Charminar and the Temple

When I was a young boy I used to frequently visit the ‘old city’ of Hyderabad because that’s where my grandparents used to live.  On the way we had to take road next to Charminar.  I have a vague memory of a very small temple next to Charminar.  But, now that temple has grown in size according to the latest pictures.  As we speak, old city is rioting once again after a gap of many years.  The topic of contention is the growing size of the temple next to Charminar which has now become a prominent place for Hindus.  Muslims are objecting to this. 

Here are the pictures from THE HINDU where it shows that there was no temple whatsoever sixty years ago.  A few days ago, a lady showed an old photograph from her family on a Telugu news channel which doesn’t show the temple next to Charminar.  

Segregation in India 2: Indian Muslims are not Khans or Kalams

India constantly refers to many Muslim Presidents they have had to showcase its tolerance and equal treatment of Muslims.  Nowadays many Indian Hindus repeatedly take the example of our erstwhile President, Abdul Kalam.  They say, ‘Look! We have had a Muslim as our President.  And he was selected by a Hindu Party!’ By saying this, they want to showcase India as a tolerant and magnanimous country that allows anyone to become the President of India, even a Muslim.  These Hindus also refer to the three Khans who dominate Indian Hindi Cinema – Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan and Amir Khan.  And they point out the cricketers like Yusuf Pathan and musician like AR Rahman.  They use these examples to say that Muslims are not discriminated in India, that they are not marginalized, that they get the same access to education and opportunity, that they are not unequal, that they are not second-class citizens. 

According to these Hindus, the Muslims are in fact ‘appeased’, they are given certain sops unnecessarily, like subsidies on Haj, and they are given special treatment unnecessarily, like special personal laws.  These people think that these ‘appeasing’ measures have a definite purpose - only to win votes.  They believe that Muslims are so naïve, so innocent that they could be beguiled by such silly sops, like Haj subsidy, to form a single vote bank.

Segregation in India: Plight of Muslims

After winning the American Civil War for Northern States, Abraham Lincoln went about abolishing slavery in United States of America.  The Congress and Senate passed three landmark amendments attempting to change the fate of African Americans in that country.  The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th Amendment made blacks equal citizens, and 15th Amendment gave them right to vote.  In the next ten years of Reconstruction, many black leaders emerged to occupy positions in Senate and Congress.  It almost looked, for a while, that this new nation would correct the mistakes of its past and reverse the effects of slavery it imposed on black people.  However, the whites of America were not ready to give blacks an equal status in their country.  They started to dilute these amendments by creating a notion called ‘separate but equal’.  They imposed segregation in the country through a series of measures called Jim Crow laws. 

It started with disenfranchising many blacks, then creating separate schools, separate seating in travel and restaurants, thereby institutionalizing discrimination.  They created two Americas, one for the privileged which was mostly white, and the other was for the underprivileged which was mostly black.  The Jim Crow laws completely negated the three amendments passed during Lincoln’s times.

Anna is not India, India is not Anna

Kiran Bedi, one of the ubiquitous supporters of the current Anna Hazare Movement, in her overenthusiasm, said, ‘Anna is India. India is Anna’.  Little did she realize the significance of that statement!  Back in the heydays when Indira Gandhi was riding absolute power, her supporters chanted, ‘Indira is India. India is Indira’.  Now, we reflect upon that period as a national ignominy when she took over the country in an iron grip, imposed Emergency, stripped Indians of their rights, and put hundreds of her political opponents in jail.  To those who know history, such a chant from Kiran Bedi that ‘Anna is India’ reeks of ignorance or arrogance - both of which are quite dangerous given the popularity of the Anna Hazare Movement.

While discussing Arundhati Roy’s article (that appeared in The Hindu), I commented that it is a serious concern that the supporters of Janlokpal Bill do not include Dalits and Muslims.  If Anna Hazare has to make this an all-encompassing movement to be deemed ‘Indian’, he has to make sure these other groups support his cause, or be contended that he represents only a certain section of Indians.   A lady responded to my comment:

In what way does the Jan lokpall Bill not favor Dalits or Muslims? Do they not want a corruption-free govt?

The implicit assumption in the above question is: “If you are not with us then you are against us”, which seems to be the moot point of Arundhati Roy’s article against Anna Hazare Movement.   Many editors of the print media have openly disagreed with Janlokpal Bill.  Aruna Roy, a noted RTI activist, does not support Janlokpal Bill or the Anna Hazare Movement.  Can we conclude that these people do not stand for anti-corruption? 

