January 26, 2007
Greetings and salutationsNews
In India an interesting debate has broken out over what exactly is secular and what is religious. In particular, can the government promote yoga?
At issue is a measure by the Hindu nationalist-led government of the state of Madhya Pradesh, in central India, that required public school students to practice the sun salutation and recite certain chants in Sanskrit during a statewide function on Thursday. The state government, controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., said that it complied with a central government policy to encourage yoga in schools [Link]
The Chief Minister (pictured right) defended this as part of a broader a health initiative:
‘The government was committed to creating awareness about yoga, which helps to keep the body and mind in good health,’ …The yoga policy envisages constitution of a council for practising yoga in the state, provision of facilities required for setting up yoga centres, selection and appointment of yoga teachers. [Link]
However, minority groups did not see this as innocuous:
The “Suryanamaskar” programme came under attack from minority communities and opposition parties who had dubbed it as “an effort to saffronise education.” The ruling BJP was trying to “incite religious passion under the garb of yoga” among school children, a spokesman of the Catholic Church of Madhya Pradesh said. [Link]
In particular, they took issue with the use of Hindu mantras:
Muslim and Christian groups in the state took issue not so much with the yoga exercise, but with the chants, which they said were essentially Hindu and in worship of the sun. They argued in court on Wednesday that it violated the Indian constitutional provision to separate religion and state. [Link]
 |
|
What time is it? It’s yoga time! |
On Wednesday, the court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that “neither the chants nor the sun salutation could be forced on students. [Link]” The MP government has responded by saying that the whole event was voluntary in the first place, but even this remains problematic as it would create a major public event from which non-Hindus would be discouraged from attending.
We’ve blogged before about how Christians in the US are concerned about Yoga, but this story reminds me more about the “War over Christmas” than anything else. It feels like the kinds of debates we have in the US about the suitability of Christmas carols for public events, or for Christmas trees for public spaces. Even in India, certain aspects of Yoga occupy a space between public and parochial.
While I do believe that Yoga can promote health, I think that the impact of doing a quick Surya Namaskar is pretty miniscule. This means that the state is either being transparently cynical, or various ministers believe in the almost mystical powers of yoga to produce health over and above the component physical movements. If it’s the latter, perhaps the opponents of this program ought to respond with some laughing yoga instead 
.
ennis on January 26, 2007 12:58 PM in News, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
This seems exactly analogous to the Pledge of Allegiance controversy here. I don't see the pledge as being all that big a deal, since it only refers to "God," and not "One nation under Jesus and/or the Pope."
Speedy
Christian missionaries persecuting Hindus, No temples in Saudi Arabia, Hajj airfare subsidy, Bin Laden, Kashmiri Pandits, Dhimmitude, Islamo-fascism, Pope hates Hindus, Clash of civilizations, Pakistan.
I don't see the pledge as being all that big a deal, since it only refers to "God," and not "One nation under Jesus and/or the Pope."
Maybe some of us dont believe in a freaking God.
I see Ennis is back to his Hindu hating posts.
Phew, it's good to have all of that all out of the way. Maybe I should just include that in my post. Then again, with all of that said, whatever will people have to comment on?
I think options are fine, but when the options are exercised outside the normal school hours. It is fine, like Sunday school -- only this would be freakishly early morning school.
True dat. I keep waiting for my saffron balls to come in.
It's the state-sponsored aspect of this that's troubling. As an atheist born into a Hindu family, it's kinda crazy how many compulsory Catholic school morning assemblies I have been in, reciting "Our father in heaven...", but that's the trade-off you make for a good education in India.
The tradition is doing well w/out politicians' help. I wish they'd butt out.
"It's the state-sponsored aspect of this that's troubling. As an atheist born into a Hindu family, it's kinda crazy how many compulsory Catholic school morning assemblies I have been in, reciting "Our father in heaven...", but that's the trade-off you make for a good education in India."
but don't "minority-run" schools in india receive partial government funding, making their activities "state-sponsored" to a certain extent?
why not just have options: yoga plus mantras for those who are ok with it and yoga minus mantras for others or no yoga at all for those who can't stand either?
The Ashtanga version is harder, and involves jumping back, but I don't think that's what they're doing. You also have to do a fair number to get something from it.
I've never seen the mantras done myself - what goes on?
But we all have to believe, as it were, in the sun. Whether we all have to worship it is another matter, and then whether Surya Pranam is worship or greeting is a third matter. Whichever it is, it's a good reason to wake up, but I'm not so sure the State should act as an alarm clock.
I've never studied yoga, but one would assume that it's possible to separate the physical activity from the chanting. After all, isn't that what they do in all the urban yoga studios across the United States? It may not be yoga in its purest form, but it will still promote physical activity without bringing up church/state issues.
Weve blogged before about how Christians in the US are concerned about Yoga, but this story reminds me more about the War over Christmas than anything else.
No, I think it's much more like the controversy over prayer in public schools in the United States, i.e. it unnecessarily brings religious elements into a place or institution that doesn't need it, and it does so as a result of government regulation/endorsement.
The fact that Yoga originates in Hindu traditions, and that its basic principles all stem from Hinduism is not trivial, IMO. It is the equivalent of getting a high school choir voice-trained by having them to Benedictine chants.
If the government's primary intention is to encourage yoga as a form of exercise for the mind and body, why not eliminate the mantra-chanting aspect of it, and call it calisthenics instead of yoga? When discussing state involvement in religion, labels matter, and this should be especially true in a country that actually calls itself a secular republic.
you can dissociate the poses from the chants if you want to, but relabelling the exact same poses calisthenics or "praise moves" is disingenous and dishonest, in my opinion. the poses themselves are rooted in a certain philosophy and were named so for a reason. you'd still have to call it yoga, even minus the religious mantras. anyone who has a problem with it (and rightly so from their own religious point of view) should just not do it at all, and shouldn't be required to do it. that would be the more intellectually honest thing to do. it's the reason why india had a problem with bikram of bikram yoga fame. he basically tried to claim moves that had existed for ages as his own, under his own name. the same way people try to patent indigenous medicines and methods and devalue their originality (which has already happened with yoga).
