Europe’s sterile secularism could do with a dose of India’s founding ideals
Anna Triandafyllidou & Gurpreet Mahajansee full text at: https://qz.com/886787/europes-sterile-secularism-could-do-with-a-dose-of-indias-founding-ideals/
|
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
January 17, 2017
Indian Academics Peddling Multi-culturalism as secularism: Selling India's Failed Model to European States
see full text at: https://qz.com/886787/europes-sterile-secularism-could-do-with-a-dose-of-indias-founding-ideals/
December 08, 2013
UK: Segregation on campus is never OK, whoever makes the rules
The Conversation, 27 November 2013
Segregation on campus is never OK, whoever makes the rules
by Sylvia McLain
(College Lecturer/Research Fellow in Biochemistry at University of Oxford)
I don’t like to take off my shoes in the house. Where I grew up, this was considered “uncultured”.
These days, with clean, fragrant carpeting and super-polished hard wood floors, or for reasons of culture or religion, it is often the done thing to remove your footwear, or to be asked to remove it, when heading inside.
When faced with the statement “we take our shoes off in the house” upon arrival at your friend’s place for dinner, what do you do? Me, I take off my shoes. Their house, their rules.
The “my house, my rules” mantra should certainly apply in our homes and should also apply on university campuses. But the difference is that, on campus, the house rules are set by the government, which is supposed to uphold the values of a democratic society.
However, it seems that some of these rules don’t apply to you if you are controversial or important. In these cases, you may have some wiggle room, according to Universities UK, the body that represents higher education leaders. If the rules of the house offend your sensibilities, and the event you want to hold on campus has been widely advertised and has attracted a lot of interest, then it might just be OK to break them.
This is essentially what UUK told universities in advice on hosting external speakers on campus published this week.
The document ponders whether a university should agree to segregate an audience by gender, giving the hypothetical example of a request being made by a visiting speaker on religious grounds.
The document appears to suggest that, according to the rules of the Equality Act 2010, this would only be discriminatory if it amounts to “less favourable treatment” of either female or male attendees.
How on earth can segregation be anything but discriminatory? It cannot. How would this not result in less favourable treatment? It will.
Does UUK really think that female attendees would even be acknowledged by a speaker that requested their audience be segregated? What it is advocating is Separate but Equal facilities. We’ve heard this term before and we should know better.
In the words of the US Supreme Court when it abolished separate but equal laws in the US South in the 1950s – “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”. Or if you prefer the words of Polly Toynbee in the Guardian this week – “whatever is segregated by diktat is rarely equal”.
The advice from UUK is nothing short of appalling. There should be no-go zones in democratic society and this is one of them. Universities are places to challenge ideas and beliefs, places for discourse, places – unlike many a religious house – for disagreement and debate. Places where all members of a democratic society should be treated as equals, whether they are green, blue or lavender, male or female, wear mini-skirts or burkas.
We should all have equal access to the same facilities, the same discussions, the same debate. As the Equality Act tells us, it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of their age, sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, disabilities, marital status or whether or not they are pregnant. And what are some of the places this act tells us we are protected in? At work, in education, as a consumer, when using public services. A university is all of these things.
A single speaker – whether hypothetical or not – requesting the segregation of an audience at a public university event should be told no, in no uncertain terms.
In the hypothetical case put forward by UUK, the requester did so on religious grounds. But you could think of any grounds you like. What if a white supremacist speaker demanded that races be separated? How would UUK advise them? What if the speaker demanded the audience be separated by religious belief – Sikhs on the right, atheists on the left, Christians to the centre right, Muslims on the centre left. Would UUK consider this arrangement equal?
I am not sure why UUK had to release such an extensive case study on the matter. When it comes to requests of segregation, the answer should simply be “our house, our rules”. And if you don’t like it, you can debate somewhere else.
Read the original article.
Segregation on campus is never OK, whoever makes the rules
by Sylvia McLain
(College Lecturer/Research Fellow in Biochemistry at University of Oxford)
I don’t like to take off my shoes in the house. Where I grew up, this was considered “uncultured”.
These days, with clean, fragrant carpeting and super-polished hard wood floors, or for reasons of culture or religion, it is often the done thing to remove your footwear, or to be asked to remove it, when heading inside.
When faced with the statement “we take our shoes off in the house” upon arrival at your friend’s place for dinner, what do you do? Me, I take off my shoes. Their house, their rules.
The “my house, my rules” mantra should certainly apply in our homes and should also apply on university campuses. But the difference is that, on campus, the house rules are set by the government, which is supposed to uphold the values of a democratic society.
However, it seems that some of these rules don’t apply to you if you are controversial or important. In these cases, you may have some wiggle room, according to Universities UK, the body that represents higher education leaders. If the rules of the house offend your sensibilities, and the event you want to hold on campus has been widely advertised and has attracted a lot of interest, then it might just be OK to break them.
This is essentially what UUK told universities in advice on hosting external speakers on campus published this week.
The document ponders whether a university should agree to segregate an audience by gender, giving the hypothetical example of a request being made by a visiting speaker on religious grounds.
The document appears to suggest that, according to the rules of the Equality Act 2010, this would only be discriminatory if it amounts to “less favourable treatment” of either female or male attendees.
How on earth can segregation be anything but discriminatory? It cannot. How would this not result in less favourable treatment? It will.
Does UUK really think that female attendees would even be acknowledged by a speaker that requested their audience be segregated? What it is advocating is Separate but Equal facilities. We’ve heard this term before and we should know better.
In the words of the US Supreme Court when it abolished separate but equal laws in the US South in the 1950s – “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”. Or if you prefer the words of Polly Toynbee in the Guardian this week – “whatever is segregated by diktat is rarely equal”.
The advice from UUK is nothing short of appalling. There should be no-go zones in democratic society and this is one of them. Universities are places to challenge ideas and beliefs, places for discourse, places – unlike many a religious house – for disagreement and debate. Places where all members of a democratic society should be treated as equals, whether they are green, blue or lavender, male or female, wear mini-skirts or burkas.