Telangana 85: Say NO to Telangana Talli

In our euphoria to restore our history and our identity we have been discarding everything that was imposed onto us in Andhra Pradesh by the Andhras.  One such idol we discard is the icon of Telugu Talli, an unmistakably Hindu lady with jewels and bhindi carrying Hindu symbol of devotion in one hand.  She looks no different from contemporary images of a Hindu goddess.  Telanganas replaced Telugu Talli with Telangana Talli, who doesn’t look any different from Telugu Talli except some small variations.  Once again she is distinctly Hindu lady.  Any casual observer will pass her for a Hindu goddess.  

Continuing the same exercise of discarding Seemandhra symbols, Telangana leaders are ready to discard the official state song Maa Telugu Talliki, which is a devotional song sung in most official programs, celebrations, government offices, schools, across the state.   The argument from Telanganas is the same – it is an imposition of Andhras onto Telanganas.

Are you a ‘Secularist’?

There is a mail floating around which includes a presentation called ‘Pseudosecularism’ with the following questions.  Usually I avoid countering such propaganda but when sometimes you see a recurring theme in most people’s arguments it becomes necessary to address it.  This presentation has the following questions which one is supposed to answer for oneself.  I am going to answer them here. 

Are you a Secularist?

I am not sure what that means.  But if it means I believe in the principles of secularism and believe that our country, India, should adhere to the secular principles, yes, I am a secularist.  But it does not mean I am going to demonize other’s religion while praising my own, or denounce my religion while praising others.   I believe that state should be separated from religion – irrespective of whose religion it is. 

There are nearly 52 Muslim countries.  Show one Muslim country which provides Haj subsidy.

I don’t know if other Muslim countries provide Haj subsidy, but as a ‘secularist’ I oppose India giving Haj subsidy.   As a secularist, I do not agree to state providing Haj subsidy.  But it is also true that no country in the world gives government funds for construction and renovation of private Hindu temples.   Karnataka Government in India has donated crores of money to Hindu temples. 

As a secularist, I oppose Haj subsidies, and also oppose state sponsorship of Hindu Temples. As a secularist, I also oppose state sponsored cow veneration, state sponsored celebration of Hindu and Muslim festivals, state sponsored Hindu ceremonies for government offices, etc.

So, India happens to be a ‘secular’ country in theory which doesn’t necessarily practice secularism, and does all kinds of funny things to promote various religions, including Haj subsidies, and donations to temples.  So, to highlight only Haj subsidies does not do justice to the argument that India somehow treats Indian Muslims preferentially, because it treats Indian Hindus even more preferentially.

Secularism and Religious Identities II

Did India shun all group identities?

Though India had initially abhorred group identities, it got a dose of reality later on and started to recognize certain group identities – such as caste, language, region, sex, etc.

Generally, our attitude towards group identities has been that of reluctance. We accept them only when we are pushed to a corner and when we don’t see any other option. We are somewhat squeamish about group politics. Caste politics are not palatable to most elite Indians, and some Indians still continue to believe that states should be redrawn as boxes, blurring linguistic lines. Many Indians still cherish the dream of one identity, by imposing Hindi onto everyone. Some fanatics would like to make this country home to one religion, Hindus. Nationalist and patriotic Indians would impress upon others why we should call ourselves Indians and nothing else. Many Indians believe it is OK to forgo freedom of expression in order to impose conformity.

Thankfully, Indian democracy allowed for pragmatic politics due to which India slowly started to learn that it cannot shun group identities. It learnt that certain group identities are an integral part of a plural democracy. As a first step, it recognized lower castes as a group and made special provisions in the Constitution to address their needs. As a second step, it recognized language as a distinct identity and allowed for carving of states along linguistic lines. Though leaders of that time didn’t intend to do this out of volition, in retrospect, it is one of the best and most pragmatic achievements of modern India. India conceded to recognize some groups as legitimate groups. Now, we can have women forming groups to fight for their rights, tribes coming together to demand justice.

Some wiser nations and wiser leaders came to realize the importance of allowing local identities to thrive to hold together a nation that consists of multiple groups. It is understood that group politics is a necessary ingredient of a modern plural democracy. The idea of imposing one single identity backfires, results in conflicts and secessions, and most often bloodshed.

These are the stark realities which Gandhi and Nehru did not get a chance to learn.

Though India agreed to recognize some identities as legitimate, it adamantly refuses to recognize religion as a legitimate group identity.