Happy Desi Republic Day y'all! I'm not so sure we can find exact parallels between events and practices across two nations.
but relabelling the exact same poses calisthenics or "praise moves" is disingenous and dishonest, in my opinion
It is disingenuous. But if the point is to bring yoga to school students, then at least this disingenuous labeling gets you around the legal hurdle.
What is at issue here is whether the state should be sanctioning/encouraging yoga at all. I think it should not. There are plenty of non-public arenas where young people can be taught such things without state involvement. The wonder is this has not come up sooner. I mean, when I was kid visiting India (oh decades ago), I distinctly remember yoga being shown on Doordarshan, i.e. state-controlled television. That strikes me as particularly objectionable, but nobody challenged it back then.
I don't see how this is comparable to the "War on Christmas" at all. This is school children being asked to comply with a very specific component of a religious ritual as part of their daily schooling. It's very different than adults being greeted with a quick "Happy Holidays" by employees of a commercial entity.
The "pledge of allegiance" analogy is better, but I still think this is more clear cut. "Under God" is a phrase that covers basically every religious tradition on the planet, with only atheists really being excluded. Now even that is a problem, since atheists have freedom of religion rights as well, but it's a far cry from this kind of specific push of a religious ritual. This is comparable to forcing kids to say the Lord's Prayer at the start of every school day.
I grew up in the Bible Belt and I can tell you it SUCKED to be one of the few religious minorities in a situation where the school went out of its way to promote Christianity. I don't think anyone else should have to go through that.
Ennis, re: mantra,
If nobody posts on the subject by eve., I will try to get detailed answer from pitashree.
"What is at issue here is whether the state should be sanctioning/encouraging yoga at all. I think it should not. There are plenty of non-public arenas where young people can be taught such things without state involvement. The wonder is this has not come up sooner. I mean, when I was kid visiting India (oh decades ago), I distinctly remember yoga being shown on Doordarshan, i.e. state-controlled television. That strikes me as particularly objectionable, but nobody challenged it back then."
i don't disagree with your second paragraph. however, as the example of religious minority-run schools receiving government funding shows, where are you going to draw the line? it's not ok for yoga in govt.-funded govt. schools but ok for other compulsory religious practices in govt.-funded minority schools whose students come from more than one religion? i agree with amrita. india and the u.s. may both be secular nations and may both champion separation of "church and state" but the way in which it is practiced is very different and i think its meaning changes across cultures.
IF the central govt ministry of health has such a policy, then i doubt they meant it to promote hindutva in any way. i think it might have been just that they were trying to promote health awareness in public schools and might have mentioned yoga as a means to of acheving this - similar to us surgeon general promoting health awareness (kind of)
the MP BJP has clearly interpreted this for their own interests and hence the whole sun salutation thingy :-(
I just saw this clip...haha!!! I love his twinkle fingers and jazz hands combo. Love. It. ;)
BTW, I'm all for the "War on Christmas" personally. I didn't mean that as an excuse for the government yoga program ...
I distinctly remember yoga being shown on Doordarshan, i.e. state-controlled television. That strikes me as particularly objectionable, but nobody challenged it back then.
In India, religious practice is not taken as seriously as it is in the US. All religions are well represented on state controlled tv, religious symbols adorn state offices (pics of Lakshmi or Guru Nanak or Ganpati or Mecca in govt banks, depending on the location.) etc. India does not have separation from church and state as is mistakenly believed. The state takes an active part in religion - including in most cases directly controlling the revenues generated by temples. [DD even had tv serials on Ramayana, Mahabharata, the Bible etc. Of course, Muslims did not have a tv serial since the display of imagery of the prophets etc are banned, else there would've been serials on Islam too.]
I went to India in Dec 2006 and saw tons of Xmas related decorations in shops/malls etc. To an outsider it may seem strange to see overtly religious symbols, especially since Christians are such a small %age in terms of population. But that's how it goes in India. Folks are rather comfortable with it. i.e they don't think about it too much. :-)
India and the US engage two different models of secularity. In India, the state is supposed to maintain a similar level of sponsorship for all religions, as opposed to the American model, where the state is supposed to separate entirely from religious belief and practice. The one is inclusive and the other suppressive, and I think the first is a more enriching approach.
india and the u.s. may both be secular nations and may both champion separation of "church and state" but the way in which it is practiced is very different and i think its meaning changes across cultures.
I agree that the analogies are imperfect at best. But there is a significant distinction between religious freedom in the US and in India.
My understanding is that freedom religion is one of the fundamental rights in the Indian constitution, but that the right is not spelled out specifically. (I think the preamble specifies "secular" as well, so that could be another enunciation of religious freedom).
In the US, the First Amendment provides for religious freedom in two ways: through the Free Exercise clause and through the Establishment clause (i.e. Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion). This has been construed to prevent endorsement of religion by states, for example by involvement in religious activities. There is no equivalent provision in the Indian constitution. I assume that means the government is free to endorse religious practices, as long as it endorses all of them equally.
That is, if the Indian government will subsidize Haj travel, then it must also subsidize travel by Hindus to Varanasi (or wherever). But there's nothing to per se prevent the state from putting religion in a public place. So you can have yoga on TV, Parliament's opening session can feature coconuts broken to ward away evil, etc.
hema,
or the State Assembly building in Bangalore (Vidhana Soudha) to display the proud words: "Government Work is God's work" :-)
I think secularism has a very different context in the US vs India, as far as its impact on the State's behavior. Indian secularism is fairness through the inclusion of all (enfranchised) religions while in the US, it's fairness through the exclusion of any specific religion (Justice Moore notwithstanding).
