Exclusivist faiths, fundamental rights and the consequences of fundamentalism
This article studies the admissibility of certain systems with respect to the fundamental rights given in the Constitution of India under Article 25 – the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and under Article 19(1)(a) – the right to freedom of speech and expression.
In the rest of this article fundamentalism is defined and the consequences of fundamentalism is studied.
The Constitution gives fundamental rights to its citizens, vide article 25 –The right to a) freedom of conscience, b) profess, practice and propagate religion.
25 :(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law – (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
However, some religions or religious systems/institutions, do not give to its followers the right to their belief or conscience. One must believe in the system, a certain God, etc. More specifically, the followers must subjugate their conscience to their specific religious principles, which are more specifically religious dogma.
Custody and denial of conscience
This is exemplified by those systems which themselves claim to ‘harvest the soul’ of persons and keep it in the ‘custody’ of the ecclesiastical authority, rather than let it remain where it originally, naturally and rightfully belongs – as the conscience of the person, in the full and unfettered control of the person.
Moreover, not only do some religions not grant their followers the right to freely practice and modify or even change their beliefs, they go further and deny this right. Some go beyond a denial of the right and excommunicate the wayward, or even pronounce death sentence, as per their beliefs and practices.
As an example, not believing in a particular god or prophet may be heresy or apostasy; followers are specifically denied the right to move out of the system at all or practice varying or other beliefs even within the fold. Thus, if a follower expresses, whether privately or publicly, something which doubts, seeks to clarify or criticize, questions or runs contrary to that established by the ecclesiastical authority, it may invite penalty as prescribed by the respective systems.
[pullquote]However, some religions or religious systems/institutions, do not give to its followers the right to their belief or conscience. One must believe in the system, a certain God[/pullquote]
For instance, even a flattering portraiture of the Prophet is incorrect and a punishable offence in Islam. Likewise, a perfectly bland query or expression may be blasphemy in the eyes of the church; doubting a doctrine or differing from the ‘accepted version or interpretation’ may invite charges of heresy.
The above are a matter of principle and practice, which are enforced by such systems. Another significant point to note is that having a doubt, query, a different faith or belief, not having the prescribed faith, or some expression, per se may constitute an offence.
Hence such religions or institutions abrogate the fundamental rights of citizens who happen to be followers; indeed, they go further and deny the most fundamental and basic right of existence itself. Sometimes, they go to the extreme, by punishing with death. In doing any of these things, they arrogate to themselves the role of an extra judicial and extra constitutional authority.
As for being subject to ‘morality’, as per the constitution, one may note that morality is not exactly the same as ‘conscience’ which again is not the same as ’religion’. Hence, an institution or system which asserts that religion dictates morality or conscience(e.g. “Christian conscience” only allowed, other/your own conscience may be punishable), or subsumes it, or states that some entity is the only true code, which must be followed, irrespective of considerations of morality or conscience, will be violating this principle and the rights to or principles of morality and conscience.
In other words, such totalitarian and exclusivist systems stand in direct opposition and contradiction to the provisions for conscience and any other morality made in Article 25.
Other rights to minorities do not explicitly specify which kind of religions or their allied institutions are allowed or not – surely they cannot be any of those which deny or abrogate the fundamental rights.
Role of the state in religious conversions
As the State can legislate on the secular aspects of any religious institutions or rights, the State can ask any such institution to give an explicit undertaking that it does not deny or abrogate any fundamental rights of citizens. The most basic freedom is the ‘right to be’ yourself, providing one is not (actively) interfering with others, not explicitly phrased as such but implicit in the statement. Evangelizing cannot be permitted, especially in the guise of social work. Also, such religions must permit their followers the right to convert out of their belief systems into others, freely, as a matter of principle, and also to express doubt or dissent.
[pullquote]For instance, even a flattering portraiture of the Prophet is incorrect and a punishable offence in Islam. Likewise, a perfectly bland query or expression may be blasphemy in the eyes of the church[/pullquote]
The citizen’s right to freely practice any belief system has an obvious fundamental limitation– one cannot convert into a system which itself abrogates the fundamental rights of the citizen himself/herself. Logically, the Constitution cannot recognize conversion to exclusive faith systems, or even recognise them, as this would contradict some foundational tenets of the constitution (vide KeshavanandaBharati case)
As regards conversion, the constitution gives the right to the citizen to choose or change his or her beliefs. To clarify the issue, observe that gifts may be given voluntarily in a marriage. However, in case the groom asks for it, or even mentions it as per the Supreme Court, it amounts to asking for dowry, a punishable offence.
