The secular state emerged in modern times as a response to the religious infighting that plagued Europe for centuries and put social life on a self-destructing path. The wars that were fought then because of religion posed a threat to the emerging modern Europe, underscoring the need to keep the state and religion at a very comfortable distance.

For many devout well meaning Hindus, however, the secular state is viewed as an instrument used to undermine religious heritage and culture and deny the relevance of moral teachings to public life. While this perception has an element of truth, it does not necessarily depict the general nature or principles of state secularism.

Secular states have no state religion which means that state is officially neutral in matters of religion or cultural practice, emanating from religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious belief or practice. This is not the same thing as an atheistic state where the state officially opposes all religious beliefs and practices. There is no danger of us turning into a North Korea, Former Soviet Union or even China. A secular Nepal will allow all to practice their religion and culture to their hearts content without any obstruction of any kind.

The secular state was designed to prevent organized religion from controlling public institutions; it did not necessarily aim at undermining religiosity, or alienating religious communities. Rather, it was perceived as a multi-religious society’s best defense against the imposition of the religious values and worldview of one community on another.

Separating religion and the state is usually based on three principles: neutrality of the state, freedom to exercise religion, and public powers related to religion.

In our case, such a step will naturally arouse a lot of opposition from organized Hindu groups in Nepal and India because it implies that state funding of all religious groups will come to an end. There is also a danger of a backlash from a certain group of very powerful Indians.

After a move to state secularity, all religious sites should logically become government property. In case the Nepali people thought that Pashupati belonged to the Nepalis, they are in for a big surprise. A group of priests called Pandas who hail from South India have traditionally from the time of a certain Shankhar Acharya administered the temple and its wealth - tax free and with no audit. That the high priest at Pashupati and his team are still all Indians will probably not come as new news to many Nepalis.

To hold on to their free wealth, they and their Nepalese friends will frighten Nepalis with dire consequences such as riots and killings if Nepal does not remain "the only Hindu country". They have had a strong connection with kings - they support and promote the belief that the King of a Hindu Nepal was an avatar of God Vishnu (making them all powerful to the religious Nepalis) and in return the kings allowed them to make money at Pashupati and other temples, which by some estimates is equal to the yearly development budget of Nepal. This means we would not need aid from India, US, Europe and Japan, if we could mobilize these funds. No wonder it has been so difficult to dislodge them from Pashupati. This cozy arrangement has to come to an end in a democratic Nepal.

I will leave it to other writers to talk about the ethnic minority/majority that are affected by the Hindu state and the caste system that we carry as a major drawback to our national development.

One argument that I see bandied a lot is that since the majority of the people are Hindus, Nepal should be a Hindu country. Being an educated and practicing Hindu, I like many of us Hindus do not hold the belief that Nepal should be a Hindu state just because the majority of us are Hindus (30 to 100 percent depending on who you ask). I think a lot of moderate Hindus like me would like to have a secular democratic state where we can all practice our religion and culture regardless of what it is.

Because Sajha is a community of Nepalis, a lot of propaganda is sure to surface here.
Look out Nepal, radical Hindus and dirty politicians are putting forward devious and nationalistic arguments aimed to regain or stop loosing their power and the King and his henchmen are their natural, historic allies!

Hi frens,
Nepal is not a Hindu Kingdom anymore, But it should be a Hindu nation. Elimination of king rule is ok and justified. But forcing the nation to adopt secularism is stupidity of Nepal. Perhaps its trying to adopt the footprints of India. But this is not Nepalese pilitical leaders are supposed to do. They got to preserve Nepal as a hindu nation. And as far as development and prosperity is concerned, Secularism is not going to bring that. See the condition of India. India is busy solving internals religious issues instead of giving 100% to nation's development. Its true that we got to respect all religions. But we need to respect ourself first.

All of a sudden ,these politicians are taking decisions. They speak anything before the media and create a mess out of it. It would be better if Nepal preserves its identity as Hindu nation and try to give shape to its economic,political and social condition.

Dear freinds, please think twice, thrice and even more before pushing thousands of people ( a nation) into a new dimension.

Please give a thought to it.

Secularism: A magic bullet or Pandora's box?

Secularism is urgently needed where religious leaders dictate legislative agenda. In Nepal there was no interference of temple on the State

By Hari Bansha Dulal

Once identified as citizens of the only Hindu state in the world, we now are citizens of a secular country. There seem to exist a mixed feeling among the Nepalis regarding this abrupt change. While Hindu fundamentalists affiliated with Shiv Sena Nepal are finding it hard to bite the bullet and gearing up for a show-down, minorities across the country have greeted it with a cheer.