To Whose God is it anyways' point, I'm not sure if minority-run schools are necessarily state funded, although they may have tax exempt status.
btw, the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added in the preamble later.
There was a lot of debate in the constituent assembly about the inclusion of the word "god" in the preamble. One member (Kamath) even wanted the word "goddess" since god was masculine. :-)
My fault. It was not Kamath. It was Rohini Choudhary. The proceedings are here.
==
We should remember that when we started our political movement, we started it with the singing of Bande Mataram. What does Bande Mataram mean? It means an invocation to a Goodess. It means belief in a Goodess. Sir, we who belong to the Sakthi cult, protest against invoking the name of God alone, completely ignoring the Goodess. That is my submission. If we bring in the name of God at all, we should bring in the name of the Goddess also. As I said, this amendment should not have been brought. But as it has been brought, this is my point of view.
==
:-)
A bit of a threadjack, but Quizman, seeing as you have a Bangalore reference, were you on the Bangalore quizzing circuit (Questionable Characters, BUDEL etc)? Good times...
I think secularism has a very different context in the US vs India, as far as its impact on the State's behavior. Indian secularism is fairness through the inclusion of all (enfranchised) religions while in the US, it's fairness through the exclusion of any specific religion (Justice Moore notwithstanding).
Right. I've always wondered if the framers of the Indian constitution did this on purpose, keeping in mind that India is, as a whole, an extremely spiritual place, where religion and society cannot be easily separated.
The US's more exclusionary version is actually the result of a compromise between two groups that wanted religious freedom expressed in different ways. The Establishment Clause is the result of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advocating a "marketplace of ideas" approach. That is, as long as the state did not officially sanction any one religion, all the religions would flourish equally. The Free Exercise Clause was the result of other Constitutional Convention delegates who wanted to ensure the government did not corrupt religion by telling people how/what/who they could worship. The problem is, the two clauses are in conflict with each other.
When a state administrative agency decides not to allow Christmas displays, isn't it technically preventing Free Exercise by Christians?
Cybershrink,
Yes. :-)
Hema,
Bang on. They did it on purpose. Their view was that secularism did not mean "lack of religion", but "equality of religions". The problem is that a lot of my tax money is going on things like the activity Ennis posted.
I saw a debate on an Urdu channel, while in India, where a modern Muslim activist (lady), stated that they should do away with Hajj subsidies since it is such a sore point with Hindus, and that they can raise that money from private charities.
Can't we all just do Pilates? ;)
I don't think this is at all comparable to the Pledge, particularly because "under God" wasn't added in until the 1950s, and it was added in light of a specific political moment.
cybershrink, i was under the impression that minority religious schools are eligible for govt. funding, subsidization of teachers' salaries etc. (although all may not exercise this option) subject to certain stipulations on admissions. and that hindu religious schools are not eligible for govt. funding, hence the attempts by the ramakrishna people to declare themselves non-hindu ( so that the govt. would also not be able to interfere in their affairs as much). if i'm wrong, i stand corrected.
"There was a lot of debate in the constituent assembly about the inclusion of the word "god" in the preamble. One member (Kamath) even wanted the word "goddess" since god was masculine. :-)"
why not? :) gender equality and all that :)
I've never been able to understand this mentality. Specially coming from otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people. God forbid anyone get to practice their tradition in good faith. The secularists must rain on the parade. It's only xmas, the most pagan of all traditions, for goodness sake. It is not some belief system they are thrusting down anyone's throat (for once). Same goes for yoga, and in fact for hinduism, generally. Hinduism is not a religion. A bunch of foreigners managed to convince hindus that they have a religion and the eternally-enslaved hindus just accept this fact. If yoga is a religion then why is aerobics not? If mantra and meditation are religion, then why is psycho-therapy not considered one too? If deliberating on the nature of the universe is religion then why is the study of atoms not?
Religion happens to revolve around a set of (irrational) beliefs which are held to be true - such as there is a god in this world and he created the universe, etc. Hindusim does not have any belief system, (they just have stories) and by no means do they make any truth claims. There is a philosophy to be sure, but anyone is free to challenge it and in fact there are 6 versions of these "darshans" not to mention innumerable tantras, as well as buddhism, jainism and other traditions each with their own understanding of matters. In other words, these differences are regarded as a matter for inquiry and not as some belief that must be adhered to.
So, if there is no belief system involved in yoga, the only basis for objection seems to be that it is regarded as a rival religion by the so-called minorities of India. I think hindus should work at a better understanding of their traditions and try and crawl out of this religious strait-jacket.
When I lived in NYC I was more tolerant towards xmas, but out here -- in middle America -- where it's both more Christmas and inescapable I don't want it shoved down my throat, especially not in government offices.
And, for what it's worth, I do yoga without any concern about religion.
Whose God:
My impression was that there was no funding for the schools I was in, but that may have been an elective issue. The State Department's religious freedom report (Link) sides with you here.
" The Government permits private religious schools, but does not permit religious instruction in government schools. Since most students in Christian schools are Hindu, the schools have voluntarily long restricted religious instruction on Christianity only to Christian students. The Supreme Court ruled that the Government can prescribe merit-based admission for religious colleges that receive public funding, while those that do not may use their own criteria, including determining admissions based upon religious affiliation.
Many Hindu sects have established their own schools, although they do not receive aid from the state. Most Muslim madrassahs do not accept offered government aid, as many Muslims believe that it would subject their schools to stringent security clearance requirements. Muslims objected to attempts by BJP governments in Rajasthan and other states to limit their freedom and ability to propagate their religious beliefs."
Interesting point that Christian schools have made religious instruction voluntary. I'm still trying to forget all the stuff I was forced to learn in moral science classes! :)
I can understand objecting to xmas as an aesthetic because it's so in your face, but not as religion. Then it is plain wrong to be a spoiler, whether it's being done in government offices and with government money. If middle america rejoices in it, so be it.
