Hindus least educated religious group in world, but excel in West: Pew study

PTI





'41% Of Them Have Never Been To School'

Hindus continue to have the lowest level of educa tional attainment among all the major religions of the world despite having made strides in the sector, a Pew study said on Wednesday .“Hindus have made substantial educational gains in recent decades. Hindu adults (ages 25 and older) in the youngest generation analysed in the study , for example, have an average of 3.4 more years of schooling than those in the oldest generation,“ Pew said.
However, Hindus still have the lowest level of educational attainment of any major religious group in this study , which is topped by Jews.
Globally , the average is 5.6 years of schooling, and 41% of Hindus have had no formal education of any kind. One in ten have post-secondary degrees, the report said.
At the same time, despite large gains by Hindu women across generations, Hindus still have the largest educational gender gap of any religious group, said the report titled `Religion and Education Around the World Large' released by Pew Research Center.
In its report, running into 160 pages, Pew said Jews are more highly educated than any other major religious group around the world, while Muslims and Hindus tend to have the fewest years of formal schooling.
Drawing on census and survey data from 151 countries, the study also finds large gender gaps in educational attainment within some major world religions. “For example, Muslim women around the globe have an average of 4.9 years of schooling, compared with 6.4 years among Muslim men.And formal education is especially low among Hindu women, who have 4.2 years of schooling on average, compared with 6.9 years among Hindu men,“ the report said.
“On average, Hindu men have 2.7 more years of schooling than Hindu women, and over half of Hindu women (53%) have had no formal schooling, compared with 29% of Hindu men,“ the report said.
Even in the youngest generation of adults in the study, the report said Hindu women were considerably more likely than Hindu men to have received no formal education (38% vs 20%).
The vast majority of the world's Hindus live in India (94%) or in the bordering countries of Nepal (2.3%) and Bangladesh (1.2%).
“In these three countries, Hindus tend to have low levels of education. Hindus had average 5.5 years of schooling in India, while it was 3.9 years in Nepal and 4.6 years in Bangladesh,“ Pew said.
“However, in countries outside the Asia-Pacific region, where Hindus are a small religious minority , they are more educated -and often are the most highly educated religious group in a particular country ,“ the report noted.
For instance, Hindus in the US have 15.7 years of schooling, on average -a full year more than the next most highly educated US religious group (Jews), and nearly three years more than the average American adult (12.9 years). Hindus in Europe also are highly educated, averaging 13.9 years of schooling, Pew said.





Source: Times of India, 15-12-2016

Jains top in share of graduates

Subodh Varma





The Muslim community in India has the lo west share of graduates compared with others and just half the share of the countrywide average of under 6%. The Jains continue to be the most educationally advanced community with over a quarter of its members qualified as graduate or above. But, the share of technical diploma holders is highest among Christians at 2.2%, again continuing a previous trend, with the Jains at 1.1% and the Sikhs at 0.8%.A heartening feature is that the most educationally deprived communities like Muslims tionally deprived communities like Muslims and Buddhists are surging forward with shares increasing at a faster pace than other communities when compared to a decade earlier.These details emerge from the latest release of Census 2011data on educational levels across re ligious communities. The Census Office is still in the process of releasing such specific data over five years after the headcount took place. While illiteracy has de clined and educa tional levels at the primary or secondary level have rapidly increased across all communities, at the higher levels the dead weight of the past still casts a shadow. Those of college-going age were in primary school in the early to mid-nineties and enrolment in schools was still deficient especially among Muslims. This historic deprivation is reflected in the current lag in higher education participation levels.
But even the overall share of graduates continues to be abysmally low at 6% while the technical education level at just 0.6% is appalling. Most advanced countries have a graduate share of 30-50% accompanied by a high share of technical personnel also.
The changes between 2001 and 2011 Census show that the Muslim community has seen an almost 60% increase in share of graduates compared with about 55% for Hindus. But the most striking increase is among Buddhists ­ mainly neoBuddhists who were Dalits that embraced Buddhism at the call of B R Ambedkar. The share of graduates among them has jumped by 74%. The country average is about 54% increase in the share of graduates.
The share of technical diploma holders too shows a similar change ­ the most deprived communities are surging ahead, in relative terms. Thus, among Muslims, this share increased by 81% and among Buddhists by a jaw dropping 130% compared with a countrywide average of about 68%.

Source: Times of India, 1-09-2016

Christians most educated, but highest unemployment rate: Survey

Ads by Google

• SAMARTH BANSAL

COMMENT   ·   PRINT   ·   T  T  

inShare

1

TOPICS

labour

employment

unemployment

'Unemployment level in India is highest among those people who are richer and more educated.'