We should all have equal access to the same facilities, the same discussions, the same debate. As the Equality Act tells us, it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of their age, sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, disabilities, marital status or whether or not they are pregnant. And what are some of the places this act tells us we are protected in? At work, in education, as a consumer, when using public services. A university is all of these things.
A single speaker – whether hypothetical or not – requesting the segregation of an audience at a public university event should be told no, in no uncertain terms.
In the hypothetical case put forward by UUK, the requester did so on religious grounds. But you could think of any grounds you like. What if a white supremacist speaker demanded that races be separated? How would UUK advise them? What if the speaker demanded the audience be separated by religious belief – Sikhs on the right, atheists on the left, Christians to the centre right, Muslims on the centre left. Would UUK consider this arrangement equal?
I am not sure why UUK had to release such an extensive case study on the matter. When it comes to requests of segregation, the answer should simply be “our house, our rules”. And if you don’t like it, you can debate somewhere else.
Read the original article.
December 05, 2013
UK: Secular neutrality is a pillar of higher education. We can't cave in to faith groups in our institutions – even if it causes offence
British universities shouldn't condone this kind of gender segregation
by Polly Toynbee
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/26/british-universities-gender-segregation-secular
May 31, 2013
UK: That dreadful word called community
The Telegraph (UK)
Time to ban the word community
By Iain Martin Politics Last updated: May 24th, 2013
During the Olympics.the dreaded word "communities" disappeared. We heard instead of Team GB. Can't we go back to that?
Tune into any BBC London programme at the moment and one word dominates. That word is community. Even on a normal day on the capital's airwaves you will hear it a great deal, but in the aftermath of the Woolwich terror attack its use has gone into overdrive. On the BBC London news last night it – or the frequently used variant communities – was averaging 11 mentions per minute.
When did this word get such a grip that even passers-by vox-popped by a TV crew will deploy it a couple of times in a sentence when they are asked to asses the impact of a particular event? I wonder whether it really is widely used in everyday discourse or whether it is just what people feel they ought to say when tensions are high and a microphone is put under their nose. Having said that, yesterday I did overhear youngsters at a bus-stop discussing their horror at the Woolwich murder, and both used the word community, as in the perpetrators were a "disgrace to their community" (in the words of one). So perhaps it really has seeped into everyday speech through constant repetition in schools and on television.
The word took hold after the riots of the early 1980s, when there was a breakdown of trust, in certain inner cities, in the police and traditional institutions. After various inquiries, public policy was reconfigured to ensure that "communities" must be consulted on policing and much else besides. The traditional approach – in which people clustered together in a particular place voted for councillors and MPs who would then represent their interests – was out. With it went the widely held understanding that to live alongside each other none of us can get everything that we want.
From that point, other techniques were developed to make "excluded" people feel included. To facilitate this there suddenly emerged the "community leader", someone unelected and usually possessing the gift of the gab. If they were smart they might get a well-paid gig with local government, or even national government, advising on "community relations". Inevitably, under successive governments over three decades which all wanted to avoid tensions, this hardened into an orthodoxy, underwritten by third-rate academics in new disciplines. "Community" was the key word, used over and over again.
Of course, like many linguistic devices pushed by ultraliberals it actually has ended up with the opposite meaning from the one many people seem to intend when they use it. Rather than suggesting togetherness the term is actually highly divisive. Rather than emphasising common endeavour it sets one person's alleged "community" against that of his neighbour.
I actively dislike the term and would refuse to be described as, say, a member of the claret-drinking community. Indeed, the traditional approach is still favoured by many, many millions of us in Britain of all creeds and colours. We think of life in terms of family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, perhaps religion, charity, hobbies such as sport or music and then the nation. Sometimes the various groups and circles involved are distinct and sometimes they overlap. We also accept common institutions as a bulwark of liberty, of course. And it is all wrapped up, ultimately, in that word that I used at the end of the list: the nation. How wonderful it was for a few weeks during the Olympics. The dreaded word "communities" disappeared. We heard instead of Team GB. Can't we go back to that?
Iain Martin
Iain Martin is a political commentator, and a former editor of The Scotsman and former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. His book on the financial crisis - Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the men who blew up the British economy - will be published in autumn 2013 by Simon & Schuster. As well as this blog, he writes a column for The Sunday Telegraph. You can read more about Iain by visiting his website
Time to ban the word community
By Iain Martin Politics Last updated: May 24th, 2013
During the Olympics.the dreaded word "communities" disappeared. We heard instead of Team GB. Can't we go back to that?
Tune into any BBC London programme at the moment and one word dominates. That word is community. Even on a normal day on the capital's airwaves you will hear it a great deal, but in the aftermath of the Woolwich terror attack its use has gone into overdrive. On the BBC London news last night it – or the frequently used variant communities – was averaging 11 mentions per minute.
When did this word get such a grip that even passers-by vox-popped by a TV crew will deploy it a couple of times in a sentence when they are asked to asses the impact of a particular event? I wonder whether it really is widely used in everyday discourse or whether it is just what people feel they ought to say when tensions are high and a microphone is put under their nose. Having said that, yesterday I did overhear youngsters at a bus-stop discussing their horror at the Woolwich murder, and both used the word community, as in the perpetrators were a "disgrace to their community" (in the words of one). So perhaps it really has seeped into everyday speech through constant repetition in schools and on television.
The word took hold after the riots of the early 1980s, when there was a breakdown of trust, in certain inner cities, in the police and traditional institutions. After various inquiries, public policy was reconfigured to ensure that "communities" must be consulted on policing and much else besides. The traditional approach – in which people clustered together in a particular place voted for councillors and MPs who would then represent their interests – was out. With it went the widely held understanding that to live alongside each other none of us can get everything that we want.
From that point, other techniques were developed to make "excluded" people feel included. To facilitate this there suddenly emerged the "community leader", someone unelected and usually possessing the gift of the gab. If they were smart they might get a well-paid gig with local government, or even national government, advising on "community relations". Inevitably, under successive governments over three decades which all wanted to avoid tensions, this hardened into an orthodoxy, underwritten by third-rate academics in new disciplines. "Community" was the key word, used over and over again.