Hence, in a transaction, the right and choice rests solely with the ‘outgoing’ party and not the ‘incoming’ side at all. So the systems seeking to convert the others are like asking for dowry and hence this must be a punishable offence.
Also note that the exclusivist systems which seek to convert others do not permit their own followers to even doubt, believe or query otherwise, let alone convert out of their system, which are all punishable offences as per their systems.
Hence such systems violate the law for both their potentially ‘outgoing’ followers as well as for the other potentially ‘incoming’ persons. This is in addition to being not admissible as a system in the first place due to a denial of fundamental rights in their own systems.
Furthermore, note that all intended conversions into the totalitarian and exclusivist systems are based on a false and fraudulent claim – to the exclusive truth, which is false. Observe also that the religious (divine) law of such systems is asymmetric and discriminatory at the level of their mandated fundamental principle itself – that of eliminating the kafir / infidel and the rights they are granted by such systems because of the fact of their existence.
In other words, a one way application of the ‘right to be’ by such systems exclusively for each of themselves but not for the other marked for elimination.
In contrast, note that Dharmic systems are neither a law nor are they a-priori posited either for or against, there is no membership or division at the fundamental level into believers or non-believers, At best they are indifferent or exploratory – seeking the truth, and would just want to be themselves, without any a-priori mandated interference with others.
The principles which violate the fundamental rights of citizens who follow such systems are core and fundamental to these systems. They are non-negotiable and form the basis of the identity, and are deeply interwoven with the other parts of such systems, like the DNA or Mathematical & Physical Laws permeating and governing the intrinsic and fundamental behavior of systems.
Therefore, for any version of such a system to exist which will restore fundamental rights would necessitate the loss of a core and distinguishing feature of its identity and may require repudiating the system itself. This is pending a reform, transformation and liberalization of such systems specifically in respect of these fundamentals, which itself may not be possible in the first place.
[pullquote]The systems seeking to convert the others are like asking for dowry and hence this must be a punishable offence. [/pullquote]
The constitution recognizes Hindu religions (dharma systems), which do not abrogate the fundamental rights of citizens to freely believe, practice or worship, and in fact themselves grant this right. Atheists are also legitimately granted space in Hindu dharma.
A point which is often not clearly understood is that Dharmic faiths do not have a ‘legal character’ in the sense of having some Other Authority which tells one what to do and can compel a human being, take away liberty and punish for not following laid down principles. It is an open and broad system of philosophies where the principle of choice and decision based on certain considerations is left to the individual seeker (of truth), which is the opposite of a follower (of a command or law).
In contrast, systems where adherents follow a (pre-determined, divine)Law, obey a command, make a covenant, decide and punish, are totalitarian, have at once a Legal or State-like character, where the extra constitutional authority is the ultimate arbiter.
Furthermore, if two entities are similar prima facie e.g. a book, proposition or principle, etc, they are in reality incomparable and have a different character when placed in the context of and evaluated in the two systems – in one it might be a proposition or expression to be accepted or rejected by the exercise of choice, relevant reasoning, without any Other Authority dictating the outcome, whereas in the other, it is like a law or a diktat which has been violated and additionally there is another enforcing (extra constitutional)authority which will penalize.
In one system it is a matter of belief or faith and reasoning or choice, whereas in the other it is not really a matter of faith or belief. Rather, having the prescribed faith (which is predetermined, unchanging, and permanent) or belief is a matter of (divine) Law. Accordingly, comparing propositions, statements, books or one book from the point of view of another across the two radically different and opposed systems without having regard to the underlying basis and fundamentals of the framework in which they occur are nonsensical, baseless and ab initio void.
It is somewhat of a transposition if not an anachronism that the constitution recognizes Hinduism i.e. Sanatana Dharma. As Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly and later first President of the Republic of India, said to the Diplomatic Corps on January 26, 1950:
Our Constitution is a democratic instrument seeking to ensure to the individual citizens the freedoms which are so invaluable. India has never prescribed or prosecuted opinion and faith and our philosophy has room, as much for a devotee of a personal god, as for an agnostic or an atheist. We shall, therefore, be only implementing in practice under our constitution what we have inherited from our traditions, namely, freedom of opinion and expression.