The unemployment rate in urban areas reduced from 4.5 per cent in 2004-05 to 3.4 per cent in 2011-12, new data from the National Sample Survey Office show. In rural areas, the rate has been stable at around 1.7 per cent during this period.

According to the survey, which was conducted in 2011-12 and released on Friday, the unemployment rate across all the religious groups in rural areas was on the lower side than those in urban areas for both males and females. Unemployment rate is defined as the number of persons unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (persons who are either ‘working’ or ‘seeking or available for work’), not the total population.

Christians have the highest rate of unemployment in both rural (4.5 per cent) and urban (5.9 per cent) areas in 2011-12. The rate in urban areas for Christians stood at 8.6 per cent in 2004-05 while the rural rate stays constant.

Speaking to The Hindu, Alakh Sharma, Director of Institute of Human Development, said: “Unemployment level in India is highest among those people who are richer and more educated. The reason is that poor people can’t afford to stay unemployed, and hence, opt for any kind of work, irrespective of the nature of the job. The better off have the capacity to be unemployed as they look for the right job. Christians are the most educated group, hence unemployment rate is higher among them.” Data from the report supports the claim. ‘

Among the persons of age 15 and above, the proportion of people who are not literates was the lowest for Christians. Also, the proportion of persons with educational level secondary and above is highest for Christians.

While the unemployment rate in rural areas has decreased for Sikhs (from 3.5 to 1.3 per cent) — now the lowest across all religious groups — it has slightly increased for Muslims (from 2.3 to 2.6 per cent). At 3.3 per cent, Hindus have the lowest unemployment rate in urban areas.

Casual labour

Self-employment is the major source of income for almost half the households, across all religious groups, in rural areas, followed by casual labour.

In urban areas, the proportion of households deriving major income from regular wage or salary earnings is the highest. Half the Muslim households in urban areas have self-employment as major source of income, the highest among all religions, while regular wage or salary earnings was the highest for Christians with 45.8 per cent households.

(The headline has been edited for errors)

Keywords: NSSO survey, unemployment rate, jobless rate

Source: The Hindu, 23-02-2016

Attacks on Christians rose by 20% last year: NGO

Manash Gohain

New Delhi:





`85 Major Incidents, One Crime A Day On Average Last Year'

Citing 85 major incidents of alleged persecution of Christians across 20 states last year, a report by a minority and human rights NGO says 2015 saw an unprecedented spike in “intolerance“ against the community .The report says on an average India saw one such incident of hate crime against Christians a day last year.While the report terms Madhya Pradesh as the worst state, followed by Telangana and Uttar Pradesh for such attacks, it calls Maharashtra the 'Hindutva capital'. Delhi too, the report says, is among the top 10 states that saw such incidents, with five Catholic churches vandalised and assaults on priests and community members.
The Catholic Secular Forum (CSF) in its report claims that at least seven pastors were killed and 8,000 Christians (including 6,000 women and children) targeted in 2015. The report cites incidents from across the country -from Arunachal Pradesh, where suspected Hindutva fundamentalists attempted to attack Christians and whip up mass hysteria by quoting the Census 2011 data, and Chhatisgarh, where there is an alleged ban on religious activities other than of Hinduism, to Himachal Pradesh where the CPWD wrote off the Shimla CNI Church as a government property , and Tamil Nadu, where Bibles were thrown on the road to incite community members and create tension.
“There is at least a 20% increase in the incidents in terms of the number of people victimised as against 2014. The real numbers are much higher as many don't want to report such incidents as the police force is communal. Then we have incidents from areas where RSS is very dominant and victims are threatened to not report the attacks. Being less in number, Christians can't fight back,“ alleges CSF general secretary Joseph Dias. Claiming a significant rise in Hindutva ideology in 2015, the report claims that RSS and its 38 ideological affiliates have consolidated in almost every sphere of activity, and are “preparing to strengthen their hold on the country's polity“. “With the BJP government in the Centre, there is huge increase in RSS shakhas. Even though there is no BJP government in Kerala, the state has the highest number of shakhas.West Bengal, which has long been under communist rule and is now governed by liberal forces, BJP has a strong hold over five districts where reconversions are picking up. There is saffronisation of secular institution and in every sphere secular activities have been saffronised -be it in the northeast, Tamil Nadu, Kerala or Goa,“ claims Dias.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com

Source: Times of India, 18-01-2016

The case against customary exclusion

The question of whether women can be barred entry to the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala demands a solution that advances the constitutional guarantee of equality, non-discrimination and freedom of religion.