Also, why do you do yoga without a concern for religion? Could it be that your attitude is in fact a reflection of the non-religious nature of yoga and you instinctively grasp this to be true? And yet, there is nothing in your writing that betrays this. Surely this is something we can question?
I went to a private school. Our physical training teacher was a muslim man who served in Indian army. Until he took charge, all we did was some lame-ass stiff shoulder march past.
He was the one who made us do surya-namaskarams along with the OM chanting. He used to make us breathe with the stomach, asking us to talk as if the voice is emanating from belly. He was also the guy taught us bunch of telugu kids how to do Bhangra and he could sing those punjabi tunes with beautiful gutso.
Where are men like him? I think today's media and politicians are negatively sensationalizing religion and hence we see these twisted minds everywhere. When I read news like this, I take a moment to silently thank Mr. Rahamatullah for being the master he was.
Divya, Very very well stated.
"I mean, when I was kid visiting India (oh decades ago), I distinctly remember yoga being shown on Doordarshan, i.e. state-controlled television. That strikes me as particularly objectionable, but nobody challenged it back then."
But consider it at those times Yoga was a major form of exercise to many. I don't think Treadmills and spin classes were oh so the rage then and in some parts even now. Should America being a secular country ask for all participants in a TV exercise program to cover up head to toe so as not to offend members of religions that advocate covering up completely ? Its TV, you can switch it off if you don't like what you see. Yoga is not just a Hindu tradition, it is to exercise what ayurveda is to medicine. Of course in the schools you can make it easier by not including the chanting aspect and things should be much easier but then again politics always tend to take the indirect approach to solving issues.
it is to exercise what ayurveda is to medicine.
To clarify, yoga is not exercise alone. The Gita lists the various components of yoga. It is also related to dietary habits, behavior, contemplation etc. Unfortunately, some of the charlatans who "teach" yoga in the West have made it appear to be in the same market space as aerobics.
Yoga is not just a Hindu tradition, it is to exercise what ayurveda is to medicine
I'm willing to accept that both yoga and ayurveda have a significant non-religious aspect. In fact, they may be completely divorced from religion. Both have roots in a very Hindu/Buddhist-centric tradition of medicine and well-being. I believe the source of contention is the Sanskrit-based litany (yes, I used the religious term on purpose) that goes with each. The term "surya-namaskar" implies obeisance to the sun, although I concede that may have nothing to do with the divinity of the Sun.
I don't think you can dismiss the religious aspect so easily (especially as seen by members of other religions).
I'm not even going to touch the "War on Christmas" issue, in part because I am an atheist and in aprt because I hate how it's already been framed as a combative issue just through the wording.
The issue of teaching yoga in schools is a throny one for sure. I consciously choose to practice the physical parts of yoga without the spiritual, myself, but I also grew up in a fundamentalist church where yoga was considered evil because the meditation would "empty your mind and the devil could then come in" etc etc. I think that especially in India, it would be hard to secularise yoga ( insulting to practicioners) and just as hard to implement the sun salutations plus chanting ( upsetting other faiths). If the schools were able to incorporate yoga into their P.E. along with other forms of movement representing other cultures/faiths, maybe they could get away with it. But it just offers politicians an easy way to make a well-meaning idea ( fit kids) ugly.
I'm with Camille... let them do Pilates instead.
And Divya, aerobics would only be a religion to the obsessive cardio queen!
I don't want my tax money going to public displays of little baby Jesus in his manger not even "Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus, in your golden, fleece diapers, with your curled-up, fat, balled-up little fists pawin' at the air..."
I don't want children in public schools to have to sing songs about how Christ the Savior is born, especially when they're not being taught about evolution in some states, or birth control in others
And I choose not to shop in stores where the employees greet me with "Merry Christmas!" If it's such a secular holiday they can greet me with "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" but they wont get a dime from me if they're peddling religion along with their wares.
I take the First Amendment pretty seriously, and I don't like having religion thrust at me even in spheres where the constitution doesn't apply, like stores.
Perhaps I would feel different if Christians weren't an overwhelming majority where I live, or if they were more open minded and tolerant. But if they push, I'm a gonna push back.
On the one hand, let's say that yoga (with or without overt Hindu references) is part of the cultural heritage of the majority of kids in India. Ideally, then, there is nothing wrong with their schools teaching it to them. On other hand, let's say yoga violates the tenets and religious principles of a minority of students in the same schools. I think in this circumstance, in a secular democracy, the contentious practice (in this case yoga) must be left out of the govermental sphere (including public education). The unfortunate (but unavoidable) outcome of this is that the majority of students are missing out on being exposed to a vital part of their cultural heritage. The only solution is for the private sector to carry the torch of those students' culture.
Yes, very HYPOCRITICALLY spiritual...a lot of show, very little real substance (in my opinion).
And I choose not to shop in stores where the employees greet me with "Merry Christmas!" If it's such a secular holiday they can greet me with "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" but they wont get a dime from me if they're peddling religion along with their wares.
Wal-Mart's not getting a dime from me anyway! ;)
The funny thing is that, even without the greeting from store employees, you're practically hit over the head with Christmas, if you go into any retail store between October and January 1. So I'm not sure what the "war on Christmas" is really about. If there is a war, Christmas has won.
It's also absurd for the government to be pushing yoga as a health initiative when they're one of the worse states in terms of childhood malnutrition (close to 50% of the age group measured)
Not half as absurd as what you just said. They're trying, they're trying, if only people like you would let them.
And Amitabh, the reasoning in your #47 is precisely what seems to be the problem as far as I can see. Since when is the appeasement of minorities more important than sun salutations? What about the fact that yoga is genuinely beneficial and many, including the minorities, happen to like it? Are these factors more important or is some misguided, decontextualized notion of secularism?
Since when is the appeasement of minorities more important than sun salutations?
Well, mob rule does goes really well with yoga, you know.
divya:
because it has not ysanitized et been approved by massa and suitably (or appropriated).
