Ramananda Sengupta is one hundred percent correct. The articles dealing with minority rights and protection should be deleted from the Constitution and other laws. These should be replaced by human rights provisions. No subsidy for any religious activity, nor state take over or administration of temples and other places of worship. All temples and religious places of worship should be got registered as Trusts and these should be under surveillance only to the extent that the public funds are not misused by the Trusts. Prayers on public roads causing inconvenience to the public should be banned, offenders to be visited with severe penalties.
RE:Secularism
by vinamra on Aug 28, 2005 04:42 PM Permalink
Revati also embracing the corpse of Rama, entered the blazing pile, which was cool to her, happy in contact with her lord. Hearing these events, Ugrasena and Anakadundubhi, with Devaki and Rohini, committed themselves to the flames."
The abundant observations by ancient travellers testifies to the ubiquity of the practice and the ruthless rigour with which it was enforced. Alexander the Great and the Greeks observed Sati in Punjab [ Onescrites in Strabo xv.i.ch 30 ] [ Barth 59 ]. The Greek Diodorus Siculus who lived in the 1st century BC, mentioned the practice of sati in his account of the Punjab in the 4th century BC [ EB 11:421 ]. Indigenous historical evidence substantiates this, for
` The earliest recorded historical instance of sati is that of the wife of the Hindu general Keteus, who died in 316 B.C. while fighting against Antigonos. Both his wives were eager to perform sati, but as the elder one was with child, only the younger one alone was allowed to carry out her wish.' -- [Sheth 104]
There are many historical sources through ancient travellers which shows the existence of Sati System in the ancient india.
RE:Secularism
by vinamra on Aug 28, 2005 04:43 PM Permalink
I would also like to point out that Mahavira and Buddha was against this system 2500yrs back as mentioned in Jain books. This is correct also that both the religious sect never done anything to stop it.
RE:Secularism
by jugsingh on Aug 27, 2005 12:49 PM Permalink
by that logic there should be no crowd at fairs and festivals and govt. have no business to regulate religious crowds.being religious is not being unsecular.the word was always applicable to state ,not individuals.what suits us is a different matter.jug
RE:Secularism
by Yashendra on Aug 27, 2005 03:43 PM Permalink
Sati has nothing to do with Indian civilization which we loosely refer to as Hinduism. When Muslim invaders attacked India and started raping our women, some brave women preferred to burn themselves in pyre. As the widows, left unguarded, were vulnearbale to attacks of the Muslims, they started jumping into the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gradually, some ignorant people started forcing even the un-willing women. It was a horrble thing.
Does anyone has the guts to quote anything for ancient Indian scriptures which supports Sati ? In fact Sati is a term associated with "Sat" or truth. The women who who follow the righteous path are known as Sati. And the male counterparts r knows as Satpurush.
English-educated journalists or followers of pervert Commuinists have NO knowledge about India and its Super science of life. Its a matter of Shame !
RE:Secularism
by vinamra on Aug 28, 2005 04:40 PM Permalink
SATI is a very old custom
Rig Veda X.18.7 : " Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned." -- [ Rig Veda X.18.7 ]
Vishnu Smirti.XXV.14 : "If a woman's husband dies, let her lead a life of chastity, or else mount his pyre"
Brahma Purana.80.75 : " It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself after her husband ",
Brahma Purana.80.76, 80.77 : " She [ the sati ] lives with her husband in heaven for as many years as there are pores in the human body, ie. for 35 million years. "
Several of Krishna's wives performed sati upon his death, including Rukmini, Rohini, Devaki, Bhadraa and Madura [ Mah.Bhar. Mausalaparvan 7.18 ]
Madri, second wife of Pandu, considered an incarnation of the goddess Dhriti, performed sati [ Mah.Bhar. Adiparvan 95.65 ]
Vishnu Purana.V.38 : " The 8 queens of Krishna, who have been named, with Rukmini at their head, embraced the body of Hari, and entered the funeral fire.