On January 18, the Supreme Court will hear final arguments on the question of whether women can be barred entry to the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala. During the hearing on January 11, Justice Dipak Misra indicated that he was broadly sympathetic to women’s claims to entering and worshipping at the shrine. He is reported to have said, “Unless you [i.e. the governing board of the shrine] have a constitutional right to prohibit women entry, you cannot prevent them from worshipping at the shrine.”

These remarks have caused quite a stir. In particular, Justice Misra’s reference to the Constitution, and his suggestion that its non-discrimination clauses might be applicable to this dispute, raise some complex questions about the relationship between freedom of religion, equality, individual rights, and the extent to which the court can interfere in the management of religious institutions.

Room for state intervention

Gautam Bhatia

The history of the framing of the Constitution is a history of conflicting and clashing philosophies. The Constitution's fundamental rights chapter grants rights to individuals against the state, to individuals against other individuals, to groups and communities against the state, and as a final layer, allows the state to restrict these rights for various reasons of social and public interest. Tension between these various provisions is inevitable, and is perhaps reflected most starkly in the religious freedom clauses: Articles 25 and 26. Article 25(1) guarantees to all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate their religion. Mirroring this, Article 26(b) grants to religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion. Overriding both these provisions, Article 25(2) allows state intervention in religious practice, if it is for the purpose of “social welfare or reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus”. During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar — supported, among others, by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who expressed specific concerns about the plight of women under religious law — endorsed giving wide, interventionist powers to the state on the ground of the deep and pervasive role that religion played in the lives of Indians. “The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death,” he observed, “I do not think it is possible to accept a position of that sort. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extend beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious.” Over the years, the Supreme Court has itself restricted the scope of the religious protection clause to “essential practices of a religion”. While holding that the state cannot use the reform clause to “reform a religion out of existence”, it has nonetheless held that aspects beyond essential practices have no protection from state intervention.

Why does this matter? It matters because the Sabarimala governing board’s argument is that the prohibition of women is justified by “custom”. They rely upon the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permit prohibiting women from accessing places of worship where “custom” or “usage” requires it. During the January 11 hearing, Justice Misra doubted the existence of any such custom. The court’s previous jurisprudence suggests that the burden upon the board will not merely be to establish the existence of a custom, but also that the custom is “essential” to the practice of the religion.

What if the board fails? If it cannot show that prohibiting women from entry is an essential religious practice, then it can no longer claim absolute immunity under Article 26(b). Conversely, however, the women worshippers can argue that prohibiting them from access violates their right to worship under Article 25(1). It has long been accepted by the Supreme Court that the right to worship, as well as modes of worship, are protected by Article 25(1). While the court, admittedly, has held that the right to worship does not extent to worshipping in any and every place, it has also noted that access to places having a “particular significance for [a particular] religion” is constitutionally protected.

If, therefore, the women worshippers can demonstrate that the Sabarimala shrine has special and unique religious significance, their Article 25(1) right to worship there stands established. The board’s prohibition upon their entry, consequently, impermissibly violates their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The state and the shrine

That does not, however, entirely resolve the issue. The right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) is enforceable against the state, and not against other individuals, or corporate bodies. The question that the court must answer therefore is whether the Travancore Devaswom Board, which controls access to the shrine, can be equated to the “state”.

In fact, in an earlier decision, the Kerala High Court already appears to have held that it can. Previously, the Supreme Court has held that corporate bodies that are “functionally, financially and administratively” under the control of the state can be equated to the state for the purposes of fundamental rights. The Travancore Devaswom Board is an autonomous body. While its members are appointed by the State legislature, it derives its main income from the administration of the temple. Therefore, it might be difficult to argue that the board is functionally or financially under the control of the State. And if the board cannot be equated with the State, then the constitutional right under Article 25(1) is not enforceable against it.

That does not yet mean that the case is lost. The Supreme Court has held that if one private party obstructs another private party from exercising her constitutional right, then it is the duty of the state to effectuate her right by restraining the former from continuing with its obstruction. Therefore, the women worshippers may ask the court to direct the state to take all necessary steps to guarantee that they are allowed to access and worship at the Sabarimala shrine.

Finally, there is another route the court might take. The Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Rules speak about “customs” and “usages”. The Supreme Court has held that while personal law is exempt from the application of the Constitution, mere ‘custom’ is not. It might therefore simply strike down the offending rule on the ground that it discriminates on grounds of sex, and therefore violates the Constitution.

