May 2, 2014 · by mariawirth
For years I did not know what opportunities to practice equanimity I had missed, till I finally got a TV set some 3 years ago. In the beginning, I certainly did not remain calm under all circumstances. What intense emotions in just an hour of listening to panelists on the news channels! However, slowly I learned to sit back. I could admire the quick-wittedness and the amazing ability to talk or rather shout while listening.
These anchors and panelists are no doubt intelligent, nevertheless their choice of topics is often pathetic, and they get some points consistently wrong. One such point is ‘secular’ or ‘secularism’. Since secularism is mentioned daily in Indian media and since it is a western ‘invention’, I would like to put it into perspective:
Contrary to the general perception in India, secular is not the opposite of communal. Communal as such is not objectionable either. It simply means ‘pertaining to a community’. In Germany, elections to local bodies are called “communal elections” (Kommunalwahlen).
Secular means worldly and is opposite to ‘religious’. Now ‘religious’ in this context refers to Christianity, i.e. to a well-organized, dogmatic religion that claims that it is the sole keeper of the ‘truth’, which God himself has revealed to his Church.
And what is this revealed truth? In short: the human being is born in sin, which dates back originally to Adam and Eve. But fortunately, some 2000 years ago, God had mercy on humanity and sent his only son Jesus Christ to earth to redeem us by dying for our sins on the cross, then rising from the dead and going back to his father up in heaven. However to be able to get the benefit of Jesus’ sacrifice, one must be baptized and become a member of the Church, otherwise one will be singled out for eternal hell on Judgment Day.
Understandably, such claims did not appeal to those who used their brains, but for many centuries they had to keep quiet or risk their lives. The reason was that for long the Church was intertwined with the state, and harsh laws made sure that people did not question the ‘revealed truth’. Heresy was punished with torture and death. Even in faraway Goa, after Francis Xavier called the Inquisition to this colony, unspeakable brutality was committed against Indians. In many Muslim countries till today, leaving Islam is punishable by death.
Significantly, those centuries, when Church and State were intertwined, when the clergy prospered and the faithful sheep suffered are called the dark ages. And the time when the Church was forced to loosen its grip, is called the age of enlightenment, which started only some 350 years ago. Scientific discoveries, which could no longer be brushed under the carpet, played a crucial role for showing the Church her place. Now, more Europeans dared to oppose the stranglehold of religion. Many went to prison for doing so.
Slowly, the idea that reason, and not blind belief in a ‘revealed truth’, should guide society, took root and this lead to the demand for separation between state and Church. Such separation is called secularism. It is a recent phenomenon in the west.
Today, most western democracies are ‘secular’, i.e. the Church cannot push her agenda through state power, though most western democracies still grant Christianity preferential treatment. For example in Germany, the Constitution guarantees that the Christian doctrine is taught in government schools. Further, the Churches have retained special labour laws that make it obligatory for Church employees (alone in Germany over one million) to conform to Christian norms. Nevertheless, the present situation is a huge improvement over the dark ages when one had to pretend to believe unbelievable dogmas.
In India, however, the situation was different. Here, the dominant faith of the Indian people never had a power centre that dictated unreasonable dogmas and needed to be propped up by the state. Their faith was based on insights of the Rishis and on reason, intuition and direct experience. It expressed itself freely in a multitude of ways. Their faith was about trust and reverence for the One Source of all life. It was about doing the right thing at the right time according to one’s conscience. It was about The Golden Rule: not to do to others what one does not want to be done to oneself. It was about having noble thoughts. It was about how to live life in an ideal way.
However, this open atmosphere changed when Islam and Christianity entered India. Indians, who good naturedly considered the whole world as family, were despised, ridiculed and under Muslim rule killed in big numbers only because they were ‘Hindus’ (which is basically a geographical term). Indians did not realise that dogmatic religions were very different from their own, ancient Dharma. For the first time they were confronted with merciless killing in the name of God. Voltaire, who fought the stranglehold of the Church in Europe, had accurately observed, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.
Guru Nanak left a testimony how bad the situation was, when he cried out in despair: “Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan in dread…. Such cruelty they have inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains unmoved…” (Granth Sahib, Mahla 1.360 quoted from Eminent Historians by Arun Shourie).