Indians didn’t learn to handle religion

When it comes to handling religion, Indians became a confused lot. They wanted to be secular but they didn’t understand what secularism meant, and in an effort to pacify various belligerent groups, they started to provide sops to religions on an ad hoc basis without a comprehensive position or principle.

India continues to bow down to the religious might to extend ridiculous provisions, sometimes contravening the basic tenets of constitution, to satisfy irrational positions. While it does this, as a policy it has shunned all references to religious identities. The result is a hotchpotch of various positions with no coherent policy or mechanism to address real issues. Whenever India had a chance to make a principled position, it chickened out, and instead set a wrong precedent. Shah Bano case is an example.

No state is allowed to form in India on the basis of religion. Language is OK, but not religion. Every effort to bring fair representation along religious lines is struck down. Lower castes have reservations, tribes have their rights and protections, North-east has their states, but not religious groups.

Currently, any talk to uplift a certain religious group is completely shunned. In India, Sikhs, upper caste Hindus, Jains and Christians are overrepresented, while the lower caste Hindus, Muslims and converted Christians are underrepresented. And yet, no corrective action is allowed since it is along the lines of religions.

Thanks to Ambedkar, lower caste Hindus got the benefits of reservations and that has already transformed Indian polity – paving way for a Dalit leader like Mayawati now eyeing the position of Prime Minister of India. However, India is not ready to take any corrective measures to address the underrepresentation of Muslims. Shah Rukh Khan, Abdul Kalam and A R Rahman are exceptions, they are not the norm – they do not lead other Muslims. One cannot cite exceptions to make a case that Muslims have equal opportunity. Every index suggests their conditions are only deteriorating, not improving.

India needs to address the plight of Muslims and make sure religion forms a legitimate identity to address the situation, just like reservations based on caste is used to uplift the lower caste Hindus. Sops like sponsoring Haj pilgrims is eyewash, just like Rs. 1 per kilo rice to the poor, which is an artificial help.

A word of caution here! Before India starts addressing religious groups, it has to understand how and where the privileges work. India has never understood the duties of the majorities and the privileged towards minorities and underprivileged. That’s why people ask for ‘reservations’ for ‘poor Brahmins’ as if discrimination was meted out to Brahmins. That’s why people ask, ‘What about Hindu rights?’ as if Hindus are somehow marginalized.

Rubbish Kashmir’s aspirations

Today, we are not able to address Kashmir issue because we fail to recognize their legitimate demand seeking freedom. We made some blunders during our Partition. The wounds and bruises that we suffered back then have become a disease right now. We don’t want to see the doctor because we have never admitted in the first place that we got a bruise back then.

The current people’s movement in Kashmir is termed an ‘Islamic uprising’ against the ‘integrity of the nation’ and hence we pit a detested word called ‘religious terrorism’ fighting against the lofty word called ‘nationalism’. This is supposed to make us rubbish the aspirations of these people as sheer nonsense. We never accepted the Partition in principle because we deluded ourselves into thinking that a nation cannot be built on the basis of a religion, when in fact many countries continue to come into existence based on religion. Religion is a legitimate identity to form a nation-state. There are many such nations on the planet.

For some reason, India has never gone back to do a reality check. Creation of countries along religious lines punches holes into the myths that we created as to why we are a multi-cultural nation. We have come to believe that if we open our eyes to see the real world, it will make us doubt our own existence as a nation. We think India is so fragile that mere acceptance of religious identity would somehow crumble the nation like a pack of cards.

Any delineation of districts, carving of new states, and recognition of religious identity, was seen as direct ticket to complete dissolution of this country. We are indeed a very insecure nation. Even today many young Indians get ruffled up when some of us criticize it. They think their nation is so delicately balanced that mere criticism would somehow break it up.

We are so caught up in our fears that we fail to see we have been trampling upon the very rights and freedoms that we fought for during our Freedom Movement. We no longer endorse freedom movements, not even in some remote part of the planet, because that makes us realize our own mistakes in our backyard. Though legitimate, new states within India are not allowed their status because all separation is equated directly to breakup of this nation. Though Jammu and Kashmir is distinctly three different cultures/religions, India has not agreed to carve three units. It sees a mini India in Jammu and Kashmir. If this state broke up, it means India as a nation loses its case. That’s how ridiculous we have become in defining our country.

Some people think that India is such a fragile nation, that it needs to be protected at all costs.

India is more than a country; it is an idea that must be defended and protected at all costs.

[ARIF MOHAMMED KHAN, former Union Minister].