Of course, like many linguistic devices pushed by ultraliberals it actually has ended up with the opposite meaning from the one many people seem to intend when they use it. Rather than suggesting togetherness the term is actually highly divisive. Rather than emphasising common endeavour it sets one person's alleged "community" against that of his neighbour.
I actively dislike the term and would refuse to be described as, say, a member of the claret-drinking community. Indeed, the traditional approach is still favoured by many, many millions of us in Britain of all creeds and colours. We think of life in terms of family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, perhaps religion, charity, hobbies such as sport or music and then the nation. Sometimes the various groups and circles involved are distinct and sometimes they overlap. We also accept common institutions as a bulwark of liberty, of course. And it is all wrapped up, ultimately, in that word that I used at the end of the list: the nation. How wonderful it was for a few weeks during the Olympics. The dreaded word "communities" disappeared. We heard instead of Team GB. Can't we go back to that?
Iain Martin
Iain Martin is a political commentator, and a former editor of The Scotsman and former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. His book on the financial crisis - Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the men who blew up the British economy - will be published in autumn 2013 by Simon & Schuster. As well as this blog, he writes a column for The Sunday Telegraph. You can read more about Iain by visiting his website
October 20, 2012
The secular delusion (Farzana Versey)
http://farzana-versey.blogspot.in/
Forget about separation of religion and state. Can religion survive without a state? Would it be orphaned without patriotic fervour?
I come from a country that is secular. Yet, its largest opposition party has dreams of a Hindu Rashtra. The government offers sops to every faith. There are regional groups that seek special status for language and ethnicity. Tribes and scheduled castes have their own demands and the nation owes it to them, not because the Constitution has failed them but the faith they were born in has. The Constitution, in effect, is keeping belief systems alive.
Does India have a right to be called a secular republic? Is this not merely about multiculturalism, the subsuming into an Axe effect that starts wearing off once the pores start emitting sweat again? ‘Iftar’ and ‘pandal’ politics are now so well-entrenched that it would be unthinkable for any political party to upset this neo-status quo, which is quite precious for a status quo is usually an established model. There appears to be only a repackaging of tradition.
The recent Pew Research Centre’s study that reveals 19.6 per cent Americans believe in “nothing in particular” is considered a departure from stratified norms. It draws attention to US politics within the framework of piety. To suggest that one in five adults is not using traditional patterns does not mean much. Even in states with a religious constitution, there are the rebound and rethink dissonances. Pakistan is a prime example. Rather, religion gives the state a long rope to hang itself with.
As the study team said, “Sociologists have shown that Americans are more likely to pick their place of worship by their politics, not vice versa.” How does this bode for the religion of the state when not only is the faith factor divided by race, but political choices made by the ‘nones’?
Dan Barker, Co-President of The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), thinks it is a pertinent yardstick: “…when are politicians and candidates going to wake up to the changing demographics and start courting us? Secularists are looking for candidates who share a commitment to America’s foundational principle of separation between religion and government.”
It depends on how deep one excavates to get to the foundation. After the American War, the states expected government office-bearers to express fealty to the Trinity and declare the divine inspiration of the Bible. We may move on, but history is embedded.
In the run-up to the elections, FFRF is putting up billboards showing regular families — the big American fantasy — with catchphrases: “This is what an atheist family looks like”, “I’m secular and I vote”, “We’re too old for imaginary friends”, “Atheists work to make this life heavenly”.
How different are these notional divisions from devotional ones? Who will they vote for? What are the candidates promising besides the usual civic issues? President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both alluded to religion. ‘Other’ faiths are mentioned either as a species to be protected or as a threat.
Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion partly as a reaction to 9/11 has suggested that whatever may have been the hijackers’ political or social motivations, it was a religious act based on the conviction that they would be rewarded in the afterlife.
The proponents of such theocracy use this as a cover-up. It might explain the ‘non-state’ nature of these actors, too. Their religion gives the attacked country a carte blanche to choose its opponents from the many streams of Islamic thought. Curiously enough, the US did not strike at the fount — Saudi Arabia.
Would the ‘religious act’ argument apply to the violence in Tibet, a Buddhist state? The self-immolation by monks and nuns could also be seen as a violent act, and the ethnicity of the people depends to a great extent on its religion to survive. Devotees are blamed for deifying the founder. The moot question here is: Why, then, are there Buddhist states? Hypothetically, without a supreme being or an emissary, as much as a political or philosophical leader, is it possible to sustain any creed?
Even in non-religious societies, as in communist states, there will be fringe pious groups — whether it is the Russian Orthodox Church or minorities in China. The state is expected to uphold their rights or else deal with ideological skirmishes and bloodshed.
There is a belief that superimposed unity is counterproductive. Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in London, quite naturally upholds ‘purity’: “State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not ‘impose’ rules and values on newcomers. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever ‘community’ they found themselves born into.”
In Britain, where the Church of England is effectively the state religion, what culture could be used as a standard and how would it negotiate nationalism? We do tend to use the word culture to take away the harsh reality that almost all cultures depend on value systems and these, even as heresy, are often imbibed from sacred texts. Therefore, the non-canonical is perforce born of the consecrated and remains a recusant faith, as it were. To prove otherwise is merely akin to spilling ink over scriptures. Secularism as negation is as hallucinatory as the perennial queries about God. It must be pointed out that over-the-top nationalism putting country above all else uses a theistic paradigm.
If the Indian nation did not identify me as a Muslim, I would have — as when the rare occasion permitted me — filled in the religion column with “Not Applicable”. The onus is on the state to stop acting like a shrine.
(Published in: The Express Tribune)
Forget about separation of religion and state. Can religion survive without a state? Would it be orphaned without patriotic fervour?
I come from a country that is secular. Yet, its largest opposition party has dreams of a Hindu Rashtra. The government offers sops to every faith. There are regional groups that seek special status for language and ethnicity. Tribes and scheduled castes have their own demands and the nation owes it to them, not because the Constitution has failed them but the faith they were born in has. The Constitution, in effect, is keeping belief systems alive.