During Muslim rule Hindus had to lie low for fear of their lives, and during British rule they were ridiculed and despised by missionaries, and cut off from their tradition with the help of ‘education’ policies. Naturally, this took a toll on their self-esteem. In fact, till today, this low self-esteem especially in the English educated class is evident to outsiders, though it may not be so to the persons concerned. Swami Vivekananda’s efforts to give Hindus back their spine did not impact this class of people. Nevertheless, it is a great achievement that Hindu Dharma survived for so many centuries, whereas the west succumbed completely to Christianity and over 50 countries to Islam in a short span of time.
Coming back to secularism. Though Hindu Dharma survived and never dictated terms to the state, ‘secular’ was added to the Constitution of India in 1976. There might have been a reason, as since Independence, several non-secular decisions had been taken. For example, Muslim and Christian representatives had pushed for special civil laws and other benefits and got them.
However, after adding ‘secular’, the situation did not improve. In fact the government seemed almost eager to benefit specifically the dogmatic religions (for which secularism was coined) and occasionally had to be restrained in its eagerness by the courts.
This is inexplicable. Why would ‘secular’ be added and then not acted upon? And the strangest thing: ‘secular’ got a new, specific Indian meaning. It means today: fostering those two big religions which have no respect for Hindus and whose dogmas condemn all of them to eternal hell.
It is a sad irony. Can you imagine the Jews honouring the Germans with preferential treatment instead of seeking compensation for the millions of Jews killed? Yet Islam and Christianity that have gravely harmed Indians over centuries get preferential treatment by the Indian state, and their own beneficial dharma that has no other home except the Indian subcontinent, is egged out. And to top it, this is called ‘secular’!
Obviously Indians have not learnt from the European experience. Hindus have not yet realized the intention of the dogmatic religions, though they say it openly: Finish off Hinduism from the face of the earth. Hindus still ‘respect’ them, though this respect is not and cannot be reciprocated as long as those religions claim that their God wants everyone to worship exclusively Him. Hindus don’t realize that an ideology that uses God as a front does not become sacred, but all the more dangerous.
Media and politicians do their best to muddy the water. They call parties that represent a religious group, ‘secular’, instead of ‘religious;’ which would be the correct term. When the state gives in to demands by the big religious bullies it is also (falsely of course) called ‘secular’. But WHY would the government do this? It clearly plays with fire. Does it want to give its citizens a firsthand experience of what the dark ages were like? In the interest of all Indians it would be wise for the state to simply ignore the powerful, dogmatic religions and focus on all its citizens equally. This means being ‘secular’.
However, western secular states are not role models either. There is a lot of depression, drug abuse, alcohol and people are generally not happy in spite of doing everything to ‘enjoy life’. Here, India has an advantage over the west. Her rishis have left a great heritage of valuable treatises not only dealing with how to live life in an ideal way, but also how to conduct economy, politics, management, etc. If those guidelines are considered, and if India becomes a state based on her ancient dharma, she has good chances to regain the lost glory as the wealthiest and most advanced country in the world whose citizen are open-minded and contented. If not, probably the west discovers this treasure trove and adopts it…..first.
by Maria Wirth
In other words word ” secular” was a cruel joke thrust on the people.
Do not try to spit heavenwards it will fall on you:-)
We have now reached a state where I can’t call myself a hindu/vedic while standing in Hindustan, without me being labeled as a non-secular, communal, pro-hindu terror whop has sold his soul. And guess where the labels come from? From fellow urban, english speaking hindu themselves, hypnotized by the paid media.
Don’t be a gullible Hindu, read Indian history again, which is not doctored by congress
secularist before utter your stupidity in public.
Akabar was a cruel killer, a GAZI (killer of kaffirs (Hindus).
* THOUSANDS OF RAJPUT WOMEN PERFORMED JAUHAR in chittod,
*Akbar beheaded helpless Samrat Vikramaditya Hemraj to earn the title of Ghazi (the slayer of infidel) and Was blessed by his Muslim dervish ‘Salim Chisti’
I asked my dad why grandpa converted . He told church promised that after his death , they’ll take care of his dead body because his son won’t lit pyre & do last rites.. & many such hate mongering stories happening here.