Any admissible system per the constitution must obviously not deny or abrogate or murder any Fundamental Rights. Any exercise of the right to change or practice one’s beliefs cannot be into a system which itself abrogates the Fundamental Rights. Suicide and murder are not allowed as a fundamental limitation of the right to freedom.
This is a fundamental logic of existence and pluralism – one cannot be so ‘plural’ or ‘liberal’ as to include that which excludes or annihilates existence and pluralism itself. Democracy excludes the totalitarian and exclusivist else it ceases to exist.
It may also be asked what is the basis or rationale of the Keshavananda Bharati judgment – that the fundamental nature of the constitution cannot be altered. It is not explicitly written in the constitution but rather a recognition of the basic principles, of the constitution or of Dharma, which lead to this understanding, that certain basic or foundational features and freedoms cannot be altered or destroyed, by using the freedom itself.
However, some incorrect notions of liberalism or pluralism include the exclusivists (all religions are the same/equal/welcome/..), to the extent that ‘secular’ courts have recognized principles of the sharia and thereby excluded themselves. It did not occur to the Honourable Judges that by invoking or recognizing principles of the exclusivist systems, they had (conceptually) excluded themselves from their own jurisdiction and that from the other side it is just a game, as they do not recognize any other (secular) system.
Note the fundamental principle of inclusion & exclusion, which implies excluding the totalitarian and exclusivist, stated in article 30 of the UDHR (UN Declaration of Human Rights):
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
Hence, even recognizing or converting into such a system is ab initio void and in direct contradiction and opposition to the basic nature of the constitution itself.
It fundamentally and illegitimately alters or abrogates the right to the existence of a citizen as a citizen, along with his/her Fundamental Rights. So the missionary position is clear – having stripped their own followers of their fundamental rights, and having subjugated morality and conscience, it seeks to do the same to the ‘other’
The systemic and institutionalized pre-emption or denial and abuse of Human Rights/Fundamental Rights as a matter of principle, (which is enforceable in such systems) is fundamentalism.
The question arises as to what an extra constitutional dispensation, with its followers deprived of fundamental rights, is apt to do, more particularly if it begins from a predetermined and permanent position of having total solutions, and excludes everything else.
Another question which arises is how, to what extent and in which situations their perspectives may be considered to be objective and fair if their followers do not have the fundamental rights to beliefs, conscience, speech and expression to begin with. Observe that beliefs, conscience, speech and expression are fundamental and primitive elements in themselves as also for society, as well as the defining elements of Fundamental Rights.
In other words, they are the very basis of fundamental rights themselves, which in the totalitarian, exclusivist and (divine) Law systems are under great stress and distress, if not non-existent, as a matter of principle (and are also enforceable). Note that this is persecution or penalizing their own followers for their fundamental rights and denying them such rights.
Note that these primitives of belief, conscience, speech and expression form the foundation of any system, whether personal or institutional, of perception, evaluation, giving evidence or judgment and values or ethics and their consequent actions.
Hence, such systems which have a-priori, permanent and mandated extreme prejudice and persecution for even purely existential reasons, which is a (divine) Law, cannot be ethical, fair, just or rational either within themselves or to others.
To give an example, the requirement of four male witnesses to prove a rape, (i.e. four gentlemen watching one victim and one rapist), is for all practical purposes a denial of the right to not/give consent of women, the better half of humanity. Note also that in the absence of provability of the rape, it may not be deemed indeterminable or unproved but often there is a reversal of guilt, with the victim being punished for adultery. The foundations and primitives of the system preclude any proper discussion or query on the subject.
[pullquote]The systemic and institutionalized pre-emption or denial and abuse of Human Rights/Fundamental Rights as a matter of principle, (which is enforceable in such systems) is fundamentalism. [/pullquote]
Observe that the claim of exclusive truth is a false claim, even if one were to admit the absurdity of an entire system or God itself to be capable of having the attributes true or false:
There are a few thousand sects and versions of such (monotheist) belief systems and at best only one (which may not be one among them) by definition may be true. [An aside – there exists the Hadith of 73 sects, where 72 are false and going to hell and only one is true and may go to heaven] Furthermore, Humanity has discovered many formal and informal truths and such belief systems do not accommodate but rather clash with them, so even the possibility of this one ‘true’ system cannot be from among any of these.