Does India have a right to be called a secular republic? Is this not merely about multiculturalism, the subsuming into an Axe effect that starts wearing off once the pores start emitting sweat again? ‘Iftar’ and ‘pandal’ politics are now so well-entrenched that it would be unthinkable for any political party to upset this neo-status quo, which is quite precious for a status quo is usually an established model. There appears to be only a repackaging of tradition.
The recent Pew Research Centre’s study that reveals 19.6 per cent Americans believe in “nothing in particular” is considered a departure from stratified norms. It draws attention to US politics within the framework of piety. To suggest that one in five adults is not using traditional patterns does not mean much. Even in states with a religious constitution, there are the rebound and rethink dissonances. Pakistan is a prime example. Rather, religion gives the state a long rope to hang itself with.
As the study team said, “Sociologists have shown that Americans are more likely to pick their place of worship by their politics, not vice versa.” How does this bode for the religion of the state when not only is the faith factor divided by race, but political choices made by the ‘nones’?
Dan Barker, Co-President of The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), thinks it is a pertinent yardstick: “…when are politicians and candidates going to wake up to the changing demographics and start courting us? Secularists are looking for candidates who share a commitment to America’s foundational principle of separation between religion and government.”
It depends on how deep one excavates to get to the foundation. After the American War, the states expected government office-bearers to express fealty to the Trinity and declare the divine inspiration of the Bible. We may move on, but history is embedded.
In the run-up to the elections, FFRF is putting up billboards showing regular families — the big American fantasy — with catchphrases: “This is what an atheist family looks like”, “I’m secular and I vote”, “We’re too old for imaginary friends”, “Atheists work to make this life heavenly”.
How different are these notional divisions from devotional ones? Who will they vote for? What are the candidates promising besides the usual civic issues? President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both alluded to religion. ‘Other’ faiths are mentioned either as a species to be protected or as a threat.
Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion partly as a reaction to 9/11 has suggested that whatever may have been the hijackers’ political or social motivations, it was a religious act based on the conviction that they would be rewarded in the afterlife.
The proponents of such theocracy use this as a cover-up. It might explain the ‘non-state’ nature of these actors, too. Their religion gives the attacked country a carte blanche to choose its opponents from the many streams of Islamic thought. Curiously enough, the US did not strike at the fount — Saudi Arabia.
Would the ‘religious act’ argument apply to the violence in Tibet, a Buddhist state? The self-immolation by monks and nuns could also be seen as a violent act, and the ethnicity of the people depends to a great extent on its religion to survive. Devotees are blamed for deifying the founder. The moot question here is: Why, then, are there Buddhist states? Hypothetically, without a supreme being or an emissary, as much as a political or philosophical leader, is it possible to sustain any creed?
Even in non-religious societies, as in communist states, there will be fringe pious groups — whether it is the Russian Orthodox Church or minorities in China. The state is expected to uphold their rights or else deal with ideological skirmishes and bloodshed.
There is a belief that superimposed unity is counterproductive. Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in London, quite naturally upholds ‘purity’: “State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not ‘impose’ rules and values on newcomers. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever ‘community’ they found themselves born into.”
In Britain, where the Church of England is effectively the state religion, what culture could be used as a standard and how would it negotiate nationalism? We do tend to use the word culture to take away the harsh reality that almost all cultures depend on value systems and these, even as heresy, are often imbibed from sacred texts. Therefore, the non-canonical is perforce born of the consecrated and remains a recusant faith, as it were. To prove otherwise is merely akin to spilling ink over scriptures. Secularism as negation is as hallucinatory as the perennial queries about God. It must be pointed out that over-the-top nationalism putting country above all else uses a theistic paradigm.
If the Indian nation did not identify me as a Muslim, I would have — as when the rare occasion permitted me — filled in the religion column with “Not Applicable”. The onus is on the state to stop acting like a shrine.
(Published in: The Express Tribune)
February 09, 2011
India: The taboo over uniform civil code
The Times of India
A failure of secular vision
Feb 10, 2011, 12.00am IST
The failure of every administration since Independence to address one of Indian society's glaring shortcomings - the lack of a uniform civil code - has come in for criticism again. And just like every time, the ruling dispensation will brush it off with specious arguments. But the fact of the matter is that leaving minority communities out of the ambit of reform of personal laws that has - rightly - been implemented for the Hindu community is not a show of secularism. It is, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in this instance, precisely the opposite, undermining the basic concept of the rule of law applying equally to every citizen in a democracy.
This is an issue that has come up of late elsewhere as well, such as in British Prime Minister David Cameron's speech in which he attacked a particular brand of multiculturalism in Britain. The same kind of multiculturalism - one that has less to do with the positive aspects of tolerance and inclusiveness and more with the creation of insular religious or cultural ghettos for political purposes - is the problem when it comes to personal laws in India. It strikes at the root of liberal values, giving primacy to the community rather than to the individual and his rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
When the decision was first made by Jawaharlal Nehru's government to put aside the reform of the minority communities' personal laws, it may have been understandable even if divisive, given the horrors of Partition. But in the decades since, successive administrations have displayed both breathtaking cynicism and an utter lack of will, as in the Shah Bano case - despite repeated prodding by the Supreme Court. It is time to make this reform something more than an idealistic irrelevance languishing as a directive principle of state policy.
A failure of secular vision
Feb 10, 2011, 12.00am IST
The failure of every administration since Independence to address one of Indian society's glaring shortcomings - the lack of a uniform civil code - has come in for criticism again. And just like every time, the ruling dispensation will brush it off with specious arguments. But the fact of the matter is that leaving minority communities out of the ambit of reform of personal laws that has - rightly - been implemented for the Hindu community is not a show of secularism. It is, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in this instance, precisely the opposite, undermining the basic concept of the rule of law applying equally to every citizen in a democracy.