I take exception to Mr. Sengupta's comment " But I cannot accept ....Or that Sati is a good thing". Talking of Sati and Burkha in the same breath as if Sati is supported equally today ! A columnist of that stature making a blanket statement that implies Hindus support Sati in this day and age !! I am 48 years old , have lived in South India for 25 years, have met many Hindus urban, rural, modern, traditional and orthodox (yes, even very orthodox brahmins!) all my life and I have never, ever come across anyone who supports Sati. In fact, it is abhorred by the majority. From our parents accounts, it was abhorred or not supported since the beginning of the 20th century. The instances I have read of Sati now are in very few remote areas of Rajasthan. Please practice responsible journalism before you paint a picture that maligns a whole community. There is a tendency among quite a few Indian journalists to condemn Hindu and Indian cultures by painting an incorrect picture of the society as in this case. Whenever I read such articles, the motive of the journalists seems to be to show that they are superior by showing the rest of the society to be worse than what it really is!
RE:Who supports Sati now, pray tell me !!!
by Thomas Sarasam on Aug 27, 2005 03:50 PM Permalink
yea, it isnt supported, but one cant deny that it never happens, my inner circle of friends consists of muslim girls and hindus, and they are not supportive of this and to be true they are comfortable in Jeans and Ts than in burquas I think Mr Sengupta was just giving an example... God bless you thomas
RE:Who supports Sati now, pray tell me !!!
by bhupi on Aug 27, 2005 08:36 PM Permalink
The columnist is using the argument just by using the issues of sati and brahmins.There is nothing wrong with assuming that brahmins were considered superiors.It is because in earlier times they wre tasked with preservation of the society,its moral base etc.In fact the very word brahmin neans "an enlightened person".It is because of the inherent weakness of the system which exists in any system the brahmin became synonymous with a particular person and its use became hereditary.In must accept the fact that brahmins have done a wonerful job for the society-they were the teachers,knowledge custodians etc.The pracice of sati came into existance because of the paculiar circumstances which existed at that time.It may appear cruel now but it was the means adopted to save the honour.To justify this practice now is wrong.Yes sati is worshopped even now because they laid their life at that time to safeguard the honour.Do not we honour our heros?Those who sacrifice for the sake of the society are the honoured lot.But to indulge in this practice today is not acceptable.I have travelled almost through out the country but I am yet to come across any one even a hindu by faith who subscribe
RE:Who supports Sati now, pray tell me !!!
by Democrazy on Aug 29, 2005 12:37 PM Permalink
Mr Musharraf, do not hoodwink everyone. Bandra west is famous. The traffic is not allowed to ply outside the station every friday afternoon. Why? Are yall special people? Or is everybody watching Osama tapes inside and that needs pin drop silence. What about the places like Mahim, Nagpada, Mumbai Central, JJ? Hoo boy! I can go on like this.
And Mr Prasad, well you are right. But hold on. I firmly believe in live and let live. So you want to pray, pray, but in some confines and no loudspeakers. ITs navratri.., you want to dance? Dance. But no music after 10 pm. Bottomline:do anything you want, but dont disturb or trouble others.
RE:Who supports Sati now, pray tell me !!!
by partha biswas on Aug 27, 2005 12:05 PM Permalink
Hey you live in South India,I have NO idea which caste you belong to,but dont you READ newspapers, listen to News,or know anything of History?Sati HAS been a HIGHLY idolised matter in Hindu heartland, especially Rajastan and MP,where even as of TODAY the government is trying to eulogise the same.That is what Mr.Sengupta is trying to mention.Are you aware that SATI temples EXIST,where believers GO and Pray?Like the Burkha it exists, and THAT is what we have to change.And yes Mr.Sengupta everyone IS SECULAR as long as it doesnot interfere with HIS religion.And religion is VERY selfish.But thank the creator for LITTLE mercies.I can walk into a Church with my shoes on,though I am a Hindu,but I CANT do that in a temple,however dirty it is,nor a Gurdwara, however clean it be,and I have NO IDEA what an operative Mosque looks like from inside.What I am trying to say is unless and until we ALL have equal access to each others religious abode,in whatever attire we are in, there CANNOT be peace,be it mental,physical or spiritual.Secularism is not a FAR cry.It can be done.But do we want to be selfless? No.We can only hope for a Deluge, and new life on earth in the next Million years.
RE:Who supports Sati now, pray tell me !!!
by din on Aug 27, 2005 05:24 AM Permalink
forgive mr.Sagar mentioning SAti.It is the usual practice of secularists to juxtapose Muslim fundamentalism against Hindu fundamentalism.They will pitt Jinnah vs Savarkar,Muslim League vs Hindu mahasabha to show that they r neutral.Barring this tendency it is a great article.Sagar has courage. Din
I full agree with the writer Ramananda Dasgupta. Really there is no securalism exist. Those who says they are secular are more fanatic than the so called fanatics. N.C.Das
Here we go again. I thought this article was supposed to address the civilised ones, but where on earth are we headed? By the way, you wont find muslims praying 5 times a day on roads. Its only the friday prayers and VERY RARELY mosques are unable to accomodate. By the way you mention this is a wrong doing in your last sentence. Firstly, its the governments responsibility to allocate space for religious activities. And lastly, wrong doing is harm that diwali (NOTE THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS NOT CRACKERS) brings to environment, holi (where colors are sprayed on walls, shops - have you imagined how much it would cost an individual or the muncipality to renovate??? Think before you speak!
RE:SECULARISM
by Amol on Aug 27, 2005 02:59 PM Permalink
So Venk... you mean to say doing a festivity once a year and doing it every day 5 times is same right !!! You seem to be one of those elude intelligent class who are responsible for the problems we are facing today, its time that you keep your mouth shut, incase you have problems with festivities try to talk within community to solve them, dont use them to justify wrong doings of others.
RE:SECULARISM
by venkprasad on Aug 27, 2005 04:17 AM Permalink
"Prayers on public roads causing inconvenience to the public should be banned, offenders to be visited with severe penalties"
I think that you mean the muslim friday evening prayers here. If so, you represent a typical one eyed majority approach.
It is actually the hindu festivals that are more "public" in nature and also more inconvenient. In Delhi for instance, there is this jaagran culture where some people would play loud and jarring bhajans on loudspeakers till midnight, without giving any due respect to the sick and elderly in the neighbourhood. In Maharashtra, you don't have a choice but to involve yourself in the Ganesh Chaturti festivities as they are so loud that they would suck you in. In Bengal it is the Durga Pooja and in Gujarat the navaratri that would keep you awake all night, whether you like it or not. So should everyone taking part in these festivities be arrested?
RE:SECULARISM
by deepak on Aug 27, 2005 02:48 PM Permalink
I fully agree with mr dasguptas comments but,in a country,where unfortunately we have likes of V P Singh& others of their ilk, who are the creators of this divide & knowingly promote this, which can result in division of the country, for some votes, this country has no future. Unless our Judiciary /intelectuals/ & captains of industry get up & tell the unscruplous politicians/ bureaucrats tht enough is enough & they cannot destroy this country anymore.As you have rightly mentioned, the weaker section of society, irrespective of his religion/cast etc should be provided free education till secondary level & after that it should be based only on merit.If a economically backward student gets admission on his merit then there should be automatic arrangement where the student gets a loan or all paid scholarship to complete his / her studies. But the question is whether our politicians will ever allow this to happen ?
RE:SECULARISM
by Amol on Aug 29, 2005 05:01 PM Permalink
Musharraf,
Yes indeed we are civilised, thats why in India "sub kuch chalta hai". And its not just about praying on roads, but the loud speakers which are definitely a sound pollution (apart from the fact that I do not subscribe to the fact of what is being said on them).
If govts are not good enough for doing what they should be doing, then its people who have to take the initiative.