Some examples to illustrate this will put matters in the correct perspective –
Mathematical, Scientific and empirically known or verified truths e.g. whether the earth is flat, theories of origin or evolution, non-provability of the truth or incompleteness and inconsistency (Godel’s Theorem) of a system and so on. The systematic rejection of many scientific truths and the persecution of scientists down the ages show the contradictions in the fundamental and defining principles.
The power and primacy of choice and reason, women’s rights, children’s rights, human rights, fundamental rights, democracy, secularism, equality etc. which are non-formal truths for mankind.
Equality and Fraternity are fundamentally missing and opposed by these systems as they seek to ‘convert’ i.e. eliminate the other as a matter of principle and not let them be. The ‘true faith’ and its followers can never be equal to the ‘false’ ones or their believers, who must necessarily be eliminated. Liberty is denied by the institutionalized pre-emption of fundamental and human rights.
Additionally, rationality, ethics, the power of reason and choice are supreme and not subordinate to a pre-determined, logically fore-closed, set of rules/commands, which themselves have glaring omissions and contradictions with other known truths. It is questionable if subordinating truth, ethics, rationality and reason itself to such a dispensation is itself ethical or rational.
No Record, Authenticity or Authority
Note that there are no historical records going right up to the prophet/s themselves nor are there any books which bear a statement by the prophet/s themselves to the effect – ‘as revealed to me’, or ‘as reviewed by myself and authorized, by God for transmission by me’.
The books are later collations and editions carried out at the behest of men in power i.e. either Caliphs or Kings who used them inter alia for purposes of politics and war. Further, these collations have been subject to human memory, interpretations of words and actions, changes in language, editions, interpolations, abrogations, vested interests, politics and war, various human factors, and include grammatical errors.
By definition, since only the prophet/s were capable of receiving the precise revelation and not ordinary humans, the transmission from the prophet/s to ordinary humans has been subject to such vagaries as mentioned above. Hence, it is not possible to claim with either certainty or authority that these were the precise import and content of the revelations even if that event did take place. Note that the existence of a multiplicity of ‘exclusive authorities’ and disputants to the claim of the exclusive truth itself reinforces this fact, as each one states that all the other versions are false.
Does God exist as per the System?
On another note, observe that the notion of God in such systems is not supreme and all powerful, or omnipresent, at variance with such infinite qualities attributed to God:
In a fundamentally bipolar theory, ‘The True God’ is only one element and Satan and Hell is the other, which continue to exist and moreover give Him competition. Also observe that ‘The True God’ or the System itself violates the Fundamental Rights of its own followers to keep them in line, whereas Satan does not need to.
It does not occur to these systems, insofar as certain fundamentals are concerned; or is precluded, or if it so happens, is punishable, that Man himself is capable of rationality, morality, choice and judgment and may exercise these to not do something which is incorrect or harmful. Hence, fundamental rights, secularism and democracy are in effect posited as Satanic chapter and verse as opposed to ‘the exclusive true faith’.
Observe that the bipolar theory becomes de-facto, self-irreconcilable-multipolar, with :The True God” fundamentally at odds with the other poles – as physical objects, particles, other living beings, plants or animals, whether capable of belief or not, follow their own laws. Such exclusivist systems stand in conflict with them in terms of their principles and claims of the exclusive truth.
The Logical Structure
As the systems are predicated on a claim of owning the exclusive truth which is false, such systems may be said to be logically ‘inverted’. Furthermore, as the starting point is false, any conclusion can be arrived at logically. An analysis of the logical structure of such systems may be found in the article here. http://indiawires.com/7203/opinion/on-the-structure-of-certain-belief-systems-and-its-implications-consequences/
Self – Contradictory
Note that such systems find themselves in a unique and infinitely absurd position – they are unable to reconcile the fact of their diversity and multiplicity with their own concept and claim to the exclusive truth, for any variation whatsoever cannot be the exclusive truth. Moreover, true to their fundamental of eliminating the ‘untruth’, they are busy trying to eliminate each other, whether at peace or at war. In this regard, there are volumes of historical records down the ages up to the present, which are replete with accounts of unparalleled and systematic feuds, wars, cruelty, depravity, etc. among themselves.
Note that for a system which begins from a false premise (claim of the exclusive truth), it becomes an immediate and necessary requirement to violate the fundamental rights of its own followers in order to maintain the (false) position.
Note that humans have their conscience, thoughts, doubts and questions may arise.