This is an issue that has come up of late elsewhere as well, such as in British Prime Minister David Cameron's speech in which he attacked a particular brand of multiculturalism in Britain. The same kind of multiculturalism - one that has less to do with the positive aspects of tolerance and inclusiveness and more with the creation of insular religious or cultural ghettos for political purposes - is the problem when it comes to personal laws in India. It strikes at the root of liberal values, giving primacy to the community rather than to the individual and his rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
When the decision was first made by Jawaharlal Nehru's government to put aside the reform of the minority communities' personal laws, it may have been understandable even if divisive, given the horrors of Partition. But in the decades since, successive administrations have displayed both breathtaking cynicism and an utter lack of will, as in the Shah Bano case - despite repeated prodding by the Supreme Court. It is time to make this reform something more than an idealistic irrelevance languishing as a directive principle of state policy.
May 06, 2009
May 17, 2007
UK Commissioner on Integration reportedly pays tribute to admirer of Nazism
AWAAZ STATEMENT: TUESDAY 15 MAY 2007
Email: contact@awaazsaw.org
Telephone: (+ 44) 020 8843 2333
http://www.awaazsaw.org
UK Commissioner on Integration reportedly pays tribute to admirer of Nazism
and Fascism
Ramesh Kallidai, a member of Secretary of State Ruth Kelly's Commission on
Integration and Cohesion, paid glowing tribute to an extremist who admired
and promoted Nazi-like, fascist and violent ideas in India and who believed
that what occurred to European Jews under Nazi Germany was a model that
India could learn and profit from - according to recent reports.
Mr. Kallidai was speaking at an event to celebrate the birth centenary of M.
S. Golwalkar (1906-1973), the second "supreme leader" of the Indian
neo-fascist organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Mr. Kallidai, who is general secretary of the Hindu Forum of Britain, was
reported in the RSS's weekly paper as saying that trying to pay homage to M.
S. Golwalkar "was like holding a candle to the Sun". The paper writes that
he went on to praise the expansion of the RSS and its "exemplary" ideology.
The RSS's extremist ideology of Hindu supremacism has been widely blamed for
large-scale anti-minority violence in India. The RSS has been banned three
times in India since Independence. The murderer of M. K. Gandhi was a former
RSS member.
The event in London on the 12th April was organized by the supremacist Hindu
Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), the British branch of the Indian Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Golwalkar continues to be universally venerated by
the organization despite his support for Nazi-like views. The event took
place at the Advait Cultural Centre in Wembley, north-west London.
Earlier, in December 2004, Ramesh Kallidai, speaking at the Parliamentary
Select Committee on Home Affairs, defended the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP,
World Hindu Council), an offshoot of the RSS, from the accusation that it is
an extremist organisation. Kallidai said that the VHP works for the "social
and moral upliftment of Hindus". According to Human Rights Watch, the VHP
was among the organisations "directly responsible" for the anti-Muslim
pogroms in Gujarat in 2002, in which thousands were killed over the course
of three days of carnage. (We have no orders to save you: State
Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat, Human Rights
Watch, April 2002, page 4.)
The Indian RSS's joint general secretary, Suresh Soni, was a major guest at
the Wembley event. The event was also attended by key figures from the
National Council of Hindu Temples, the Swaminarayan Mandir, ISKCON -
Bhaktivedanta Manor, the Hindu Council UK, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (UK), Singh
Sabha Gurudwara (Southall) and other Hindu organizations.
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion was set up by the Secretary of
State, Ruth Kelly and one of its main tasks is to address the dissemination
of extremist ideologies.
"Next month, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion is due to publish
its findings on how communities can tackle extremist ideologies and overcome
tensions between different groups. The credibility of the Commission's
findings may be seriously limited if its own Commissioners are seen to
endorse individuals widely considered to be extremist", said Arun Kundnani,
spokesperson for Awaaz - South Asia Watch.
Awaaz deplores the fact that someone who the British government has
appointed as a Commissioner working towards good community relations and
harmony between groups appears to have commended and endorsed a man whose
life-long ambition was to promote ideas and organizations in India inspired
by Nazi, fascist and racist thinking, organisations that have been
repeatedly indicted for anti-minority extremism, intolerance and violence.
[ENDS]
NOTES
Who was M. S. Golwalkar?
Madahav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906 - 1973) was the second leader of the
paramilitary RSS, a Hindu supremacist organization formed in 1925 devoted to
turning India into an exclusive Hindu state. Golwalkar supported Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy. In his key book We, or our nationhood defined,
published in 1939, he openly supported the anti-semitic policies of Nazi
Germany towards German-Jews, openly supported Hitler's violent invasion of
other sovereign territories, lauded Fascist Italy and said these were models
which India could learn and profit by:
"German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the
purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging
the country of the semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has
been manifested here. Germany has shown how well nigh impossible it is for
Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated
into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and
profit by." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat Publications,
Nagpur, [1939] 1944, page 37.)
In the 1950s, even when the horrors of Nazi Germany was known across the
world, the RSS called these ideas of Golwalkar an "unassailable doctrine of
nationhood" Golwalkar also stated that in India, minorities deserved no
rights whatsoever, not even any citizen's rights. Minorities could
"live only as outsiders, bound by all the codes and conventions of the
Nation, at the sufferance of the Nation and deserving of no special
protection, far less any privilege or rights. There are only two courses
open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national
race and adopt its culture, or to live at the sweet will of the national
race. That is the only logical and correct solution. That alone keeps the
national life healthy and undisturbed. That alone keeps the Nation safe from
the danger of a cancer developing into its body politic of the creation of a
state within a state. From this standpoint, sanctioned [by] the experiences
of shrewd old nations, the non-Hindu peoples of Hindusthan must either adopt
the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence
Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of
the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of
intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-long traditions
but must also cultivate a positive attitude of love and devotion instead -
in a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country
wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's
rights." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat Publications,
Nagpur, [1939] 1944, pages 48-9.)
For Golwalkar, minorities were to either give up their beliefs or live at
'the sweet will of the majority'. In 2002, the RSS stated that the safety of
Muslims in India lies in 'the goodwill of the majority'.