Please ,somebody from west should help us
i did not want to write anything but u and others pointed on my heroes.
i know many r here communal, and when u talk hate about Muslims that does not matter I understand this is what has been taught to you by ur parents, But when u people talk about Dr. Ambedkar, u criticized rabindranath tagore, that make u a terrorist of this country
ur kind of people who points on our freedom fighters r just mean nothing for our country.
thats all i want to say
I M VERY SADDENED AFTER READING COMMENTS BELOW THIS ARTICLE.
@MARIA thanks for writing this article now because of HATE SPREADERS like you i got the chance to know that in my country still these kinds of people exist. SHAME ON YOU MARIA SHAME ON YOU
this is my last comment on this blog i am going to unfollow it.
SORRY BROTHER DINESH FOR MY ILL WORDS BUT STILL UR COMMENT HURTS ME MOST
very unfortunate
WISHING U LUCK FOR UR FUTURE ……………
@Dinesh Chandra, please read the history of India. For your ready reference :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Was-Jana-Gana-Mana-in-praise-of-George-V/articleshow/32609087.cms
@Maria, the meaning of a word changes from place to place, depending many factors. It’s unfortunate that people would comment about something with only dictionary knowledge!
Please understand “Dharma” and religion is different. You have touched upon it.
Please understand, that the winner has always looted and butchered. Nothing new in it. It does not matter if it was Muslims or Christians or Shintos! Yasukuni Shrine is one of the examples. Look at Japan and what Japan did to China and Korea!
Hope sanity prevails.
(1) the strict separation of the state from religious institutions.
(2) that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.
Your declaration – “does not mean that a government does not lean towards a religion”.
is applicable to India and this can’t be used as a principle.
Read & digest Maria’s article if you can, may well learn something.
You can translate “‘Bharat bhagya vidhata’ in different meaning to suit your own objective.
Tagore was Angophile but not an a$$ licker. He returned his ‘Sir’ title to same King George!
Interesting write-up on secularism and its roots. And what secularism has come to in India.
It is not a creation of any religion.
You have unnecessarily brought in Christianity and other religions here.
The past (the history) need not be brought in to incite anger of different groups.
It is wise to bury the past and look for harmony.
Country’s prosperity will come in harmony even if it is forced like Singapore.
If you really want to do good, if you have found something good in your new-found religion, write something that will bring harmony and not divisions.
For your information India has enough divisions on language, regions, caste, water sharing and many more. No need for added spice.
You have written: Golden Rule: not to do to others what one does not want to be done to oneself. It was about having noble thoughts. It was about how to live life in an ideal way.
By the way this is from the Bible Do unto to others as you would have them do to you.
Minority religious groups inciting violence against majorities; have you ever commented or complained?
It is up to you to keep the hatred on for your life time if you believe that will do good for your country. There are many riot torn countries in Africa with bullet decorated buildings and deserted streets. If your vision for your country is that, God help you.
Maria or anybody spreading hatred between religious groups or linguistic groups or caste groups is not good for the country and now against the law.
It applies to all, Hindu, Christians and Muslims.
Nothing wrong.
But, there may be some who are not sure if they are in the right track or not.
When not sure, some try to find the find the truth that satisfy their mind and change. But many, due to social, cultural pressure don’t do that.
Maria has believed that there is truth in Hindu religion and changed. Many in this bloggers are so happy about this, a Christian becoming a Hindu.
No angry posts from Christians. She is free to choose.
Maria says she has found truth. Fine.
But Christians cannot say that they have the truth. It is wrong she says.
I see a bias there.
Christian belief is dogmatic ( unbending) she says. Yes it is. Truth is unbending. If it is bending it is not truth for the one who believes.
A Hindu or Muslim believes in what he thinks is dogmatic truth, it is fine and that is a reality. Saying any religion is not dogmatic is a fallacy.
You have posted many comments, also on other posts. I saw them, sometimes wanted to reply, but did not get down to do it. Now a few points:
You are grateful to the Christians that they saved you from poverty. You wanted to show gratefulness and converted (by convincing yourself first that it is a good religion). So far I can follow.
The problem comes now that insidiously, you will feel pressure to look down on your ancestor’s faith. I once asked a priest whether it is true that converts have to eat cow meat. “No, we don’t force them”, he said, “but of course they have to show that they belong to us now.” This includes in the case of tribals destroying the murtis they had worshipped….
I would request you to tell even your children, the second generation, not to believe this unfounded, outrageous claim that Hindus go to hell, that their devas are devils, etc. and please also say this openly and boldly to Church people. Can you do this? Or do you believe meanwhile that Hindus go to hell? This would mean your intelligence has suffered already.