The Sabarimala case is not the only case of this sort that is before the judiciary. Last year, a group of women approached the Bombay High Court asking for the recognition of their right to enter and worship at the Haji Ali Dargah shrine. The matter is presently awaiting a decision. It seems clear that the coming months will see the question of gender justice in religious institutions at the forefront of the judicial landscape. It is now the task of the courts to craft a solution that advances the constitutional guarantee of equality, non-discrimination and freedom of religion, while remaining cognisant of the fact that the Constitution also guarantees the right of religious sects and denominations to self-governance.

(Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based lawyer. His book Offend, Shock or Disturb: Freedom of Speech under the Indian Constitution was published in December 2015.)

Keywords: Sabarimala temple, Women's rights, Indian Constitution, Travancore Devaswom Board

Source: The Hindu, 16-01-2016

Only 33% of Muslims work, lowest among all religions

Subodh Varma





Buddhists Are Highest At 43%

Muslims have the lowest share of working people -about 33% -among all religious communities in India. This is lower than the nationwide average work participation rate of 40%.The figure for Jains and Sikhs stands at 36% each. Buddhists, comprising mostly Dalits who embraced Buddhism in the 20th century , have a high working population share at 43%. For Hindus, the figure is 41%. Drawn from the Census 2011 data, the statistics show a faith-based profile of India's 482 million strong workforce.The figures haven't changed much from the 2001 Census, indicating a stasis in the economic status of communities.
The key reason behind low work participation rates in some communities seems to be the low work participation of women. Women's participation is just 15% for Muslims and Sikhs, and even lower at 12% among Jains. Among Hindus, there are 27% working women, while it is 31% for Christians and 33% for Buddhists. Several smaller faiths fall under `Other Religions'. These are mostly tribal communities from peninsular India and the northeastern states. Their work participation rates are markedly different from other communities. Nearly 48% of members of this section work, more than any of the country's six major religious communities. Women's work participation is also highest in tribal communities, at nearly 44%.
Census data also provides a picture of how many are engaged in what kind of work. For the country , 55% of workforce is in agriculture, as cultivators or as agricultural workers. The Census classifies all occupations in industry and services as `Other', a convention since British times. This makes up 41% of all workers.Only 13% of Jains are involved in agriculture, the lowest for any community .
While 41% of Muslims and Christians work in agriculture, this goes up to 47% among Sikhs and to 54% for Buddhists. The highest share of workers involved in agriculture is among Hindus, at 57%.
The Jain community is predominantly working in industry and services. Muslims too are largely concen trated in these sectors as are Christians. Muslims are also notably more involved in the `Household Industry' category which is mainly artisanal work like carpentry , black-smithing etc.
Among tribal communities classified under `Other Religions', over 80% of their members are working in agriculture, indicating their poor economic status.

Source: Times of India, 4-01-2016

Hindu way to resist Hindutva

Amidst the noisy debate on intolerance that marked the political discourse this year, one voice has been conspicuously absent — that of the Hindu obviously steeped in the tradition. Of course, a large number of Hindus, at least nominal Hindus, have spoken out against the growing climate of bigotry and chauvinism — Nayantara Sahgal, Kailash Satyarthi, P.M. Bhargava, N.R. Narayana Murthy, Raghuram Rajan, Admiral Ramdas and now the new Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, to name a few. However, none of them appears to be a tilak-sporting, shloka-chanting, bhajan-singing, puja-performing, pilgrimage-going, observant Hindu. Rather, they are exactly the sort of urban,
secularised, English-speakers that the proponents of Hindutva scorn as “inauthentic” in terms of their Hindu roots.

Indeed, most of India’s liberal Hindus would confess that they are Hindu, if at all, mainly in a vaguely spiritual and philosophical sense and have little understanding of Hinduism’s history or scriptures and no truck with its many rituals, symbols and observances. Their liberal sentiments are rooted largely in their own cosmopolitan
experience and, at best, a homegrown understanding of the Hindu tradition absorbed from the family milieu rather than anchored in the texts and tenets of Hinduism. Of course, the more eclectically read can trot out a supportive quotation or two from the Gita, but their plural and tolerant understanding of Hinduism is instinctive rather than intellectual.

Sadly, however, this well-meaning guff is simply not going to cut it. The misguided rants of the RSS, Sangh Parivar and the rest of the Hindutva brigade have to be delegitimised from deep within Hinduism — by wielding the texts, idioms, history and practices of the Hindu tradition, rather than the liberal and secular values of the European Enlightenment. Hindutva can only be countered by showing it up as “un-Hindu”.