Golwalkar also actively promoted racism and race superiority as central to
the Indian nation:
"It is superfluous to emphasise the importance of Racial Unity in the Nation
state. A Race is a hereditary Society having common customs, common
language, common memories of glory and disaster; in short it is a population
with a common origin under one culture. Such a race is by far the most
important ingredient of a Nation.We will not seek to prove this axiomatic
truth, that the Race is the body of the Nation, and that with its fall, the
Nation ceases to exist." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat
Publications, Nagpur, [1939] 1944, page 21.)
What is the RSS?
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteers' Corps) was formed
in the period 1925-1926 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in Nagpur, Maharashtra
state, north-west India. Golwalkar became its second "supreme leader" after
Hedgewar's death. The RSS is an exclusively male organization devoted to the
political ideology of Hindutva (or Hindu nationalism) and represents an
Indian version of fascism. Hedgewar formed the RSS as an organization of
young boys and men that was based on military drills, physical exercise,
weapons training, propagation of the ideology of Hindutva and anti-minority
hatred. Hedgewar, together with another key founder of the RSS, Balkrishna
Shivram Moonje, was also influenced by Fascism and Nazism. In 1934, Hedgewar
presided over a meeting in Nagpur aimed at propagating Mussolini's fascist
thought in India. Moonje not only met Mussolini but was a strong admirer of
Nazism and Fascism. He is today called Dharamveer - hero in the religious
struggle - by the RSS. He said that India not only needed a dictator like
Hitler but that a scheme to bring such a dictator had to be urgently carried
out. The RSS is not a democratic organization but based on the idea of one
'Supreme Leader' (sarsanghchalak), obedience to the one Supreme Leader (ek
chalak anuvartitva) and of the Supreme Leader as "the principle one who is
to be venerated" (parampoojaniya). Today, the RSS is at the core of a large
family of extremist Hindu nationalist organizations operating in India and
transnationally, including the UK.
Original report from RSS newspaper, The Organiser
The Organiser
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=18
3&page=5
May 13, 2007 p.5
Shri Guruji birth centenary celebrations in UK Sangh meet turns out a grand
Hindu Sangam
The concluding speech was delivered by RSS Sahsarkaryavah Shri Suresh Soni
who spoke about how Shri Guruji had sacrificed his life in thinking about
and acting on how to awaken the Hindu society, with the firm belief that
Hindu jage to Vishwa Jagegaa. "Shri Guruji and the RSS sought to unite,
organise and create assertive Hindus".
In an event that was every bit as unique as Guruji's life, ten Hindu
organisations came together to jointly host and celebrate Shri Guruji's life
and mission at Advait Cultural Centre, Forty Lane, Wembley (UK), on April
12. Another unique feature of the event was that the audience consisted
largely of the leaders of various Hindu organisations in the UK. and Hindu
Swayamsevak Sangh (UK) spoke after one another on the qualities and
contribution that Shri Guruji had made.
Swami Madhav Priyadas from Shri Swaminarayan Mandir first paid tribute to
Shri Guruji's mother for giving birth to Shri Guruji who sacrificed his life
for the nation. He wanted to pay tribute to Shri Guruji because he was no
ordinary saint. Ordinarily saints represent a section of society or a
geographical region of a nation. However, Priyadasji saw Shri Guruji as a
saint of the whole nation and an exemplary karmayogi whose every action was
for the good of the nation.
Shri Gauridas from ISKCON-Bhaktivedanta Manor, paid tribute to Shri Guruji
by pointing out how he was a man of substance and character. He concluded by
saying, "What we lack in society today are leaders of character and if Sangh
can provide one thing to modern society, it should be to produce men and
women of character fit for modern leadership".
Shri Ramesh Kallidai, general secretary and vice president of Hindu Forum of
Britain and Hindu Aid respectively said, "Trying to pay homage to Shri
Guruji was like holding a candle to the Sun". He sighted the expansion of
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as one of Shri Guruji's greatest
achievements because he felt that RSS's promotion of the Hinduvad
(doctine/theory) was the only way of making true vision of our sacred seers
and saints of ennobling the universe and uniting it.
Shri Kallidai went on to say that the phenomenon of the RSS and Shri Guruji
was so exemplary that even some of its opponents praised it. He cited the
example of Smt. Indira Gandhi who on the passing away of Shri Guruji had
said, "We have lost in Guru Golwalker a famous personality who was not a
Member of Parliament but who held a respected position in the nation by his
personality and the intensity of his convictions".
In an evening of many firsts, Shri Nitish Bhardwaj, who had played Lord
Krishna in popular Mahabharata TV serial, launched officially in UK,
Karmayogi, a documentary on the life and work of Shri Guruji, directed by
himself. He spoke about the honour of capturing Shri Guruji's life on film
and echoed the other speakers by calling Shri Guruji "a sannyasi in white
robs".
The concluding speech was delivered by RSS Sahsarkaryavah Shri Suresh Soni
who spoke about how Guruji had sacrificed his life in thinking about and
acting on how to awaken the Hindu society with the firm belief that Hindu
jage to Vishwa Jagegaa. "Shri Guruji and the RSS sought to unite, organise
and create assertive Hindus. Shri Guruji sought to do this by asking the
Hindu society to be fiercely critical of themselves and not others and by
creating individuals who put the Hindu society before themselves. Shri
Guruji used to say that Hindus should not look for faults in the Hindu
society. You cannot unite the Hindu society if you look for faults in it. As
such he sought to build an organisation whose policies, behaviour or actions
united and not divided the Hindu society and it is this philosophy that has
driven RSS to where it is today. It is this philosophy that has seen the RSS
stand the test of time when other divisive organisations have withered away.
This philosophy and method of working was Shri Guruji's greatest
contribution," Shri Soni added.
In a remarkable evening the one common thread in every speech was how best
to honour Guruji's legacy. Sardar Himat Singh Sohi, president of Singh Sabha
Gurudwara-South Hall, felt that the best way to pay tribute to Shri Guruji
was to work hard for Hindu-Sikh unity.
