Thread by @SaamaanyaJ

This Thread is a criticism of Pratap Bhanu Mehta's latest Indian Express article.

Yet another attempt by a Secular-Intellectual to grant Secularism a high seat of arbitration. A defeated argument. A hydra raising its head repeatedly. Needs to be put down every time.

1/n

He very smartly begins with Partition. Sets up Partition as a result of use of religious idiom by indulgent nationalists and Gandhiji's different attempts in this direction also as a failure.

Fundamentally positing the Partition example to create space for Secularism

2/n

This has 3 problems.

1. Partition was not a result of few decades before 1947.
2. He is reducing the complexity of the developments in the immediate past of Partition.
3. Worse, by the same logic Secularism has not only massively failed but has accentuated the problem

3/n

We shall come to that.

- PBM is definitely the best Secular intellectual in India.
- Unlike other hypocrites masquerading as intellectuals, he concedes that Secularism is inconsistently implemented in India.
- He understands the danger of denying this obvious reality.

4/n

He concedes that the S-Project needs correction. But, how can we legitimize 'whole scale majoritarianism'? - his chief concern.

This means he has
- Not understood the root cause
- Deliberately refusing to go that far
- Not understood the fundamental criticism of Secularism

5/n

To begin with PBM should read an important thing

- Should read Dr. SN Balagangadhara's seminal work "Secular State and Religious Conflict"
- Clearly establishes the crisis of Secularism. It can be partial either to the Indian Civilization or to the Abrahamic Civilizations.

6/n

PBM like intellectuals should demonstrate the confidence to take such deep problems head on. Not reduce the conflict to a form that makes it easy for them to be seated on their cushions.

7/n

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111….

will be back....

The crisis that Secularism faces is that it is in competition with the natural flow of the Bharateeya Parampara - which is a civilization in itself. It has a Philosophy, Political Thought, Intellectual Tradition, Scientific Temper of a different kind....

8/n

...It has a Social thought that has nurtured maximum diversity, polytheism shaped by philosophical integrity, a way is engaging with every segment of society.

Secularism is intellectually dishonest to view it as Religion and dismiss. We have seen through this deceit.

9/n

10. Fundamental approach to this problem is to explore why is there is a conflict. What is the root of this conflict?

Fundamentally, this is conflict is not about religious freedom for the individual. The traditional Bharateeya perspective has always preserved that.

10/n

11. This conflict is about the extent of space in the civilization. The root of this conflict
- Denying the flow of Bharateeya Parampara in every aspect of life as it should
- Abrahamic religions to seeking a disproportionate share in the civilizational space

11/n

12. (Contd)
- Denial of Historical wrongs to achieve the previous points
- Undemocratic imposition of Secular polity on the Society without a reason
- Forced proselytizing of the society into Secularism in order to achieve the above objectives

12/n

13. He speaks of the dangers of Sanitizing Religious
Histories of the past, Instrumentalizing Religions for Political purposes

This is the worst kind of hypocrisy not expected from PBM

This is like ulTA chOr kOtvAl to DAMTe

उल्टा चोर कोतवाल को डांटे

13/n

14. If anything

- Secularists are day-in-day-out manipulating Bharateeya Itihaasa to draw a false equivalence with Abrahamic religions to create a space of Secularism
- In that they are shamelessly collaborating with liars and religious bigots

This is incredible audacity

14/n

15. His account of the language conflict is worse

- Just take Kannada for eg.,
- Secularists may have upheld it, may have even engaged religious idiom to an extent but that was always manipulated
- But that was always a manipulated idiom
- Hence, that has fell through

15/n

16. Hence,

- Inspite of giant secular talent indulging in this massive engagement, it fell through
- Eventually what has survived is SL Bhairappa and the pre 1947 Idiom, what we call as Navodaya Idiom
- An Idiom steeped in Bharateeya Arsha Parampara

16/n

17. Beyond this he does not elaborate. He merely wants to posit this is as a conflict between two religions. One Majoritarian and another Minority.

Very Very convenient. Without getting into the root of the Conflict.

17/n

18. So, I will pose those tough questions to PBM

- What is the Philosophical Foundation of Diversity in India?
- Why did so many different philosophies and worshipping modes evolve in this Bharatamandala without conflict or minimal conflict?

18/n

19. Contd

- If a Philosophical Framework, Philosophies and Traditions protected and nurtured diversity for millennia, then should that not have the natural right to continue

- Now, if that got into a conflict then why was that so?

19/n

20. If this Civilization is in conflict to protect and nurture itself that that is a natural right

This is akin to "Treating the Buffalo for the Ox's Fever"

Get to the roots Mr. PBM. Time to face the challenge posed by Dr. SN Balagangadhara. This silence is dishonest.

n/n