This is easier said than done. No Hindu religious leader of any consequence — not one of the hordes of gurus and mahants supposedly immersed in the tradition and, therefore, able to authoritatively represent its core values — has spoken out against the rampant distortions of Hinduism that are currently being propagated. On the contrary, many have implicitly condoned or are explicitly riding the Hindutva bandwagon. Sadly, there is no Swami Vivekananda around to once again articulate an ecumenical vision for Hinduism — “a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance”, as he memorably put it at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. What, then, are liberal Hindus to do?

What, then, are liberal Hindus to do?

Gandhi provides a model. This London-educated barrister saw the profound social, cultural, intellectual and political influence exerted by Hindu religiosity and spirituality on Indians and understood the importance of expressing his political ideals — be it ahimsa, satyagraha, or sarvodaya — in a Hindu idiom to mobilise the masses. He realised that Hinduism was too important to be left to Hindu religious leaders. Instead of looking to them, Gandhi engaged with the texts and traditions himself. He was thus able to draw credibly on the Isopanishad, which he interpreted as endorsing “universal brotherhood” and “the doctrine of equality of all creatures on earth”, the Bhagavad Gita, of which he published a Gujarati translation and commentary, the Tulsi Ramayana and his family’s Vaishnava heritage to articulate a vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism. Equally, by his knowledgeable references to the Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the Buddha and Mahavira, or his use of the Surah Fatiha from the Quran in his daily prayer services, or by popularising the version of Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram that included a reference to Allah, Gandhi was able to walk his secular talk while remaining a devout Hindu throughout his life.

Equally, by his knowledgeable references to the Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the Buddha and Mahavira, or his use of the Surah Fatiha from the Quran in his daily prayer services, or by popularising the version of Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram that included a reference to Allah, Gandhi was able to walk his secular talk while remaining a devout Hindu throughout his life.

Of course, Gandhi’s moral sway waned in his latter years and he was viewed by many Muslims as having gone overboard in his use of Hindu idioms such as Ram rajya and Bharat mata and in his enthusiasm for cow protection. Ultimately, the horrific communal massacres that blighted Partition made a mockery of what Gandhi had stood for, but there is no question that his pluralist stance was critical in creating acceptance within the Hindu majority of an inclusive, non-sectarian ethos within the independence movement and post-Independence India.

Ultimately, the horrific communal massacres that blighted Partition made a mockery of what Gandhi had stood for, but there is no question that his pluralist stance was critical in creating acceptance within the Hindu majority of an inclusive, non-sectarian ethos within the independence movement and post-Independence India.

After Independence, however, the prevailing Nehruvian ethos of secular modernity meant that Hinduism found no place in the country’s mainstream political or intellectual life. Neither the Congress nor the Left had the inclination or cultural confidence to follow Gandhi’s lead and integrate Hindu idioms and ideals into their discourse, while the Hindu tradition was left out of school curriculums and not taken seriously by universities (unlike, say, Christianity, whose doctrines and development are rigorously researched and critiqued in theology departments at the best Western universities, be it Oxford or Harvard).

Educated, urban Hindus gradually lost their connection with the tradition. Few have read the core Hindu scriptures and fewer know even the barest facts about the tradition’s historical evolution or the sources of its practices. Hinduism, for them, has become nothing more than an incoherent jumble of ungrounded and unintelligible
rituals, observances and superstitions leavened by the occasional pleasures of celebrating a Diwali, listening to a Meera bhajan or reading the Hanuman Chalisa. How many times have we seen supposedly observant Hindus looking thoroughly bored or confused with the rites at their own wedding, let alone other religious occasions?

An environment in which even educated Hindus don’t know their Hinduism (in a critical and intellectual sense), even as the Hindu faith retains its pre-eminent sway over the masses, has become fertile ground for fanatical bigots.

Under the garb of saffron-clad, tilak-sporting piety, which ostensibly accords them the legitimacy to speak for Hindus, they can run around railroading the simplistic, monolithic pieties of Hindutva — whether on the cow, the role of women, or Rama — in support of a majoritarian political agenda.

Countering this poisonous discourse will require India’s liberals today to, like Gandhi, learn their Hinduism. Hinduism matters too much socially and politically to remain the preserve of sadhus and swamis and so-called Hindu leaders.

Secular Hindus need to engage seriously with Hinduism’s history, texts and living practices to articulate from within it an ethic of pluralism and tolerance that resonates in today’s India. Fundamental to this engagement is recognising the manifold variants of the tradition — the “Three Hundred Ramayanas” celebrated by the late poet and scholar A.K. Ramanujan in his essay that hardline Hindu groups succeeded in getting dropped from the history syllabus of Delhi University.