While Shri Sudarshan Bhatia, president of National Council of Hindu Temples,
said that a real homage to Shri Guruji would be to sit down and analyse what
we need to do to unite Hindus across the world so that we turn the whole
world into one family, Shri Lallubhai Parekh, president of National Congress
of Gujarati Organisation (UK) appealed to the audience "to carry forward the
vision of Shri Guruji".
Email: contact@awaazsaw.org
Telephone: (+ 44) 020 8843 2333
http://www.awaazsaw.org
UK Commissioner on Integration reportedly pays tribute to admirer of Nazism
and Fascism
Ramesh Kallidai, a member of Secretary of State Ruth Kelly's Commission on
Integration and Cohesion, paid glowing tribute to an extremist who admired
and promoted Nazi-like, fascist and violent ideas in India and who believed
that what occurred to European Jews under Nazi Germany was a model that
India could learn and profit from - according to recent reports.
Mr. Kallidai was speaking at an event to celebrate the birth centenary of M.
S. Golwalkar (1906-1973), the second "supreme leader" of the Indian
neo-fascist organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Mr. Kallidai, who is general secretary of the Hindu Forum of Britain, was
reported in the RSS's weekly paper as saying that trying to pay homage to M.
S. Golwalkar "was like holding a candle to the Sun". The paper writes that
he went on to praise the expansion of the RSS and its "exemplary" ideology.
The RSS's extremist ideology of Hindu supremacism has been widely blamed for
large-scale anti-minority violence in India. The RSS has been banned three
times in India since Independence. The murderer of M. K. Gandhi was a former
RSS member.
The event in London on the 12th April was organized by the supremacist Hindu
Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), the British branch of the Indian Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Golwalkar continues to be universally venerated by
the organization despite his support for Nazi-like views. The event took
place at the Advait Cultural Centre in Wembley, north-west London.
Earlier, in December 2004, Ramesh Kallidai, speaking at the Parliamentary
Select Committee on Home Affairs, defended the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP,
World Hindu Council), an offshoot of the RSS, from the accusation that it is
an extremist organisation. Kallidai said that the VHP works for the "social
and moral upliftment of Hindus". According to Human Rights Watch, the VHP
was among the organisations "directly responsible" for the anti-Muslim
pogroms in Gujarat in 2002, in which thousands were killed over the course
of three days of carnage. (We have no orders to save you: State
Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat, Human Rights
Watch, April 2002, page 4.)
The Indian RSS's joint general secretary, Suresh Soni, was a major guest at
the Wembley event. The event was also attended by key figures from the
National Council of Hindu Temples, the Swaminarayan Mandir, ISKCON -
Bhaktivedanta Manor, the Hindu Council UK, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (UK), Singh
Sabha Gurudwara (Southall) and other Hindu organizations.
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion was set up by the Secretary of
State, Ruth Kelly and one of its main tasks is to address the dissemination
of extremist ideologies.
"Next month, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion is due to publish
its findings on how communities can tackle extremist ideologies and overcome
tensions between different groups. The credibility of the Commission's
findings may be seriously limited if its own Commissioners are seen to
endorse individuals widely considered to be extremist", said Arun Kundnani,
spokesperson for Awaaz - South Asia Watch.
Awaaz deplores the fact that someone who the British government has
appointed as a Commissioner working towards good community relations and
harmony between groups appears to have commended and endorsed a man whose
life-long ambition was to promote ideas and organizations in India inspired
by Nazi, fascist and racist thinking, organisations that have been
repeatedly indicted for anti-minority extremism, intolerance and violence.
[ENDS]
NOTES
Who was M. S. Golwalkar?
Madahav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906 - 1973) was the second leader of the
paramilitary RSS, a Hindu supremacist organization formed in 1925 devoted to
turning India into an exclusive Hindu state. Golwalkar supported Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy. In his key book We, or our nationhood defined,
published in 1939, he openly supported the anti-semitic policies of Nazi
Germany towards German-Jews, openly supported Hitler's violent invasion of
other sovereign territories, lauded Fascist Italy and said these were models
which India could learn and profit by:
"German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the
purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging
the country of the semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has
been manifested here. Germany has shown how well nigh impossible it is for
Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated
into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and
profit by." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat Publications,
Nagpur, [1939] 1944, page 37.)
In the 1950s, even when the horrors of Nazi Germany was known across the
world, the RSS called these ideas of Golwalkar an "unassailable doctrine of
nationhood" Golwalkar also stated that in India, minorities deserved no
rights whatsoever, not even any citizen's rights. Minorities could
"live only as outsiders, bound by all the codes and conventions of the
Nation, at the sufferance of the Nation and deserving of no special
protection, far less any privilege or rights. There are only two courses
open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national
race and adopt its culture, or to live at the sweet will of the national
race. That is the only logical and correct solution. That alone keeps the
national life healthy and undisturbed. That alone keeps the Nation safe from
the danger of a cancer developing into its body politic of the creation of a
state within a state. From this standpoint, sanctioned [by] the experiences
of shrewd old nations, the non-Hindu peoples of Hindusthan must either adopt
the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence
Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of
the Hindu race and culture i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of
intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-long traditions
but must also cultivate a positive attitude of love and devotion instead -
in a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country
wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's
rights." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat Publications,
Nagpur, [1939] 1944, pages 48-9.)
For Golwalkar, minorities were to either give up their beliefs or live at
'the sweet will of the majority'. In 2002, the RSS stated that the safety of
Muslims in India lies in 'the goodwill of the majority'.
Golwalkar also actively promoted racism and race superiority as central to
the Indian nation:
"It is superfluous to emphasise the importance of Racial Unity in the Nation
state. A Race is a hereditary Society having common customs, common
language, common memories of glory and disaster; in short it is a population
with a common origin under one culture. Such a race is by far the most
important ingredient of a Nation.We will not seek to prove this axiomatic
truth, that the Race is the body of the Nation, and that with its fall, the
Nation ceases to exist." (Golwalkar, We, or our nationhood defined, Bharat
Publications, Nagpur, [1939] 1944, page 21.)