"Perhaps I would feel different if Christians weren't an overwhelming majority where I live, or if they were more open minded and tolerant. But if they push, I'm a gonna push back."
You should see how subdued Christmas is in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area, which has a rather heavy Jewish population. There isn't a business here that would dare to display a tree without counterbalancing it with a menorah. Believe it or not, my 14-year old insists in both, and we are neither Christian, nor Jewish.
those cute little minorities. you know they love it.
"While I do believe that Yoga can promote health, I think that the impact of doing a quick Surya Namaskar is pretty miniscule. "
why not just replace the sun salute chanting with a "Hallelujah" or "Alla-o-Akbar" as appropriate?
And your point is? Do you really believe this matter should be judged based on religion or based upon the merits of the program that the kids are made to follow?
And what about the tolerance that secularism is supposed to be all about? I think it is quite pathetic that the test of tolerance should hover around a bookish meaning of the word secular rather than actually tolerating something like the surya namaskar. I regret not having had the opportunity to learn yoga when I was younger and am very happy that India has woken up to it finally. It would be ridiculous to exclude kids based on faith.
Divya,
This is a tough challenge for nations. To balance majority viewpoints (as any democracy should), with protection of minorities. Unfortunately, this protection often leads to appeasement. Ennis, for example, is upset with religion being thrust upon him. I agree. But I would like to know his viewpoint on laws/rules of dress code (mounties) being changed to accomodate Sikhs who wear turbans. Is that okay or does it think it is not a religious symbol that is thrust upon him by the approval of the government? [Btw, I hope this doesn't come across as snarky. It is a genuine question.]
it => he
Divya, I admire and agree with all that you've said about the practice of yoga and the practice of tolerance. Aereobics and Pilates can both be adopted as belief based ritual by those so inclined, and conversely, yoga is probably not of religious origin so much as a preventive art praticed from times when Hindu cosmologies were what was available to choose from. But I think the origins of American secularism and Desi secularism are disparate for structural reasons, not book learned ones. I think it's a mistake to take the NYTmes' exploration of the issue too seriously, on the way to imposing requirements derived from the American version and its terms on the Indian model, which is, after all, distilled from practising tolerance (as far as possible) at close quarters and over centuries.
I wonder what the court will decide. This is entirely different from wondering what shoppers will decide.
Yeah yeah right.. As of now, except for a few government schools almost all the rest cater to millions of students who cannot afford a private school education. I rarely see a rich/middle class kid going to a government school.. The rich kids can learn yoga/ music etc..etc.. while the poor folks should not avail the privilege of learning yoga because of your idea of a "secular democracy".. that sounds right..
should we oppose basketball because it was invented by "pagan" aztecs. what next, ban harry potter from the children's reading list!! forcing kids to say merry christmas has a pretty sordid history in the native americas, phillipines, and other native societies. there is just no equivalence between that and surya namaskar, basketball, kabbadi, sumo or what-have-you. isn't it time that the mullas and missionaries show a minimum amount of tolerance for the "pagan" native cultures after having lorded it for over a 1000 years.
You make a compelling point...you could be right. OK, maybe they should teach yoga. But it's still a thorny issue, because large numbers of people will still (potentially) be opposed. That will have to be dealt with SOMEHOW.
Judging by the indomitable zeal of its practitioners, is 'progressive secularism' slowly becoming the new religion? On the other hand, are there any 'kewl' Muslims, or 'kewl' Hindus, or 'kewl' Christians?
Thank God, there are some people who still have faith. If they followed the ridiculous suggestions of the progressives, Indian Classical Music, for example, will lose its practitioners. You will be amazed to note how many devout Muslims have absolutely no qualms in accepting Hindu musical traditions. That includes words in the lyrics that worship Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The basic tenet of the Muslims encourage self-discipline - that's why they are good musicians and good craftsmen. And they do not bother about the divisive insinuations of so-called progressives, or other people posing as religious leaders. And they do not bother about the careful balancing of both sides - commas, full stops and semicolons. I remember that one-liner: God needs spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.
But wait. They are musicians, who immerse in the practice. What about elegant point-by-point rebuttals? That they can't.
Argumentation, or the tool that sharpens our faculty of reasoning, is replete with expressions such as indefensible, weak points, gain ground, right on target that orient us, albeit unconsciously, to the metaphor of being at war. Do progressives like being at war all the time? Win-Lose games?
Lets do a toss. Heads, we keep yoga. Tails we don't.
The Karnataka govt. is in a similar fix, over eggs (link).
The problem is not with yoga been part of hindu religion.The problem is who is trying to enforce it i.e the BJP.
If not for them then it would be passe.
We had yoga in school, but it was a private school, and there was never any requirement to say the Oms and so on. I wonder if the Madhya Pradesh govt will address that issue (the giant cutout of Swami Vivekananda above suggests they'd like to celebrate, not downplay, the Hindu element).
The BJP governments in MP and Rajasthan have been trying to incorporate Saraswati Vandana, Vande Mataram and other Hindu religious elements (plus a rather communalised version of history textbooks) in state school curricula for a while, which is probably why everyone is a bit wary of their project in incorporating yoga. I personally don't think there's a problem with yoga if you leave the Oms out of it, but in a state like MP where the government has frequently flouted the law on respecting freedom of religion, who's to say minority religious groups don't have the right to be concerned. It's not that different from debates on the role of religion in schools in parts of the US where evangelicals are socially dominant (btw - school prayer wrangles are ongoing in Georgia).
This also points to an ongoing dilemma in Indian secularism - it celebrates the sarva dharma sambhava idea, and promotes a sort of syncretism rooted in Hindu pluralism, which is somewhat unfair to monotheists, because that suggests that the only "good" Christians or Muslims are the ones who are willing to participate in Hindu religious activities too, while no good Hindu politician is expected to recite the shahada or something.