Exclusiveness, which means only Christianity (or Islam) is true and everyone has to adopt it, came with the dogmatic religions only some 2000/ 1400 years ago. Humanity is here since much much longer. I read once an interesting analogy: Do you think the one great God gave life to human beings on earth and then sent the instruction manual, how to live life, much later….
And here Hindu Dharma is outstanding. It points to that one truth (as of course it cannot be contained in words) and gives innumerable ways to feel this truth as real (which is infinite and not limited to one’s person). Hindu Dharma does not even restrict you from worshipping Christ as a means to experience this truth.
Maria Wirth
Every religion has punishment for sins and reward for sinless living. You must be now familiar with rebirths, being born a Brahmin and then swargam as a Hindu. If you have sinned, a dip in Kasi or certain pujas would purify you. Or doing a good deed to cancel a bad deed.
Christians believe that God is a God for all, that is literates and illiterates, poor and rich and he has given us conscience which directs us in the right path and so none has an excuse. Nobody can commit a wrong deed without knowing it is wrong. (This also answer the instruction manual for life coming late)
They also believe nobody, be it a bishop or a priest can live without sinning because God can see your thoughts and intensions too.
Coming out of sin is by believing Jesus died on the cross took our punishment. This is available to anybody even to the poor who cannot go to Kasi or spend money on Puja or doing good which too needs money. In fact people belonging to my caste are not even allowed inside many temples. Now you know why my group of people become Christians. It is not by force or by luring. Christianity can be the only choice for people like me. Some in the blog are venting out anger when we convert to Christianity, but these people (those who belong to higher caste) will not even enter the area we live as they think that God created us lower than them, but they are so concerned when we change our belief.
I hope you won’t single out Christianity in having different route to salvation and a different punishment for sin. You can see that Hindus too have distinctly uncompromised route with different punishment and reward. Logically both cannot become true to one person.
Appreciate your respecting others . But you can be in a dogmatic religion which believes in one truth and still respect others. What you believe should teach you that. That’s what I am.
Nobody should be touched with your emotional outburst.
Hindus & Jews don’t believe in conversion. Though it sound very ethical, but in today’s
world, a serious mistake. India must stop all conversions, and start reconverting the Christian /Muslim for the sake of India’s security & integrity..
Every time a Hindu gets converted, a potential ‘enemy within’ is born.
“It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands. His sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own: he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his.”
Before they convert they are dirt and after they are enemies. Have I put it right for you?
. A general with a tunnel vision
I hv bn reading your article for the past couple of months,they are interesting,information rich,do you have your articles avvailble in German language,as I am a Tourist Guide German language,if your the articles available in above mentioned language it wud be easierfor me to add the same to my info treasure,
regards,hv a nice time
thanks
Yogi(it is mr shotr name)
i have the open letter to Pope Francis in German. will send it to you. Further there are some articles (like God in India) on the Yoga Aktuell website. The article on research on rebirth is also on the net (google: maria wirth, der Fall Titu).
i have written a book in German (personal account on my 25 years in India) “Von Gurus, Bollywood und heiligen Kuehen”, Herbig 2006 and a long chapter on Baba Ramdev in another book “Indien wie wir es sehen”.
Maria
I can only debate on equal terms. The way we debate also reveals our background, education, family and also how each one’s religion has shaped him. We are debating on someone’s blog who has become a Hindu. Think, what opinion she will get about Hindus after reading your post.
I am happy with the tone of your post and this will definitely show what you believe in a better perspective.
One request. You have brought in the word bikini in your post connecting with Christianity. You need to know more about the Christianity. If you don’t have any apprehension, like Maria learnt about Hinduism when she was still a Christian, you can try to find out more on Christianity. Some of my relatives are Hindus and they don’t have any problem in mixing with us and we don’t hurt their feelings. We don’t eat beef, we don’t drink. Many feel all Christians are on the same boat. Not true. Some in this blog said “Hindus in India is a heterogeneous group consisting of too many faiths – Sanatan, Shaiv, Vaishnav, Dravidian, Jains, Budhism and within each group the so called casts or varnas so andd so forth”. Same thing applies to Christians also. Some are ritualistic some are emotional and some are enlightened. Talk to someone enlightened to know more about Christians or read ‘the book’.