However, insofar as the system and certain of its fundamentals are concerned, the question of the question arising does not arise, or may cease to exist.
Also observe that the fait accompli by elimination (by conversion, or war) becomes a necessary requirement in order to maintain the position of the (false) claim, since that can never be proved or stand the test of reason, being inherently false.
Making a radical claim (of the exclusive truth), which is sweeping, absurd and false, and having this as a fundamental principle, moreover which is pre-decided, closed and permanent, is fundamentalism.
Observe that the claim of infallibility (of the church) persists today even after centuries of contradictions and conflict with the scientific and other truths mentioned above. In other words, in spite of proof to the contrary, the false claim still persists and is not questionable, which is fundamentalism.
Note also that while infallibility per se is not the opposite of democracy or rationality, it militates against the two.
The above considerations afford a unique definition of the ‘Religious Right’:
They begin from a premise that is false (the exclusive truth) and yet insinuate that it is right, deny fundamental rights (in order to maintain the false position, persecute and prosecute) and yet this is right, and in spite of all this they are the ones to be exclusively acquitted (on the day of judgment), so even in the hereinafter, they are exclusively the ones who are still right.
In short, they are always and pre-determinedly ‘right’ even though they are wrong on all these counts. Observe that the Religious Right have a false, untenable and extreme position inherently as discussed above.
Note that their followers are regarded by their own (divine and exclusive) law or systems as ‘sheep’ or ‘slaves’ and held guilty until the possibility of being acquitted (on the day of judgment), another reversal and violation of Fundamental & Human Rights and the fundamentals of justice (deemed innocent until proved otherwise).
Hence, for such systems, the Rights of Man’ are juxtaposed and in stark opposition and contradiction to the ‘Wrongs of Sheep / Slaves’, who have to be kept in line by persecution and prosecution at a most fundamental level – belief/conscience, doubt, which is purely inside the head, precluding the necessity of any expression or action on it for it to be an offence, which it also is.
The existential struggle between people as humans (rather than as mis/believers, or “sheep” and “slaves”) with their fundamental rights & freedoms v/s the suppressing, inverted systems as discussed above, led inter-alia to the evolution of the Magna Carta and Secularism.
However, secularism is an ab-initio void concept and half measure for such systems as we shall see subsequently and does not achieve what it should, to address the fundamental rights and related problems. Similar considerations for the ‘mis-believers’ who face a pre-determined, existential, permanent bias, are considered false and marked for elimination, no matter what, led to the concept of ‘minorities and their rights’.
However, this is applicable to systems where the fundamental principle and law has division into believers and mis-believers as mentioned, rather than equality and fundamental rights to all. Hence this is fundamentally flawed and inapplicable to systems where the fundamental law is of unqualified equality/non-division and fundamental rights, or the Dharmic systems which are not laws nor do they take such positions. More on the concept of minorities, how it arose, secularism, the logical structure and implications of systems predicated on a false premise may be found here.
While the “secular” Christian system developed the concept of “minorities”, the Islamic system developed the concept of “dhimmi”. Observe that “secularism” has made the Hindus like a minority or dhimmi, with the finances of temples misappropriated by the government for itself including for funding the haj from it, a de facto position of paying “jizya” to the secular state.
Note that while various shades of law breakers or criminals may happen to adhere to other belief systems, it does not automatically imply that they are religious fundamentalists or the religious right. This is because the fundamentals of the underlying system which they believe in are relevant, and whether they are following those principles and what they do is sanctioned or more specifically dictated by the system.
To give a concrete example, uttering ‘talaq’ three times is sufficient for divorce in one faith, but non-existent in other systems. A replication of this by a male adhering to another belief system may make it an offence per the state’s legal system but not make him a religious fundamentalist, per his belief system. Also note that the terms ‘Hindu Right’ and ‘Hindu Fundamentalist’ are a contradiction in terms and ab initio void and non-existent. What exists are the ‘liberal / plural fundamentalists’, who in error include the totalitarian and exclusivist and are responsible for abetting the suicide and murder of a pluralist system.
Likewise is it for jihad – this is not quite war on the non-believers, but more precisely, war on those who have been pre-determinedly and permanently marked for elimination in any case, whether in peace (conversion) or at war, simply for existential ‘reasons’. War is a continuation of policy by other means in this system, a la Clausewitz. Note that the boundary or territory of this supra -political and -legal system is defined not by geography, but by whether one adheres to the system or not.