Amrita - I think it's a mistake to embrace the idea of secularism at all. If by secularism you mean something that is religion-neutral, then the concept fails completely. The idea of religion is derived from christian theology and only makes sense if you accept the assumptions underlying christianity. Christians conceptualized the world as divided into two realms - the city of god and the city of men - the church had power over one realm and the state over the other. The history of europe is one long struggle between these two authorities over where to draw the line between church and state. There was a time when the church had complete power over most spheres of a human life but the state has slowly gained ground in the last 3 centuries. The Indian notion of secularism makes exactly the same assumption - that there are two realms which must be separated. This makes sense under the monotheistic framework where the mullahs and priests do indeed have authority. But what about the hindus? There has never been any hindu authority ever, so what are they trying to separate? The hindu notion of the universe embraces all reality as one and upholds dharma which applies to all walks of life. It is nonsense to claim that we must leave dharma out of politics (looks like they do anyway) which is how this notion translates.
It is impossible to separate the two realms. Consider Europe, where the church is losing ground considerably as the young are no longer interested in religion. Yet, in most countries a small percentage of the govt. exchequer is earmarked for the maintenance of churches. How secular is that? But do we really want to see magnificent buildings run to seed? Consider the issues discussed in american politics - abortion, gay rights, even the foreign policy - these are all biblically inspired. Where is the separation between church and state and how is it possible? Now consider the case of India. It is well recorded in history that various ethnicities and "religions" lived side by side in relative harmony for centuries. The hindus did not massacre the Buddha for daring to say that he rejected the vedas. Yet there was no concept of secularism. Can we at least make a good faith attempt to uncover how people in Indian society were able to live in relative peace without the fancy notion of secularism which all the young ones swear by these days. Or can we at least examine the notion of western secularism to see if it really makes sense. Judging by the way things are interpreted these days, it should be polluting for a muslim or a xtian to even stand near a hindu in case they get lured into temptation by the devil-worshippers. What logical basis do you have for rejecting this type of argument, based on the current understanding of the word secularism? If by secularism you mean that people should live in peace - then lets call it just that. Let's try and live in peace and harmony. There's no need for nonsense, delusional notions which we cling to for dear life irrespective of whether they create more disharmony or less. This is just fodder for the politicians, aided and abbetted by the spineless intellecual elite.
Ennis...whadyasay?
Divya,
Bravo! Well said, sister.
Ennis,
Your PoV on te turban question would certainly be illuminating.
divya, one question for you
how about these "abrahamics" who refuse to bow during karate lessons (since they don't bow to anyone other than their lord on high). why are these abrahamic iconoclastic snots not tolerated in the psec warped world.
So what is the Vedas and what are its priests the brahmins then?
Since the topic and the ensuing discussion has : intrusive, down the throat, forced...etc has the underlying theme
I sincerely want to know what Ennis, Siddaratha & the ilk think about:
The 5 times call for namaaz that blares through the loudspeakers, starting at eerie 5 am in the morning.
1.Would you term it a "public nuisance"
2.Intrusive on people, who are "infidels"
3.Forcing one's prayer on to anyone, who is within earshot of the Loudspeakers?
4.Daily...5 time a day...365 days..ain't it too much for non-Muslims to bear it?
Great comments Diva.This is not about yoga at all, its about the BJP. Interestingly, Himachal Pradesh recently passed an anti-conversion law, a very BJP like legislative act. But the Paleo-Nehruvians, the eminent Marxist historians, the fair and lovely daubing middle class, eurocentrics, JNU-wallahs and the pseudo-secularists had little to say about that.
I agree with this 100%.
:1.Would you term it a "public nuisance"
:2.Intrusive on people, who are "infidels"
:3.Forcing one's prayer on to anyone, who is within earshot of the Loudspeakers?
:4.Daily...5 time a day...365 days..ain't it too much for non-Muslims to bear it?
The solution from Hindus in my small town?
Lets create even more noise. So from 5PM to 7PM everyday you have the temple near our house blaring Artis at full volume.
Gurdwaras already used to that.
Number one, spell my name correctly. Number two, I am not involved in this conversation, so leave me out of it. Number three, don't call my people "ilk" if you don't want to be called that yourself. As far as I'm concerned, you, Suraj, are one of my people. I consider you one of my brethren, my ilk. Whether you reciprocate the respect and affection is your choice entirely.
Re namaaz blaring from loudspeakers, I'm afraid the hindus have long since joined in the fray and outdone the mullahs already. You have hideous bollywood-type aarti chants blaring from louspeakers all over the place. As for during festivals, forget about it. Again, this should not be treated as a religios issue. This should be deemed a health hazard and all loudspeakers banned. Unfortunately, we have somehow accepted that the religious realm be given a higher priority over all else. In fact there are aesthetic and other sensibilities that are at issue here not merely religious ones. At a minimum, one would expect those who claim to be secular to privilege those other values over the religious angle. As always, when put to the test, it is hard to figure out what they stand for.
Come on, now...these are nowhere nearly as powerful in their impact on Hindus as their Abrahamic counterparts. The vedas have no equivalent of "Ten Commandments", for example. Hinduism is nowhere nearly as prescriptive or doctrinaire as the monotheists. Monotheism is very much centered around the public pressure of continually proclaiming your faith and being on the right side of the black-and-whote lines, while Hinduism does not force anything of that sort nor is its worldview defined in inviolable black-and-white. If you don't show up at the mosque on Friday or the church on Sunday, your faith will be questioned while a Hindu may just as well choose to worship in his own personal temple at home or a public temple down the street. Even a classic good-vs-evil epic such as the Mahabharata has sufficient shades of grey on all sides.
The operating principle of a Hindu's life is just the conecpt of "vivekbuddhi" - exercise of good judgement, that's all. He is not required to blindly follow the book or slaughter the infidels. Ever wondered why there were so few takers of the "Manu Smriti" in the history of India? How many kingdoms had their legal systems derived from that text, which would be the Hindu equivalent of a Sharia? Even today, Western socio-political discourse (witness abortion/gay right debates in the US and state sponsorship of Christianity in Western Europe. In Canada, the entire Catcholic schooling system is funded by the tax payers' money. Compare that with India where the government takes away money from Hindu temples while it sponsors the Haj and subsidises mosques through the Wakf boards).