What is the RSS?
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteers' Corps) was formed
in the period 1925-1926 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in Nagpur, Maharashtra
state, north-west India. Golwalkar became its second "supreme leader" after
Hedgewar's death. The RSS is an exclusively male organization devoted to the
political ideology of Hindutva (or Hindu nationalism) and represents an
Indian version of fascism. Hedgewar formed the RSS as an organization of
young boys and men that was based on military drills, physical exercise,
weapons training, propagation of the ideology of Hindutva and anti-minority
hatred. Hedgewar, together with another key founder of the RSS, Balkrishna
Shivram Moonje, was also influenced by Fascism and Nazism. In 1934, Hedgewar
presided over a meeting in Nagpur aimed at propagating Mussolini's fascist
thought in India. Moonje not only met Mussolini but was a strong admirer of
Nazism and Fascism. He is today called Dharamveer - hero in the religious
struggle - by the RSS. He said that India not only needed a dictator like
Hitler but that a scheme to bring such a dictator had to be urgently carried
out. The RSS is not a democratic organization but based on the idea of one
'Supreme Leader' (sarsanghchalak), obedience to the one Supreme Leader (ek
chalak anuvartitva) and of the Supreme Leader as "the principle one who is
to be venerated" (parampoojaniya). Today, the RSS is at the core of a large
family of extremist Hindu nationalist organizations operating in India and
transnationally, including the UK.
Original report from RSS newspaper, The Organiser
The Organiser
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=18
3&page=5
May 13, 2007 p.5
Shri Guruji birth centenary celebrations in UK Sangh meet turns out a grand
Hindu Sangam
The concluding speech was delivered by RSS Sahsarkaryavah Shri Suresh Soni
who spoke about how Shri Guruji had sacrificed his life in thinking about
and acting on how to awaken the Hindu society, with the firm belief that
Hindu jage to Vishwa Jagegaa. "Shri Guruji and the RSS sought to unite,
organise and create assertive Hindus".
In an event that was every bit as unique as Guruji's life, ten Hindu
organisations came together to jointly host and celebrate Shri Guruji's life
and mission at Advait Cultural Centre, Forty Lane, Wembley (UK), on April
12. Another unique feature of the event was that the audience consisted
largely of the leaders of various Hindu organisations in the UK. and Hindu
Swayamsevak Sangh (UK) spoke after one another on the qualities and
contribution that Shri Guruji had made.
Swami Madhav Priyadas from Shri Swaminarayan Mandir first paid tribute to
Shri Guruji's mother for giving birth to Shri Guruji who sacrificed his life
for the nation. He wanted to pay tribute to Shri Guruji because he was no
ordinary saint. Ordinarily saints represent a section of society or a
geographical region of a nation. However, Priyadasji saw Shri Guruji as a
saint of the whole nation and an exemplary karmayogi whose every action was
for the good of the nation.
Shri Gauridas from ISKCON-Bhaktivedanta Manor, paid tribute to Shri Guruji
by pointing out how he was a man of substance and character. He concluded by
saying, "What we lack in society today are leaders of character and if Sangh
can provide one thing to modern society, it should be to produce men and
women of character fit for modern leadership".
Shri Ramesh Kallidai, general secretary and vice president of Hindu Forum of
Britain and Hindu Aid respectively said, "Trying to pay homage to Shri
Guruji was like holding a candle to the Sun". He sighted the expansion of
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as one of Shri Guruji's greatest
achievements because he felt that RSS's promotion of the Hinduvad
(doctine/theory) was the only way of making true vision of our sacred seers
and saints of ennobling the universe and uniting it.
Shri Kallidai went on to say that the phenomenon of the RSS and Shri Guruji
was so exemplary that even some of its opponents praised it. He cited the
example of Smt. Indira Gandhi who on the passing away of Shri Guruji had
said, "We have lost in Guru Golwalker a famous personality who was not a
Member of Parliament but who held a respected position in the nation by his
personality and the intensity of his convictions".
In an evening of many firsts, Shri Nitish Bhardwaj, who had played Lord
Krishna in popular Mahabharata TV serial, launched officially in UK,
Karmayogi, a documentary on the life and work of Shri Guruji, directed by
himself. He spoke about the honour of capturing Shri Guruji's life on film
and echoed the other speakers by calling Shri Guruji "a sannyasi in white
robs".
The concluding speech was delivered by RSS Sahsarkaryavah Shri Suresh Soni
who spoke about how Guruji had sacrificed his life in thinking about and
acting on how to awaken the Hindu society with the firm belief that Hindu
jage to Vishwa Jagegaa. "Shri Guruji and the RSS sought to unite, organise
and create assertive Hindus. Shri Guruji sought to do this by asking the
Hindu society to be fiercely critical of themselves and not others and by
creating individuals who put the Hindu society before themselves. Shri
Guruji used to say that Hindus should not look for faults in the Hindu
society. You cannot unite the Hindu society if you look for faults in it. As
such he sought to build an organisation whose policies, behaviour or actions
united and not divided the Hindu society and it is this philosophy that has
driven RSS to where it is today. It is this philosophy that has seen the RSS
stand the test of time when other divisive organisations have withered away.
This philosophy and method of working was Shri Guruji's greatest
contribution," Shri Soni added.
In a remarkable evening the one common thread in every speech was how best
to honour Guruji's legacy. Sardar Himat Singh Sohi, president of Singh Sabha
Gurudwara-South Hall, felt that the best way to pay tribute to Shri Guruji
was to work hard for Hindu-Sikh unity.
While Shri Sudarshan Bhatia, president of National Council of Hindu Temples,
said that a real homage to Shri Guruji would be to sit down and analyse what
we need to do to unite Hindus across the world so that we turn the whole
world into one family, Shri Lallubhai Parekh, president of National Congress
of Gujarati Organisation (UK) appealed to the audience "to carry forward the
vision of Shri Guruji".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