A nation is an idea

A modern nation is an idea. It is not territory, it is not a border. It is an idea shared by many people living in it. These people have come together willingly to form a nation. If in future, many of them do not believe in it, that nation will cease to exist. During its lifetime, if ever certain people believe their interests are served elsewhere, they should be allowed to form their own idea. Sometimes one can reconcile the differences and come to an agreement and see value in living together. Sometimes the differences are irreconcilable. When that happens, a happy and mature country will be ready to part ways. Immature and insecure countries will fight tooth and nail to ensure they do not separate, even if it means killing all those people who want to go on their separate ways. Such immature countries are like jealous boyfriends, who will hold onto their girlfriend no matter what, even when the girls wants to part ways. That only results in a really bad breakup. When it happens to nations, thousands of people get killed.

India is a nation only because we all want to be part of this idea called India. Not because someone has held a gun against our head forcing us to be part of it. That’s what we are doing in Kashmir. We hold guns against their heads and force them to be part of us. We also delude ourselves into thinking that while we keep that gun against his head, he will think very sanely to see the greatness in us; that he will abandon his dreams of living on his own, and would see the goodness in us and would like to live with us. We are not realizing that the more you try to hold on, the more you force yourself upon him, the more he will hate you. That’s what is happening in Kashmir. Not very different from a relationship gone sour!

India is a strong idea

I believe this idea called India is a strong idea. It does not need protection from the goons, the nationalists, the patriots, the fundamentalists to defend it. As long as this nation takes care of its people, addresses its issues, makes sure each group and identity is well represented, making sure no section get left out, it will remain a strong nation.

We need to learn to deal with group politics. We have to make it an official policy, instead of creating ad hoc policies each time a situation arises. We have an issue at hand – in Kashmir. I am hoping that we will come out of this crisis with flying colors. If we handle it maturely, we will not end up breaking this nation, but we will make it strong. But we are so insecure we don’t even want to take the first bold step.

The first step to resolve Kashmir

India needs to look at Kashmiri Muslims as a legitimate group identity and then go onto address their aspirations. India has been in existence for only sixty years. It has to learn to deal with the realities of complex humanity. It cannot say that all the answers are written in some laws and books written long ago. When people are dying on a daily basis, when people are deprived of their freedoms forever, India should relook at its own credentials and track record, accept that it doesn’t have solutions to all problems in its books and legal code, that it willing to learn, and that is humane at the end of the day.

Religious groups as identities for future

Discrimination, marginalization, persecution, ostracism, exclusion, suppression, etc, happen to individuals but along the identity tags. Those identity tags are group identities, such as religion, caste, language, sex, race, ethnicity, etc. These ill-treatments and underrepresentation can be corrected by using the same identity tag and nothing else. I use this argument to make my case for reservations based on caste. Since, we have deprived a section of Indians all access to education and opportunity ‘based on caste’ for thousands of years, any corrective measure that one can come up has to be ‘based on caste’. It cannot be any other.

India has to recognize religious groups as legitimate group identities and it has to make provisions to address their aspirations and their needs as a group, the way they have addressed the aspirations of lower castes. This means we will address underrepresentation of certain religious groups. This means we will ensure their rights are protected, and where needed certain extra privileges are given to ensure there is fair representation and access to opportunity. We have many group identities like caste, region, language, ethnicity and sex. Now, we will add religion to that list.

Can a secular state recognize religious groups?

India should remain secular, sticking to the original definition, where state is separated from religion. Secularism does not mean religion does not exist. It means state has no religion and that its laws are not guided by religious sentiments or belief systems. It will not make its decisions based on irrationality, blind belief and superstitions of a religion.

Recognizing religious groups does not mean we will have different civil laws for different people. This does not mean we will now be reading Bible, Koran or Gita in our courts. This does not mean we will cite Ram Charita Manas as evidence for existence of Rama. This does not mean we will use government offices or buildings or its time or money to endorse a religious ritual.

Kashmir people’s cry for freedom is a legitimate demand. The roots for such a cry are not based in irrationality, superstition or blind belief of religion. Freedom is not borrowed from religion. Freedom is a group’s legitimate demand even in a secular democracy. It has to be addressed without having to rubbish it. In this context, a group can be identified by religion. That’s what I mean by entertaining and addressing aspirations of groups by their identities.

But if Kashmiri people were protesting against launch of rockets into space because they believe their God residing on Cloud 17 is going to be disturbed by each of those launches, such demands have to rubbished and not entertained by a secular democracy. That’s what I mean by separation of state from religion.