Exactly this sort of uninformed homogenisation of Hinduism leads, in a lighter vein, to my north Indian friends wishing me a happy new year on their Diwali, little realising that as a Tamil, I not only celebrate my new year in April but even my Diwali is celebrated according to a different calendar on a different day from the typical north Indian, and for a totally different reason (to mark the killing of the demonic Narakasura by Krishna’s consort, Sathyabhama, rather than the return of Rama to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana).

In sum, India’s liberals need to recognise that secularism and tolerance in a nation whose social and cultural fabric is woven largely from the multiple strands of the Hindu tradition is best protected by engaging with the majority religion rather than bypassing it. The diversity built into Hinduism’s very structure is itself the most sustainable underpinning for a plural polity that accommodates differences between the majority faith and other religions of the land, just as it accommodates enormous variations within Hinduism.

Source: Indian Express, 31-12-2015

Britain no longer a Christian country, says major report

A major report released on Monday sparked fury among ministers and the Church of England after it suggested that Britain was no longer a Christian country and called for Hindu, Muslim and other non-Christian representation in the symbols of the country’s establishment.

Titled ‘Living With Difference’, the report notes the decline in Christian affiliation in recent decades, increase in the number of people with non-religion beliefs and identities, and the increase in the number of people of non-Christian affiliation.

The Church of England said it was “disappointed” with the report, and said: “The report is dominated by the old fashioned view that traditional religion is declining in importance and that non-adherence to a religion is the same as humanism or secularism”.

The report by the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life recommends overhaul in several areas, include the media, law and education. It calls for representation in the House of Lords for non-Christian religions such as Hinduism, Islam and limiting the number of bishops in it.

The 150-page report is taken seriously because of the seniority of its composition. Chaired by former high court judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, its membership includes prominent judges, religious leaders and senior academics such as Bhikhu Parekh, lecturer in Sikh Studies Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, Hindu chaplain at Oxford Shaunaka Rishi Das, former secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain Iqbal Sacranie and former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

“The pluralist character of modern society should be reflected in national forums such as the House of Lords, so that they include a wider range of worldviews and religious traditions, and of Christian denominations, other than the Church of England”, the report says.

It adds: “All those responsible for national and civic events, whether in the public sphere or in the church, including Coronation, should ensure that the pluralist character of modern society is reflected”.

Similar changes should be made in education, employment, law, media and the BBC, the report says, and wants the BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’ to be extended to “include contributions from those who will speak from a non-religious perspective, including humanists”.

Calling for a Magna Carta-like declaration, the report says: “A national conversation should be launched across the UK by leaders of faith communities and ethical traditions to create a shared understanding of the fundamental values underlying public life”.

Source: Hindustan Times, 8-12-2015

Standing to reason and reason alone

While the government and citizens must uphold the Constitution, every law, every statute and every clause is and ought to be subject to public reasoning and re-examined in the court of the latest knowledge and understanding of the world

Soon after the ongoing controversy over the ban on the consumption of beeferupted, we had the ironical situation of its proponents seeking legitimacy by pointing to the Indian Constitution and its opponents seeking credibility through arguments from religious and social traditions.

The framers of the Constitution recommended that the future governments of the Indian republic strive to prevent cow slaughter, largely because the issue was too politically charged for them to settle in the late 1940s. If the creation of a enlightened Constitution upholding liberty and equality was a remarkable achievement for the times, the insertion of the clause — involving hypocrisy and subterfuge, as Frank Anthony put on record in the Constituent Assembly — on cow slaughter was not its finest momoment. On this issue, they effectively passed the buck.

Nitin Pai

As long as it is in our Constitution — and it will probably be there for a long time, given the basic structure doctrine — every generation of Indian citizens will have to deal with the question of cows and their slaughter. To be sure, nothing in the Constitution penalises the possession or consumption of beef, as lynch mobs and politicians would have you believe. Yet those who seek to prevent the slaughter of cows have no less an authority than the Constitution of India on their side.

Then as now, arguments purporting to protect the cattle wealth are sophistry. The only reason there is a Directive Principle concerning cow slaughter is the consideration for Hindu sensibilities.

Invoking tradition

Therefore, perhaps, the opponents of “beef ban” have energetically offered Hindu religious tradition and practice to demonstrate that the slaughter of cows prevailed during Vedic times and that consumption of beef was not uncommon even among brahmins. The great Upanishadic sage Yajnavalkya is reported to have consumed beef only if were tender. Both the Ramayana and Mahabharata mention the consumption of beef. Charaka, Sushruta and Vagbhata, known for their treatises on medicine, refer to the therapeutic uses of beef.