It is a clear understanding of this position that is stated by the organization Al Qaid – The Base, which is clear and forthright that it is the primitives of the value system and very basis of society that they lay claim to, with a different battle doctrine i.e. terrorism and a different, inverted morality / value system.
Constituent Assembly Debates on religion
It was clear to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, Dr. BR Ambedkar, who is on record in the Constituent Assembly debates, as having stated that two religions are in particular anti-social:
“.. unfortunately the religions which prevail in this country are not merely non-social ; so far as their mutual relations are concerned they are anti-social, one religion claiming that its teachings constitute the only right path for salvation, that all other religions are wrong…”
Another member of the Constituent Assembly, a barrister from Bihar, Tajamul Hussain, was also against the concept of the State having anything to do with religion –
If you start propagating religion in the country you will become a nuisance to others. So far it has become a nuisance. He added, “that this is a secular State and a secular State should not have anything to do with religion”(Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. 7, p816).
The state in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith, and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union (CA Debate, Vol. 7, p815).
HC Mukherjee, a Protestant Christian and member of the Advisory Committee on Minority Rights, moved a proposal: “That the system of reservation for minorities other than SC in legislatures be abolished” (CA Debates, Vol. 8, p 311).The Sikhs and Christian members supported the motion; of the four Muslim members present in the meeting only one opposed it.
The Supreme Court of India in a judgment has ruled that Sanatana Dharma (i.e. Hinduism), is not a religion (but rather Dharma). The motto of the Supreme Court also proclaims victory through Dharma – “yatodharmastatojayah”.
The Constitution in Hindi (in the Devnagari script) states that India is Panth Nirpeksha and implicitly Dharma Sapeksha, as eminent jurist LM Singhvi had refused (to Indira Gandhi) to sign on the phrase Dharma Nirpeksha. However, Panth Nirpeksha need not necessarily be akin to ‘western secularism’, a given in western society due to the socio-psychological basis of their systems in Christianity (or Islam).As the totalitarian and exclusivist systems themselves are inadmissible, Panth Nirpeksha is applicable to a ‘Panth’ which is admissible in the first place and Dharma Sapeksha has to do with Sanatana Dharma.
Moreover, the two exclusivist systems cannot be reconciled with Dharma either as their fundamentals are radically different –to quote an example, at an Interfaith meeting, the proposal (by Swami Dayanand Saraswati) for all systems to accept ‘Ahimsa’ as a principle was rejected.
Furthermore, secularism per se is a bogus concept as for (divine) law systems, (i.e. state religions), the religion itself has the characteristics of a state and being totalitarian and exclusivist, does not separate itself from the state but tends to have a conflict and displace it. Observe that the Constitution of the Church (Vatican) states:
“..Let them strive to reconcile the two, remembering that in every temporal affair they must be guided by a Christian conscience, since even in secular business there is no human activity which can be withdrawn from God’s dominion.”
The point is that to achieve separation, if the state “gets out of religion” then simultaneously the religion in question must fundamentally and conceptually “de-statise” itself, which is not possible for the (divine) law, totalitarian and exclusivist systems, as both are implemented by the same minds and the same people. Note that this analysis is not on the definition of secularism per se but on the specific property of separation which it cannot.
It is the fundamentals of the system which need to be repudiated in order to achieve any kind of ‘separation’, a given in the Dharmic systems.More on the principle of separation can be found here.
Exclusivity breeds deception
As noted earlier, because the basic premise (the exclusive truth) is false to begin with and fait accompli (conversion or war) becomes a necessary and immediate requirement, along with a suspension of the fundamental rights, persecution and prosecution; in order to exist and expand, deception is also an immediate and necessary adjunct. Hence such systems have devised sophisticated methods of dissimulation, inculturation, infiltration and apologetics in the advancement of their objective of annihilating every other system.
Even in a limited exchange, such systems are naturally positioned for ‘victory’,(having already secured the ‘exclusive ownership of the truth’), a phenomenon explored at length in Schopenhauer’s “The Art of Controversy”,(https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right) in order to defeat the other regardless of the truth.
A detailed investigation of the strategies and actions of the Church, the nexus with the ‘secular’ i.e. the Christian west, their governments and institutions, etc. is available in the book ‘Breaking India’(Rajiv Malhotra and AravindanNeelakandan).
Below are some illustrations of the concepts of fait accompli and deception as practiced by such systems. Note that while issues are complex and multidimensional, it is important to appreciate the role specifically of the fundamentals which play a key part in creating, sustaining or aggravating a problem.
A fundamental nature of systems where one is obeying a command or (divine) law, with a suppression and denial of their fundamental rights (to belief, conscience, speech & expression) with persecution and penalty, is that their own will, choice and hence ‘self-determination’ is precluded.
Hence, claims for ‘self-determination’ or plebiscite are irrelevant and void and a part of the deception (al Taqiyya) prescribed and practiced by such systems and their followers. To give a concrete example, Pakistan was not formed (from undivided India) by any act of self-determination or plebiscite, but by the fait accompli of ‘direct action’ i.e. civil war and genocide perpetrated by Jinnah and his followers.
Also in J&K, in the Pakistan occupied areas as well as the other Indian side, the demography has been forcibly changed by the Muslims by driving out and religiously cleansing the others. These are in keeping with the dictum that lands that once belonged to Islam must come back to Islam, which is pre-determined and not anybody’s free will. Note that as per the UN resolutions on J&K part II, Pakistan is deemed the aggressor and is required to first vacate its aggression.
Another example of deception (al Taqiyya – by commission, kitman – by omission) is regarding the demolition of the structure in Ayodhya. As per the fundamentals of Islam, it is correct to demolish a mosque as it has no religious significance whatsoever. This is in keeping with the fundamental that absolutely no other entity should come anywhere close to Allah in terms of reverence which is called ‘shirk’ and is a punishable offence in Islam.
Many mosques in Saudi Arabia have been demolished to make way for roads and in particular the mosque where the prophet prayed was set for demolition, in spite of objections from those who respect History and heritage in the kingdom. Likewise, the grave of the prophet was also unmarked and no significance whatsoever attached to it. However, this is wrongly portrayed as against Islam or Muslims, when it is in fact very much in keeping with the fundamentals of Islam.
Note that the owners of the land can be compensated without any reference to the presence of a mosque there.
Indira Gandhi’s “secular” Constitution explained
On another note, observe that the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution was passed in the Parliament within minutes, when half the Parliamentarians were not present or put behind bars. This was a deal between the left, i.e. the communists, a “Christian heresy” and also a totalitarian ideology, and then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in order to secure her rule.
Observe that this was made without any substantive change to articles 25 or 30, which deal with religious freedom and minority rights and the word “Secular” (and “Socialist”) foisted on the Preamble of the Indian Constitution—a mask.
Note the irony of adding or giving a freedom, “secularism”, while simultaneously suspending the fundamental rights, by declaring the emergency. Observe that subsequently, the ‘secular plank’ has been appropriated by all the totalitarian ideologies, or the pseudo-liberals, (referred to earlier in this study), pandering to them. Note that while there is a common criminal code the ‘secular plank’ has entities which are against having a common civil code, which should be a given in a ‘secular’ democracy.
Another illustration is regarding the formulation of the issues and control of the narrative – “Inter-Faith Dialogue”. Note that the pre-decided and permanent exclusivist ideologies already “owning the exclusive truth” are by definition not for debate. Rather they are for exclusion, dissimulation and finding out the weak or strong points of other systems in the service of their objectives of annihilation.
[pullquote]Totalitarian and exclusivist systems are not admissible nor can they or their allied institutions be qualified to judge others.[/pullquote]
Also the question arises as to what hypotheses are being discussed, is anyone willing to change and what are the methods of reasoning available as well as the standards of proof. Note that the exclusivist systems do not a priori admit any methods other than their own. This is in reality a dialogue between persons who are adherents of two different systems. Also note that the word “faith” is a misnomer if not a subterfuge resorted to by suchsystems—for them, it really is a matter of law, obedience or compulsion and precludes doubt, query or dissent and an unfettered conscience.
On another note observe that the terms ‘the right’ or more particularly ‘the Hindu right’ being bandied about in the Indian context. As discussed earlier, ‘the right’ is applicable to the exclusivist and totalitarian systems only, as is a ‘secular’ democracy, an oxymoron which doesn’t exist. While these are terms arising and applicable only in the western i.e. Christian context, it is essentially a western lens, or Christian propaganda by tarring everyone with the same brush, a deception in the service of its exclusion.