(b) Manusmriti is one text which is unredeemed by anything enlightened and prescribes cruel penalties for violating caste prohibitions. There is much to be proud of in Hinduism, particularly in the Bhakti cults as also in the composite culture of Kabir, for example. One of Kabir’s dohas ha sthe most succinct exposition of Hindu ideas. But one does not have to be proud of manusmriti and so on.
(c) Maria, we dont have to be told that western secularism is not a model. We know that only too well.Our secularism is based on many roots in our own history,. Ashoka’s rock edict (I think no. 13, but I am not sure) forbade any hostile comments on any other person’sreligion.Two housand three hundred years ago. This was at a time , when your teutonic ancestors were running around in forests and even now when you people get a day off, you vanish into the trees! Again, there have been several reform and radical movements in Hinduism. Jainism was probably the first to raise the banner of revolt against Brahminism, over 3000 years ago. Buddhism is probably the wisest religion to come out of India. Various streams of the Bhakti movement were not unlike the protestant reformation in Europe. Some bloggers have attacked Akbar. Akbar began , it is true, as a warlike ruler, but he did transform into an enlightened eclectic leader later. Maria, well before Europe, Akbar set up the Ibadat Khana in fatehpur Sikhri, which was a platform for debates among various religions. Jains, Zoroastrians, and many Hindu sects were represented in a first such venture in the world. Akbar changed even more later, adopting vegetarianism for much of the year. True, his own Din-i-ilahi religion had elements of opportunism, but it is likely that he ceased to be a muslim at the end. Ramanuja’s followers would have been admitted to his Ibadat Khana , even while they were thrown out by Kulothunga , the Shaivaite. Lingayats in Karnataka are also believed to have destroyed some vishnu temples , motivated by militant shaivism. Maybe, none of this comes anywhere near the destructiveness of Islamic or Christian militancy, but its existence is undeniable and should be disowned or opposed by all right-thinking people.Khatris, Kashmiri Pandits and Kayasths, upper-caste Hindus in the North have always belonged to the composite culture and it was common for them to visit shrines of muslim peers along with Hindu temples. And our modern secularism is based on our national movement for freedom. We resisted the British intrigues though we finally surrendered to partition. But the two-nation theory has not worked. Pakistan is in dire straits from inception. The British rascals pressed us to compromise, “even without giving up your principles”, but finally , without so much as a by your leave, inserted into the India Independence act, the words, “as there are two nations of Hindus and Muslims in India”. We had never agreed to this proposition and Gandhiji alone promptly protested against this wording.
We have been deceived, we all Indians have been divided on purpose. First you should keep in mind, whatever came from Vedas, is flawless, as vedas are divine revelation by divine seers. If you find any description, that means that book has been poisoned, throw it.
When you talk about manusamrtii with flaws, then dear Friend that is the one fake one in circulation, indeed the original one is not accessible easily. i put a link last month from Capt vadakayils blog, please read it and make yourself proud you belong to Hindu only neutral philosophy on earth. Take one month of you time and read this person and about hinduism from Scientific, cosmic and spiritual purpose, if you are really unbiased,you will be a totally changed person. My life have changed, I am not same person. Click Control and find with my user name and you can read my previous post, you will find various links. i will put again 2 of them, 1st one is about Manusamriti.
I would request you to go through Capt blogs again, and you don’t need to agree with all what he is saying, i don’t, but i can bet, he is the most perceptive, knowledgable man on earth, not even a single modern human can come close to him. read the comment section how his readers tells their story of getting changed forever. it took me 6 months to actually comprehend what he is saying. And by the way from your surname Anand, if you are from north India, then i share your background and i know how we so much believe in Arya samaj, but actually we know partial truth.
Jai hind.
Shourie
No-one is communal just because he speaks of Hinduism. Rajaji had lifelong interest in Hinduism, even translated into english, the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha, yet no-one calls him communal. If someone demands a Hindu Rashtra, he is communal. Of course, it is legitimatr, even neccessary to demand that there be no appeasement of anybody. it is also legitimate to question the absolute status given by the courts to articles 28 and 30 of the constitution,.
Your perception of secularism is parallel to congress and Indian left brigade.
Grasp ur subject matter first then ask question. What inequality is not acceptable for you and why?
has established inequality of minds, characters and capacities.