The word 'secularism' all of a sudden has become a hallowed and sacred word in Nepal's political parlance. It has become the most popular product for aggressive political marketing in Nepal. However, amidst the euphoria of newly gained freedom the possible ramifications of going secular from a Hindu state have not been well debated.

The mainstream media might have overlooked the need for a debate assuming secularism to be the magic bullet for the empowerment of minorities in Nepal. Nobody knows how it is going to turn out in the future. The ramification of newly gained secularism will be known down the road in years to come. It is hard to predict whether going secular is a good thing for Nepal or not at this point in time. But for now, the creation of a pluralistic democratic state is an ideal that the Nepal as a sovereign nation is striving for.

The very concept of secularism arose from an urgent need to put an end the tyranny and interference of the Church in the state affairs. It was based on the Christian theological concept that the material world is separate from the spiritual world and correspondingly the state should have sole jurisdiction over one and the Church over the other. In the case of Nepal we have never had religious control, i.e., legislations, such as in Saudi Arabia and Iran or as in Europe for the last 1,500 years.
For a society to become secular in a true sense, it is extremely important to take both religion and secularism seriously. The minute we reject the former as superstition and the latter as mask for communalism and expediency, we are heading towards a religiously divided and politically unstable nation.

Secularism is urgently needed where there is an unwarranted interference of Church on the state and where religious leaders dictate legislative agenda. In the case of Nepal there was no interference of temple on the State. In Nepal, all religious groups lived in nearly a perfect harmony. Like Ayatollah in Iran, Nepal did not have a Hindu religious leader who dictated on the lives of general public and interfered into the legislative process proclaiming himself as a messenger of god.

There are numerous examples where religion and the secular society seem to collide. Secularism in India has failed to stem the rising tide of intolerance in recent years. While Hindu volunteers demolished the controversial Babri mosque and a huge crowd of more than hundred thousand frenzied Hindu fanatics chanted slogans and danced, the Congress party which considers itself a secular party and which was in power then did nothing, but watched helplessly the constitutional rights of minorities being crushed mercilessly. A religious site of Muslims that are a minority in India was reduced to debris by the Hindu fanatics. The ugly face of political fraud in the name of secularism have become evident in numerous occasions in India: ranging from Bhagalpur massacre to Babri Masjid demolition. Indian secularism was unable to stop the murderous carnage in Gujarat.

Approximately 140 million Muslims in India are still languishing at the bottom of the heap after nearly six decades of India's existence as a secular state. The economic and social plight of the minorities (specifically Muslims) in India continues unabated. Thus, secularism, if not practiced in a real sense, guarantees neither religious right of minorities nor secures their economic advancement. In the context of Nepal, where minorities and the Hindu majority had been living in perfect harmony for centuries now, the mad rush towards secularism is neither warranted nor the need of the hour. There are more pressing social and economic issues that need an immediate attention.

The declaration of secular state may prove to be bane than boon for Nepali minorities. It may serve as a much needed inertia for the religious Hindu fanatics and may give birth to less tolerant Hindu outfit such as Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal in India. If that happens, it will make religious minorities vulnerable than ever. If secularism is for political gains rather than preserving religious harmony, securing peace, and economic prosperity of minorities, SPAM (seven party alliance plus Maoists) has played a big fraud on the nation in general and on minorities in particular. Providing a variety of silly sops to minorities is not enough to empower them.

Secularism means tolerance for all, by all. It is not just by one religious group whether it is majority or minority. Thus, secularism is an extremely beautiful idea "if practiced". If not, it is a double-edged sword that will continue to hang over the head of the minorities. The atrocities committed by majority Hindus will always be overlooked by the political parties because they may not want to displease the majority vote bank. It does not take long for a radical right wing Hindu outfit to grow and spread its tentacles in the name of religion like it did in India and physically and financially harm minorities. If that happens, communal and religious strife may become more prevalent than it used to be when Nepal was a sole Hindu state in the world.

The minorities will be worse off than they were in a Hindu state. Some of us may not accept that we live in a very controlled society. However, the bitter truth is that we inhabit in an extremely controlled society, strings of which are in alien hands and it is they who decide our political, socio-economic and to some extent religious actions. Thus importing a model that worked in foreign shores to please certain individual or the nation without examining the religious landscape of our own society may turn out to be counter productive over the long run.

