be no need for penance? This penance too is part of “obedience to God”. Has god been in any manner demeaned? Has god been tarnished? No. The Church is an institution, and like all religious institutions it has a set hierarchy, sub-sects and people in charge. They ought to be pulled up and be seen as criminals for committing crimes against others, as they would be in civil society.

One increasingly notices that ashrams, madrassas, convents and churches are being used by a few for abusive activities that go contrary to what they stand for and wish to portray. Due to the holy tag attached to them, it is difficult to discover the improprieties and to pull them up and try them as one would in regular cases.

The pontiff denounced Nazis and Communism and alluded in his speech that “subtle, or even less than subtle, aggressions against the Church show how this conformism can be a real dictatorship.”

Is he implying that the Church is not conformist? Religion conforms more than anything else, whether it is monotheistic faiths with one holy book, a god, angels or polytheistic faiths with several gods and their own little value systems. The believer has got to believe in these and conform to the rituals of that faith. How is any of this non-conformist?

He called upon the faithful to “open themselves to forgiveness, to prepare themselves for forgiveness, allow themselves to be transformed. The sorrow of penitence, that is of purification and transformation, that sorrow is grace. Because it is renewal, it is a work of divine mercy.”

In short, do what you want, but keep your options open to seek retribution, not in the real world for real reasons, but because you need divine mercy.

Those poor kids and the women who are being molested in places of worship do not count. Some seers have the audacity to use the ruse of ‘purification’ for such sexual rituals.

- - -

This is from the German satire magazine Titanic. This is its April issue cover on ‘The church today’: