A misplaced criticism.

Critiques are fun to read,they give you insight into the matters and shows you the less seen side of the matters, they explore what might have been missed by your less analytical/knowledgeable mind. Similar kind of critiques I came across to read at three different places First, in the famous Gujarati magazine 'Safari', Second in the autobiography of now dejected/rejected L.K.Advani, Third in the book titled 'India after Gandhi' by eminent historian Ramchandra Guha. All pointed to the same story and rendered same conclusions namely the notorious incident when in the year 1951 Somnath Temple was reconstructed and was inaugurated by then the president of India Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru protested the move of Dr. Rajendra Prasad to inaugurate the Somnath Temple because he believed that by doing that Dr. Rajendra Prasad was violating the policy of secularism of the state by actively participating into the religious activity of the people as an incumbent of the presidency. And here comes the whole universe of criticism on Nehru for his so called allergy-towards-hinduism gesture. Dr. Rajendra Prasad when protested by Nehru replied that he was not becoming pro-hindu and he would have also attended the inauguration of a mosque or a Gurudwara or a synagogue if invited. It was a master stroke from Dr.Prasad if we consider the tone of critiques. Nehru believed that President should not attend any religious ceremony officially in contrast Dr.Prashad believed that the President should attend every religious ceremony. Our above mentioned critics speak in the favor of Dr.Prasad and severely criticizes Nehru for his allergy toward religions. The views of the magazine Safari and L.K. Advani can be understood because the former is covertly and the latter is overtly saffron colored. The case of Ramchandra Guha is curious he calls himself 'nehruvian' and yet he seems to have criticized him.

Majority will believe the view of Dr.Prasad to be just and a few will believe both views to be equally right. I believe the Nehruvian view to be the only correct option. Let us rephrase both of the views Dr.Prasad's view is "the government should belong to(or practice) every religion." and the Nehru's "The governmentn should belong to(or practice) no religion." both are equally good if life is perfect. But if we consider the rightness of any view on the basis of the consequences it effects I favor Nehruvian view. If the ministers have the right to participate in any religious ceremony they will inevitably tend to favor their own religions, not to mention its the direct connection with vote bank politics. And if you happen to live in Gujarat you can't fail to notice the trend. I attended, when I was in highschool, a congregation at a temple at my home town and the invitee was the CM, Narendra Modi. And there is a rule of thumb that you can't glorify a religion on its own merit, you have to do it by belittling the other religions and that religion too must not be the geographically farther one because it doesn't give you any political mileage. What a waste of time would it be if you compare hindusm with Confucianism practiced in China. So the favorite option was the Islam he maligned that religion obliquely. On the other hand imagine if any minister is not allowed to participate in any religious ceremony or something like that, no religious mud-slinging and no provocation take place. And this kind of approach is particularly necessary in the pluralistic society as ours. Religion must must be considered as one's private affairs and the state has nothing to do with it at all. If one wants to go to Mecca-Medina it strictly is the kind of foreign tourism and the facilities provided should be on a par with any normal traveling. The plethora of problems start when state recognizes the religions as something non-private like schooling and employment. In the Nehruvian view people will eventually have to accept that their feelings are confined within their neural networks and the outside world bears no concern for it. We are going on the exact opposite trend people believe that their feelings are universal and as believable as E=mc^2 and how can the other people not feel the same? And here starts everything from religious bigotry to multiform civil code. So the big trouble is multi-religious government and the first step towards the solution is to get the government ordained in total atheism.



"I bless the the reconstruction of Somnath temple but the fund for the reconstruction must be raised from the community only not from the state"
- The immortal wisdom from the Mahatma Gandhi(recalling from memory not ad verbatim)