Just declaring a state secular does not mean anything when it comes to securing religious and human rights, and economic advancement of minorities. One of the most reliable routes to peace and harmony is for us to share our sacred experiences without getting snarled in religious divisions. Secularism will only succeed in Nepal if Nepalese people understood secularism to mean inter-religious understanding and an equality of citizenship rights.

For a society to become secular in a true sense, it is extremely important to take both religion and secularism seriously. The minute we reject the former as superstition and the latter as mask for communalism and expediency, we are heading towards a religiously divided and politically unstable nation.

The author is doctoral candidate of Environmental Science and Public Policy at George Mason University, Virginia. Please send your comments to feedback@mos.com.np or hbdulal@gmail.com

Without secularism there will be no developement of the ethnic people. We would rather take chance then sit in the corner and pretend that the umbrella of Hindu nation over our head is going to keep us from all trouble.

Nepal being a secular state or Hindu Kingdom has nothing to do with the advancement of indiginious people. Neither it has anything to do with the advancement of so called upper caste Hindu people.
There isn't any umbrella in this world that's going to save you from any kind of trouble. If there's anything that saves you from trouble, then it is you, only you.

hindu land.

SECULAR

Defending Secularism in Nepal



By Uday Bajracharya


While the recent declaration of Nepal as a secular state has been widely welcomed by various political, ethnic and religious communities, India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its sister organisations, the ‘Sangh Parivar’ have been reported to be unhappy about it. Hindu activists, mainly under the leadership of Bharat Keshar Simha’s World Hindu Federation (WHF) have protested against the move in Birgunj and certain other parts of Nepal. The Indian chapter of WHF has staged similar protests in some parts of India. MPs in Nepal have been demanding action against the Hindu fundamentalists and the Home Minister has promised strong action against anti-secular activities. The Prime Minister has taken up the matter with the King, alleging involvement of royalists in orchestrating anarchy in various parts of the country. A four member political delegation from Nepal has met the BJP leadership in Delhi.

In order to ensure peaceful transition to secularism and to defend it from regressive forces uniting under the banner of Hinduism, it is important to understand more about Hindu fundamentalist forces in Nepal and their relationship with such forces in India.

WHF has close ties with BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) of India. For instance, WHF has Ashok Singhal of VHP as one of its patrons and a BJP MP Yogi Adityanath leads the Indian chapter of WHF. Although WHF was formed 25 years ago and has its chapters in several countries, its main strength comes from its association with the Sangh Parivar of India, which has the largest non-communist organisation in the world.

There has been a phenomenal rise of Hindu nationalism in India during the past few decades. Many Hindus in India have strong reasons to be angry about their own secularism. A quick look at the history of India shows that the Muslim invasion of India had led to widespread destruction of temples and forcible conversion of people to Islam. Those who didn’t agree to conversion had to flee their land or be punished harshly.

Then came the British rule and the partition of 1947. A predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan (including what is now Bangladesh) was created on the insistence of the Muslims despite opposition from Gandhi and his secular Indian National Congress. The process involved large-scale violence resulting in the deaths of up to a million people, according to some estimates. It also involved the largest migration of population in human history. Millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Sindhis fled to India from what is now Pakistan, so did millions of Muslims the other way. Similarly millions of Hindus fled their homes in East Bengal (later East Pakistan, now Bangladesh) to West Bengal and a far lesser number of Muslims fled the other way. People went through suffering on an unprecedented scale in the form of loss of life and property, missing relatives, massive displacement and so on. The victims of partition include India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and leader of the opposition L.K.Advani of BJP (both born in what is now Pakistan) and Pakistan’s President Musarraf (born in Delhi).

When the dust of partition finally settled down, Hindus in India realised that while most Hindus and Sikhs had left Pakistan, a large number of Muslims had remained in India (India currently has almost as many Muslims as the whole population of Pakistan!). A democratic and secular India protected this “minority” Muslim population in various ways, while Pakistan became an Islamic republic (later Bangladesh too). Quite understandably, Hindus in India felt cheated. As a result, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in 1948 by a Hindu fundamentalist for “appeasing” the Muslims. India and Pakistan have fought several wars and countless Hindu-Muslim riots have occurred in India since 1947.