K. T. Achaya, a delightful scholar of Indian food, writes that “beef was freely eaten: there are four names for this meat in the early Tamil language, showing that it was a common and well-liked food. He also notes that by the time of Al-Biruni’s visits to India in the 11th century CE, social attitudes had turned against the eating of beef. Even so, many communities in different parts of India continue to eat beef — not all Hindus share the same sensibilities. There is no hard and fast rule against beef within the parameters of the broad Hindu faith.

However, whether or not the ancient Hindus ate beef is beside the point. The question of whether the Indian republic ought to be concerned with cow slaughter is not a sectarian one. It should be answered from the ground of reason. For our Constitution is not grounded on theology or tradition but firmly in the Enlightenment values of reason, individualism and liberty. There was no precedent for equality of citizens, fundamental rights and universal franchise in Indian tradition, until the Constitution came along in 1950. The Indian state is a Republic of Reason, not an altar at which the tenets of the many faiths and spiritual paths of the Indian nation are worshipped.

Democratic imperative

So the arguments for and against the beef ban must be based on reason. If democracy is not to become an instrument to impose majoritarian mores on the entire population, the only way is to use reason for public persuasion.

Of course, it is hard to single out the cow for special protection on any rational ground, but there is a case for vegetarianism Michael Pollan, who considers some of the ethical dimensions of our diet in The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, contends that “were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to raise, kill, and eat animals the way we do.” It is possible to persuade people of the merits of vegetarianism without recourse to sanctimony.

Similarly, the case against the beef ban ought to rely on science, public health, nutrition and economics. There is enough evidence that beef is a relatively inexpensive way for the poor to have access to dietary protein, and thus is useful in tackling the widespread malnutrition in our country.

Now many prominent participants in the beef controversy are engaged in it solely to reap dividends of the politics of bigotry. Yet the issue of cow slaughter and beef consumption is an unsettled question of public policy that we, for the reason that it is in our Constitution, must find ways of setting to rest. The more we use public reasoning to argue the matter, the less space we give to divisive politics by cow.

It is popularly argued that solutions can be found within the religious framework — all we need to do is empower the moderates and they will persuade the extremists. In societies where the effects of the European Enlightenment have been indirect or peripheral, this seldom happens. For instance, in countries where Islam is dominant, it is unlikely that moderate Muslims will be able to prevail over their less moderate counterparts.

Liberal fallacy

As Sam Harris (founder of Project Reason) puts it, “ [while] moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out...it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation...”

We must not, therefore, play the game according to the rules and out-of-bounds markers set by a religion, or indeed, by all of them.

While our modern Constitution enjoins us to do so, the use of reason and critical inquiry in public policy is not something that started in 1950. The Arthashastra is a strong advocate of the use of reason in politics, holding that the “study of critical inquiry is always thought of as a lamp for all branches of knowledge, a means in all activities, and a support for all religious and social duty”.

It is unambiguous in placing reason and critical inquiry above other considerations: “Investigating by means of reasons, good and evil in the Vedic religion, profit and loss in the field of trade and agriculture, and prudent and imprudent policy in political administration, as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses, the study of critical inquiry (anvikshiki) confers benefit on people, keeps their minds steady in adversity and in prosperity, and produces adeptness of understanding, speech and action.” (Arthashastra, 1.2.11).

This tradition of reason in our politics is too precious to be allowed to fall victim to dogmatic assertions of the primacy of tradition, theology or indeed clauses in the Constitution.

Narendra Modi, first as candidate and then as Prime Minister has stated that the Constitution is the government’s only holy book. In doing so, he was trying to reassure the world that his government will not engage in discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or creed.

While we can appreciate the sentiment behind the Prime Minister’s words, we must remember that the concept of a ‘holy book’ is antithetical to a society that organises its public affairs around reason.

Of course, government and citizens must uphold the Constitution and live by its lights. That said, every law, every statute and every clause is and ought to be subject to public reasoning. For instance, the criminalisation of homosexuality, the existence of multiple personal laws, the low bar to what is considered sedition and indeed the advice against cow slaughter — to name a few contemporary issues from our penal code and Constitution — must be re-examined in the court of the latest knowledge and understanding of the world.

They should stand only when they stand to reason.