Surrender of Hindu identity
That a section of the Indian public is called the Hindu right is a statement of their identity crisis and a strategic surrender by adopting a narrative essentially applicable to and controlled by the west. Also note that adding the term ‘pseudo’ to ‘secular’ effectively has the cosmetic effect of dropping the ‘oxy’ from the ‘oxymoron’ – the fundamentals remaining the same.
Finally, note that the USCIRF does not have domestic jurisdiction, which indicates that the US Government knows only too well these considerations. Observe the contradiction of the US Government, professedly “secular” in nature, trying to oversee the grant or exercise of religious rights, a matter for the church.
To give an example illustrating the contradiction, observe that US Courts may grant a civil divorce but not a religious divorce, as they are not supposed to know or not have jurisdiction over religious matters. This is in keeping with the fraudulent and ab-initio void concept of secularism (see discussion earlier) that the US Government deploys this Trojan horse not with a domestic jurisdiction but only an international jurisdiction.
Islamic countries are more transparent in the matter, with a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue & Prevention of Vice – the “religious police”, in their states. Also note the recent statement of British PM David Cameron that “we are a Christian country…” and similar remarks of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a “Christian Democrat”.
As discussed at length through this study, the totalitarian and exclusivist systems are not admissible nor can they or their allied institutions be qualified to judge others.
Many followers of such systems do not or would not like to obey all the commands as they stand and seek to exercise their powers of reason, choice and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, it is a most difficult task given the stranglehold that the system has over its followers, effected by a denial of their fundamental rights and prosecution and persecution by their own systems.
Summary of exclusivist systems
Based on a false premise, of owning the “exclusive truth”, and hence make its “belief” compulsory or a (divine) law, subject them to oath, on pain of death for heresy or apostasy, while it becomes immediate to suppress and deny the fundamental rights of its own followers with persecution and prosecution for belief, thought, query or dissent declaring them a-priori guilty or sinners and after withdrawing the fundamental rights,are symbolically rendered “sheep” or “slaves” to the system while simultaneously it becomes immediate and necessary to make the fait accompli of conversion or war, by ‘harvesting the souls’ of humans or their head, with an asymmetric fundamental division of humans into believers and non-believers and to exist and serve its exclusion & totality need to dissimulate, while simultaneously the false truth claim is also a moral claim, with the follower exclusively going to heaven and purely the belief matters rather than the actions and the responsibility does not belong to the follower obeying a command because:
- other systems of reasoning, unfettered conscience, morality, standards, truths, etc. are precluded.
- which occur within the very step of ‘harvesting the souls’ and taking the oath.
Note that there is another system known to man with the fundamentals of elimination, regardless of the truth, with (vicarious) liability or moral responsibility mainly taken by the head of the system, rather than the doer—namely, the army. Note the institutionalization of such systems by war, whether by an Emperor (Constantine) or a Prophet.
Note the perspective from the vantage point of such systems – having made an absolute, sweeping, total and exclusive claim (which is mandatory and must obeyed or implemented like a law) – is simple, immediate and a no-brainer – that any and every other system must be eliminated. This is a straightforward consequence of including the exclusivist & totalitarian, which the ‘liberals’ do not realise and make the fatal error of including such systems. This is in addition to ‘secularism’, essentially a Christian dispensation, where the totalitarian and exclusivist system does not separate itself from the democratic state and uses the democratic apparatus.
While such systems referred to above have other principles and practices, they need to be recovered from the stranglehold of the fundamentals discussed earlier. In the course of this it would do well to support those followers of the systems who strive to interrogate their core beliefs, or systems and seek to change or reform.
Before closing, note the nature of this study – that it is based on the principles, the fundamentals as they occur in the systems themselves and their implications, rather than a reconstruction based on events, historical facts and evidence, the reverse process.
The principles are the false claim of owning the exclusive truth and making it mandatory to implement and obey, a law. The other principles are that of inclusion and exclusion, where one cannot include the exclusivist and totalitarian or nihilist, or that of using a freedom to eventually destroy the freedom itself.
Then, the principle of separation, where a totalitarian and exclusivist system cannot be separated from a pluralist system, unless its fundamentals are repudiated and rejected.
Secularism is the Christian al-taqiyya, which is the reason the west cannot effectively give an ideological response to (radical) Islam, the fundamentals being the same. This analysis informs the discussion on policy and geostrategic, which is beyond the scope of the current article.
The World of Fatwas, Arun Shourie
Being Different, Rajiv Malhotra