This resulted in the rise of Hindu nationalism in India. The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist outfit, which had been operating clandestinely, founded a political wing called Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS). Jana Sangh used to be active mostly in Delhi where most Hindus and Sikhs had migrated from Pakistan and they used to hold just a handful of seats in the parliament for many years.

However in the following decades, the transformation of RSS and Jana Sangh was phenomenal. BJP, its name changed from BJS in 1980, not only started ruling in some states, but also succeeded in coming to power in the central government in 1996 until the present Congress government replaced them in 2004. Similarly, RSS expanded its “Sangh Parivar” to various organisations such as VHP, Bajrang Dal (Youth wing of VHP), Durga Vahini (Female arm of Bajrang Dal), etc.

VHP was formed as the religious wing of RSS, specifically for handling the Ayodhya issue (Ram Janambhumi/Babri Masjid) and to spread “Hindutva” in the world. Proclamation of a Hindu Rastra, denying Kashmir special status, denying Muslims any special rights and forcing them to accept Hinduism (or sending them where they belong, i.e. Pakistan) are among the objectives of VHP. RSS/VHP were responsible for the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 and are suspected of the Gujarat riots of 2002. RSS has been banned several times in India.

VHP is spread all over the world. They have a special interest in Nepal because it was the only Hindu Kingdom in the world. They look at the King of Nepal as the Hindu Samrat (Emperor). One may understand their interest in maintaining Nepal a Hindu state, but one can’t understand why they should support a monarchy in Nepal, the decision of which should be left to the people of Nepal.

BJP/VHP has to remember that they are against secularism in India because of the wrongs done by Muslim invaders, the unfair deal that they got during the partition of 1947 and the “appeasement” of Muslims by secular India. They are basically rising up against past injustices done to them. However, if they oppose secularism in Nepal, they would be supporting the injustice done to the people of Nepal. It was King Prithvi Narayan Shah and his successors who forcibly converted the people that they conquered into Hinduism. These people had been following various forms of Buddhism, Animism and other local religions. Much later, when there was no more land to be conquered, the modern kings started practicing state nationalism by using one religion (Hinduism) and one language (Nepali) to rule over the people of Nepal, thus suppressing its immense ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural diversity.

BJP/VHP are justifiably angry at forced conversion of Hindus by Muslims in the past, but in Nepal, it had been a case of forced conversion by the Hindus. Moreover, BJP/VHP believes in Hindutva, according to which Buddhists along with Sikhs and Jains are to be treated as Hindus. In the case of Nepal, it is mainly the Buddhists that have been asking for secularism. Buddhism and Hinduism have co-existed extremely well in Nepal for centuries. Secularism only means freedom from dominance of one religion by another.

On the other hand, the secularists in Nepal have to understand that many Hindus in India are angry with Muslims, and justifiably so. The mainly Buddhist secularists in Nepal must remember that Buddhism is close to Hinduism, not Islam. Buddha is considered one of Vishnu’s incarnations. Even the Hindu fundamentalists consider Buddhism as part of Hindutva. Buddhists mustn’t join hands with Muslims against the Hindus even if they feel wronged by the Hindus. If they did, it will be like Subhas Chandra Bose joining hands with Hitler’s Germany against the British. It was however Gandhi, not Bose, who supported the British and got independence for India after the war.

In conclusion, the people of Nepal have to understand that the path to secularism is not going to be easy. Certain sections of the community that had been benefiting from Nepal being a Hindu state may well resist the change. The secularists mustn’t see the recent event as a ‘victory’ over Hinduism because secularism is not anti-Hinduism. They must avoid celebrating it because this may annoy the Hindus, which may push them into the camp of the fundamentalists and the regressive forces that may try to fish in the troubled waters. Should this happen, the gains of the recent people’s movement may once again be lost.



Posted on: 2006-05-29 08:15:43 (Server Time)

Email this page Have your say (12) C

Uday B is related to another Bajracharya who writes from AP. Both bajracharyas are born fags. I know of it personally.

hey memyselfandnepal... it takes one to know each other.