(Nitin Pai is director of the Takshashila Institution, an independent think tank and school of public policy)

Keywords: Beef ban, cow slaughter, Constitution, Arthashastra, religious violence, equality of citizens, fundamental rights, K. T. Achaya

Source: The Hindu, 13-11-2015

Dharma-Dhamma in the Media Age

The positive messages that many devout people derive from their religions are not reflected in the broader media culture

In these tense times when debates on religion address little else but concerns about its abuse, the speakers at the Third Dharma-Dhamma Conference in Indore offered hope that from religion could still come a common sense of civilisation and identity for all human beings. For three days, spiritual and political figures from around the world gathered to exchange ideas about what it means to strive for the “harmony of religions and welfare of humankind.”

Vamsee Juluri

In the presence of Buddhists, Baha’is, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Jains, Hindus and others, I was reminded in passing of what it felt like on festival days in Prashanthi Nilayam, in those days when India was less globalised and the mere presence of spiritual seekers from other nations and religions conveyed the message of the oneness of spirit. The stage at the conference brought together a diverse and passionate set of voices that determinedly rejected the simplistic “clash of civilisations” discourse about religion that has dominated politics and political discourse of late. Instead, an inspiring set of speakers exhorted the audience to consider the deep common core of spiritual wisdom that makes us human, rather than the superficial trappings of religious approaches that make us suspicious and intolerant of each other.

The message of this conference, relevant as it is to the present moment, regrettably seems not to have made any headway into today’s torrid media discourses. The most effective response to concerns, real and exaggerated, about religious intolerance, after all, is not the kind of distorted and distracting drama we have seen of late, but to turn our attention to religious leaders who are extolling and embodying the right sort of message about the meaning of religion. After all, when a nation sees only fear spread across its media landscape, without even an acknowledgment of the moments of hope that exist still among its citizens for religious and world harmony, it can warp whatever possibilities that exist for seeing religion as an influential, cultural source of tolerance and acceptance in the world.

Dominant media myth

As a student of media and culture, I am concerned that the positive messages that many devout people derive from their religions fail to find a reflection in the broader media culture. Given the relative absence of popular education in critical media interpretation from both secular and religious institutions, especially in India, those who believe in religion as a positive cultural resource often fail to counter the dominant media myths and distortions. One challenge today is that this media culture, globally and in India, has veered towards what scholars and religious figures are starting to call “religion-phobia”. Although numerous religious organisations and figures have invested in their own media outlets, the disconnect between mainstream media narratives about the self, culture and nature, and religious and spiritual teachings remains.

The key question that those of us interested in religion as a form of culture, with great potential for human improvement, must explore now is whether spiritual pursuit, even of the well-meaning, interfaith variety, can succeed without a common intellectual front against media discourses in an age of global consumerism and violence as spectacle. I proposed at the conference, as a starting point, that religious and cultural leaders encourage discussion of three broad themes to broaden critical media awareness to include positive religious and spiritual sensibilities.

First, we must critique media narratives about the self. Can we seriously expect children, or even adults, to cultivate spiritual insights about the self as something sacred and inviolably entwined with the other, when the entire media environment hammers home a message that the self is nothing more than the individual, desiring, acquisitive, competitive body?

Second, we must critique media narratives about identity. In everyday life, especially in India, we are accustomed to religious, linguistic and cultural diversity on a uniquely remarkable scale. However, media and especially news discourses about identity tend to barely reflect that everyday sense of diversity and harmony, and play up a sterile, academic notion of religion as identity-based conflict instead.

Narrative of violence

Third, we must critique media narratives about the naturalness and inevitability of violence. Several speakers at the conference addressed the importance of non-violence in their own traditions and as an inter-religious ideal. But non-violence will become more than a mere homily only when it is taught accurately as a form of critique in our curricula, particularly in relation to narratives about violence that we confront in our bloodlust-driven media today. We must learn to identify and reject popular myths about “survival of the fittest”, and “might is right”, and distinguish the artificially bloated world of media violence from the natural world in which violence has a much smaller part than what we commonly believe it to be.

Amidst the despair of our times about religious intolerance, we must also turn our attention to the efforts of people who have not given up on religion as a source of tolerance, peace and non-violence either. The secular solution for religious strife, after all, has had a much shorter history than the spiritually-rooted quest for co-existence that has protected humanity from itself for several millennia now.

In this age of high violence in real-life and in our culture and our thoughts, perhaps we can turn once more to the hope that by conquering our own selves, we can still conquer the forces of untruth, violence, and divisiveness that plague our world, and to our hope that all that is good in nature will still prevail.

(Vamsee Juluri is a professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco and the author ofRearming Hinduism)

Keywords: religions intolerance, media culture, Third Dharma-Dhamma Conference, cultural diversity, violence

Source: The Hindu, 12-11-2015