On a strictly comparative basis, Hindus have had much less influence of the scripture or the preistly class (Brahmins) on their worldly lives as reflected within their legal or political systems even as they remained much more steeped in rituals in spiritualism in their personal lives. Just see the influence of the Caliphates and Papal Kingdoms on Muslims and Christians - there's nothing equivalent for Hindus expcet a fictionlised notion of "Ram Rajya". The lack of such influence then basically renders the notion of western-style secularism quite absurd when applied to India as Divya argues so much more eloquently than I can.
Suraj, dude...
The above may or may not, depending on one's point of view (and the thinness of one's skin), be an issue for serious debate. But you're poking your point into the wrong debate. The debate is about state sponsorship of compulsory activities that have religious baggage. (I use the words "religious" and "baggage" because the primary (sole ?) objection to the yoga classes seems to stem from the chanting.)
To add to what Gujjubhai said, there are no priests in the hindu traditions. They are pandits, i.e., scholars, and more specifically in this context, those who have studied and can recite the vedas. The only time the vedas are relevant in a hindu life is for elaborate rituals, such as naming ceremonies, death and wedding cerimonies, an occasional havan, etc. That is the extent of the influence a pandit has on a hindu life. There are thousands of jatis each with their own sets of traditions and their own pandits and other jatiss which perform rituals without pandits according to their own traditions. So there is no pan-hindu tradition nor do the pandits exert any political influence whatsoever. The concept of pandit simply does not map on to the concept of a priest.
Quite true, Divya. The evidence for this will be the striking contrast between the power wielded by pundits in India vs. the xtian priesthood. In India, brahmins have consistently lost power over the last few centuries. Today, brahmins are pretty well relegated to being a miniscule part of the business and political elite while being somewhat more powerful in the bureaucracy. Socially, they have lost power to all other castes, especially due to reservations etc. However, they have on organized institutional power in India and their influence continues to be on the wane.
On the other hand, the xtian priesthood has consistently gained power in the west, esepcially with the rise of the evangelical movement in the US funded by the almighty dollar. Socially, they remain just as powerful as they have been for many centuries due to their role as gatekeepers to God. A practising christian's entire life - from birth and baptism to death and funeral - is controlled by the priest. The key difference here compared to HInduism is that the priest represents a powerful organized religion exercising control while a Hindu could get just about any brahmin in his individual capacity to perform the rites and then not have to deal with that brahmin as the face of an institution anymore. This is why the institution of xtian priesthood is able to continue business as usual even after its machinations in sheltering pedophiles were exposed. Can you imagine any other institution being able to survive such a scandal with nary a scratch to its institutional legitimacy? The mind truly boggles at how much the west is held in the vice-like grip of xtianity. OF course, it's Kafaesque when they turn around and start preaching secularism to us heathens :-).
Suraj - if you truly were so sincere, I doubt you would be throwing around phrases like "the ilk" ...
Still, I'll answer broadly. In this post I'm talking about the state mandating religious (or potentially religious) activities. I'm against that.
Where do I stand on Namaz or Sikh Mounties? Those are very different issues. In those cases the state isn't mandating religious observance by anybody. Those aren't examples of public endorsement or religion by the state, they're examples of private religious observance by individuals in arenas where the state has some interest. The Sikh mounties example is particularly strange to me -- I feel about Sikh mounties the way that I do about Christian Mounties, Jewish Mounties, Muslim Mounties, Hindu Mounties, etc. I can't see how it applies.
Here's my simplistic and very American take on the issue:
Public endorsement of religion by the state is bad
Tolerance by the state of private religious observance by its members is good.
Yes, the latter has some limits, but in general I want private freedom to be as wide as possible. When restrictions are applied they should be genuinely neutral.
The Sikh mounties example is particularly strange to me -- I feel about Sikh mounties the way that I do about Christian Mounties, Jewish Mounties, Muslim Mounties, Hindu Mounties, etc
None of these communities had to force the state to change rules; dress code in the mountie case. An equivalnet would be, if a orthodox Jew decided to join the Mountie force and restrained from cutting his hair (on the sides) and insisted on wearing the yarmulke.
Even namaz, it isn't just the noise, streets are blocked, maidans are occupied for the 5 times that these take place.
These are not private religious observances by any stretch of imagination.
Why childhood malnutrition is made a straw man to argue against the yoga initiative?
Individual expression and coercion. Nice rhetoric indeed. The MP government or the BJP - assuming their fundamentalist and crooked intentions - may be fighting against the push from the 'market'. For example, just look at the effort that has gone into this organization and the way money is being collected and allocated.
http://www.gospelforasia.com/
More subtle is the mix of Religion & Development Aid. So much for the American separation of church and state!
My angst comes from the proselytizing zeal of religious people who think they have a monopoly over the ultimate truth. My submission is that is also a kind of racism. Unfortunately, Marxist historians, JNU pandits, postmodern intellectuals do not care about that at all. As the free market takes over, I feel frustrated that sheer money power can change people's habits and customs in so many ways. As Vidya mentioned earlier, Hinduism isn't really a religion, but intricately connected to many things we do. It would be along list of things - music, language, food, dress, social gatherings, respect for elders etc etc. And all these things are up for sale.