Mr Uday Bajracharya wrote :

Quoting article: “The mainly Buddhist secularists in Nepal must remember that Buddhism is close to Hinduism, not Islam. Buddha is considered one of Vishnu’s incarnations. Even the Hindu fundamentalists consider Buddhism as part of Hindutva. Buddhists mustn’t join hands with Muslims against the Hindus even if they feel wronged by the Hindus. “

Like to clarify that Hinduism and Buddhism are not the same or even close to each other no matter if Hindus think so or not. Buddhism does not consider Buddha as Vishnu’s incarnation, if not there would not be Buddhism. Just by writing the above in the article Mr Bajracharya has not only insulting Buddhism but also is not actually defending secularism in Nepal!!! Mr Bajracharya should 1st understand the word secular or secularism before making these statements. He does not to see religious violence or division in Nepal, that’s very good but suggest or try to brainwash the readers on which side to take or group up when there is religion violence or one religion has wrong the rest in the past. This is not ethical but also of very bad taste. He is treating the people of Nepal of being stupid, they are Hindus, Buddhist, Muslims, Christians, Kirat, Bonpo and many other religions but they all know and want religious harmony with a far better understanding of what secular state means for the future of Nepal and its people!!!

What will be the new face of Nepal and Nepalese communities aborad -with now delivered right of nationality to childrens through mothers.
Religio-cultural-social-evolution..

KaleKrishna... if you were a women then you son would be GoreKrishna!!!

Frens don't try to cerate a useless mess of Hinduism and Buddhism.
Both religions are almost alike. Threat is not there from any of these religions to other.
Big Question: Is nepal going to control the problems that will arise out of secularism as it happens in india.

I have a ppt(power point presentaion), that shows the Questions coming out of secularism in india.
If any one of you wants to go through it, then do send me a mail at bkkarki@indiatimes.com.

does it really matter how a country is labled as, be it a hindu kingdom or a secular nation.

Why Not?

Obsolutely.... Name and Label makes serious big different.

like political name - Democratic secular vs Non-Democratic Hindu kingdom

like person name - Dick head vs sweety boy.

like Goods made name - made in japan vs made in Nepal.

like product barnd name - Toyota vs Rajdoot.

Is not it? What do you think?

TAGGING MAKES DIFFERENCE WHEN U ARE WELL OFF.this is simple statement.i hope it has answered to your all questions.

What Mr. bajracharya expressed about Buddhism being part of Hinduism is a typical opinion of many people. Many of our generation are more open about new ideas. But they are taught to think like that. This has been used as one of the tool to dominate others.

What I like about Secular State is it puts the respponsibility squarely to the people. Everybody is equal and nothing is for granted. Like democracy, your faith needs nurturing. You have to work for it. And those who have faith will prevail.

Guys be proud that we are HINDUS!

We are the most tolerant religion on this mother earth!

We are the most SECULAR religion on this mother earth!

SO PLEASE, WHY THIS DRAMA ABOUT NEPAL BEING SECULAR?????????
Give me a break!

Whoever thought ths IDEA is trying something sinister for our peaceful NEPAL!

Guys even the MUSLIMS in NEPAL do not want NEPAL TO BE SECULAR!!!!! LET US SALUTE THE MUSLIMS FOR THIS!!!!

It is definitely a ploy of prachanda (the killer of 14000+ people) and communists of Nepal, China & India!!!!!!!!! Their plan is to destroy NEPAL!!!!!!!

Let us wake up and protest about this! AND PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR ENERGY BY WRITING STUPID STATEMENTS! SHOW IT TO OUTSIDERS THAT WE ARE DECENT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

Our Nepal's origin has been threatened and destroyed by GP and all other 205 HIJRAS in so called democracy!

Guess what HINDUS CAN Never be Communists!!!!!! ONLY NON-HINDUS ARE COMMUNISTS, mark my words!!!!!!

We need intelligent people who are businessmen, engnieers, doctors, lawyers, graduates etc to join the politics! We do not need anymore people of old breed!

DO NOT SLAP HINDUS BY TALKING ABOUT SECULARISM!!!!!! We are the most SECULAR & TOLERANT religion and we are proud of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not think so HINDU Religion is the most democratic or secular or Liberal religion or Tolerant religion.

Hindu religion has:

(1) Hindu social in-equality or un-democratic religion - kami, damai, dum, sarki, darji etc..

(2) Hindu un-tolerant religion - Christian, Muslim and other religion people can not go inside temple and pry to Hindu gods and goddess. Good example in pashupati temple.

(3) Hindu conservative extreme fundamentalist religion – priest race is superior than other people. It is written in Hindu book “Manu Smirti”.

(4) Cruelty of Hindu religion: Animals are sacrificed in temple in the name of the gods and goddess.

You are wrong ….

bhana payo bhandi ma everything and anything bhandini hindu dhrama ko bare ma sathi .tapai lie sarhi tha rahecha.la la la