It was for a reason Gandhi had said missionaries are vendors of goods. Unfortunately, the correlation between religion and poverty (in South Asia, at least) is used as a justification. But these grand theories linking religion and prosperity have fallen apart. [Link]
Instead of state interventions, MP Government should allow entrepreneurs to set up yoga centers near schools and colleges. (Indian students do not exercise much anyway.) Allocate land, clear bureaucratic hurdles. Beat the so-called free market in its own game. The conservative fear is primarily based on the realization that we started late. I think it is true to some extent, but good ideas never die. Meanwhile do well for yourself, contribute to society and practice what you hold dear.
oops! please read
As
VidyaDivya mentioned earlier, ...Ambedkar has rightly remarked that while minorities have to be given safeguards for retaining their cultural / religious rights, they can't be given veto powers over how the majority rules/decides.. Teaching of Yoga is a classic case where this needs to be reinforced.
I have no problem with making the state change the way it is doing something, I have problems with the state telling me to do something. Huge difference.
Incidentally, with the Mountie, nobody forced the state to do anything - the RCMP decided to change its uniform b/c they wanted to recruit Sikhs. But that's a side point.
Ennis,
There is no difference at all. The state not doing something to enforce the laws of the land is as bad as the state doing something. By not enforcing laws of public assembly, blocking roads, invasion of public/private space (loudspeakers during Namaaz, Ganesh Chaturthi) etc in India (or namaz in Londonstani!), it is aiding and abetting in subverting the laws of the land. This is as good as imposing a religious belief on the majority.
Well, in that case, there should practically be a brown uprising against the US government, no? The link that Naiverealist posted in #86 is just mind-boggling : as much as 25% of US Aid budget is given to "faith-based" (read : predominantly xtian with may be a couple of token others) organizations. Many of them are using this power of US taxpayer money to propagate xtianity and evangelize in brown lands. Where is the outrage against this organized propagation of religion funded by your tax dollars? And would it not seem hypocritical to any Indian at the receiving end of a lecture on secularism from an American who sees that in his homeland, American tax dollars are funding a war against Hinduism and integral practices of Indian culture such as yoga?
True dat, Divya. This the current preferred American version. But it was never the Indian version, which I think is actually in line with what you propose.
Re Europe, I would venture that in much of that continent --specifically, wherever there is or recently was a monarch-- there is still also a state religion. This is sometimes a Protestant version of Christianity, as a result of a nominally humanism-based Renaissance/Reformation conflict that took place between State/Monarch and Papacy. Otherwise, the state religion is usually a variant of Catholicism, which still embraces Papal authority. This still leaves the church embedded in the State, hence the state funds earmarked for the maintenance of churches --architectural heritage though they be. Where the titular Head of State is also the Head of the Church, like Elizabeth II, you can't very well claim a separation of Church and State, viz., look how long we'll have to wait to see Prince Charles become the thing he says he wants to be by adding that big, meaningful s , "Defender of Faiths" ---if he ever gets that far.
Since all religions carry of mix of cosmology and a prescribed code of conduct, and since the Church, generally speaking, is heavy on the code of conduct aspect, that makes it an admirable partner for the state, which is embodied in law. I suspect that this is why Western people, who identify organized religion with social engineering, whether they adhere to that or not, often latch onto the caste system as the best way to understand Hinduism, and descry that as a particularly vicious form of crowd control. (I think the caste system is more akin to racism in America, which was codified until even more recently.) Hinduism and Buddhism are, in a relative sense, disorganized and humanistic religions to start with, focusing as they do on the individual rather than on the collective. That is probably why there has not been compulsory yoga in schools before, let alone state-sponsored compulsory yoga.
This is not to say I think Desi state schools shouldn't offer SuryaNamaskar-- it just shouldn't be compulsory for any or every child-- I'm sure there would be plenty of takers anyway, as the majority of students would probably be Hindu, plus, as everyone knows, it's A Good Thing for One's Health. An offering rather than compulsory training would be more consonant with the Indian model of secularity, which centers on equidistance of the state in matters of religion, and frankly, more consonant wth the practice of Hinduism.
About secularism in the West, the separation of Church and State was not a European initiative. Rather, its most nearby instance was in Revolutionary America's Enlightenment-based encoding of new laws to answer for the original supposed reason for colonial emigration to America --that is, as an escape from the alternate burning of Protestants and Catholics at the stake for being the one or the other, depending on who was in power in terms of the throne and the Inquisition. This did not preclude the earlier colonists from dunking and torturing and hanging suspected Wiccans, banning Voodoo, turning away ships with Jewish passengers, and no doubt carrying out much else in the way of discriminatory religion based activity, but once enshrined in the Constitution, the separation of Church and State mostly cleared the way for Shakers and Mormons and such to do their thing, still freedom for Northerm Europeans.
The current Menorah v. Christmas tree struggle is what it is. It has no bearing on the To-SuryaNamskar-or-Not-To-SuryaNamaskar conflict, and certainly not as a matter of principle, because these are structurally different disputes centered on materially different choices. The problem is that the American public is often led to construct abstractions based on the American experience and then to apply these abtrsctions elsewhere-- and then also led to support the imposition of new, abstraction-based interpretations of life and culture on dissimilar situations abroad. How else can you wage war on ideologies? In other words, the yoga situation can't and shouldn't be interpreted in terms of Christmas trees and menorahs. The problem is that, seemingly, someone or several people are actually trying to do this.
GB, the chanting is not baggage, it's breathing discipline, which affects your heartbeat-- in fact your entire cardio-vascular. Try saying/singng the GayatriMantra even once a day for a while, and you will find your lungs filling and emptying more easily round the clock.
Personally, it hurts me to wake up early, as I'm one of those people who can't function until noon, so I'm delighted to find that 9 am, noon and 3 pm are also acceptable times of day to practice Yoga and say mantras. OTOH, I suppose early morning namaz is compulsory, if one's going to get in five a day, more regimented. Still, as a civic matter, as Divya points out, this is no reason for mosques or temples to start making an amplified racket early in the morning. Nest, the churches will join in.
Nearly 8 pm and I'm still not functioning--
The Indian version, which is inclusive rather than "neutral."'P.S. some corrections to glaring mistakes above. I meant to say:
Not admirable-- just convenient.
Deliberately unorganized, not disorganized.