Secularism and Religious Identities I

Looks like I hold seemingly ‘contradictory’ positions on some serious issues. On one side I am an ardent supporter of original definition of secularism where state and religion are completely separated, and yet I am an advocate of religious group identities. I believe a vibrant democracy that has diverse groups, such as India, should have mechanisms to address the interests and aspirations of various group identities, and one of those identities is religion.

Some readers find these positions contradictory. While I support the idea of formation of an Independent Kashmir which derives its group identity in religion, I completely oppose any move by Indian government making decisions on civic matters based on religious belief systems- as seen in Ram Sethu Controversy or sops for Haj Pilgrimage.

In the previous article, Kashmir exposes India, I talked about India’s inability to recognize and address aspirations of religious group identities. This inability, according to me, is an inherent deficiency of a multicultural democracy that has so many diverse groups living within. At the same time, in the article, Secularism Redefined I and II, I strongly upheld the separation of state from religion.

So why do I contradict myself?

Though some people find these positions to be contradictory, I feel I am consistent. To give an analogy- while observing light and its motion, one may discover its properties of diffraction, interference and slowing down in denser medium, suggesting it is a wave, but it also exhibits properties of a particle causing photoelectric effect. So, light is both a wave and particle, but usually we only look at one theory at a time to explain a phenomenon that it exhibits. If we were to use wave theory to explain the corpuscular behavior, we will run into ‘contradictions’. At the end of the day, one needs a wave-particle duality theory to explain the behavior of light.

I believe that India has to be secular and at the same time it should recognize religious identities. These attributes are not mutually exclusive and in fact a secular and plural democracy has to realize this fast and embrace them as state objectives.

The reality is that India and Indians have never learnt or understood these concepts.

Why don’t we recognize religious groups as legitimate identities?

India has shown contempt for recognizing religious groups as legitimate identities (though its political outfits have always used it for their vote banks – and hence the hypocrisy). Our idea of shunning religious identities is not something new. It has its origins in our freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhi abhorred it and so did Jawaharlal Nehru and few others. In fact, Nehru abhorred all such group distinctions. He was not even ready to carve India along linguistic lines after Independence. Gandhi never wanted to create reservations based on caste or electorates based on caste because he felt that it would lead to further division. During those times, the prevailing thought was – ‘impose a single identity to blur all local identities’.

This phenomenon was not confined to Indian leaders. The whole world was reeling itself in this new ideology called nationalism, which promoted the idea of blurring all local identities to impose one single identity onto everyone to treat it as a single group, not multiple groups. According to them, a nation had to have a single group and that’s how Europe was divided into many countries. Europe was distinctly a continent of countries with single identities. There was no pluralism there. Fascist movement is nothing but an exaggeration of that ideology.

Countries like Soviet Union and China had people of different ethnicities, religions and languages in their countries. Their solution to impose one identity was communism that fed on nationalism. They embraced atheism as a state policy. They ignored all religious identities and wanted to believe that religion did not exist. The only way they dealt with the inherent inadequacies of such a system was ruthless suppression. They suppressed every voice of dissent with brute force. As far as the outside world was concerned, it was a utopia where many group identities coexisted under one ideology.

Nationalism was an ideology for both fascist and communist countries. It was based in creating one identity for all, and force was used to achieve it. Italy, Germany, France, Russia, China, etc, all saw national movements where the identity of majority was imposed onto all minorities. They were not very exciting times for minorities. World War II came as a culmination of these movements that led to death of 50 million people. Some communities were completely wiped out and some were decimated.

One of the learning from World War II was a sense of sobriety in those countries which faced the wrath of the destruction in the name of nationalism. The countries that witnessed the war in their lands did not tout nationalism with the same vigor anymore. However, the nations that did not witness the war in their lands continued to promote nationalism. India is one of those countries.

Before Indian Independence, all group identities were anathema to Indians. If not for vociferous Ambedkar we would not have had reservations based on caste, and without them we may have had a major civil war in this country right now. Ambedkar has inadvertently averted a major bloodshed in this country. He faced opposition from leaders like Gandhi and Nehru who did not want to see people grouped along caste identities. Those were the times where imposing one single language, one single dress, one national symbol, were carried out to unify Indians under one banner, all in the name of nationalism. That’s why many leaders of that time wanted to impose Hindi to unify all Indians under one banner. Thanks to Tamils we don’t have a National Language.

One identity which grew to prominence and caused lot of trouble to pre-Independent Indian leaders is religion. They had to face the harsh realities of what two different group identities could do when pitted against each other. Muslim-Hindu/Sikh riots created havoc in this country even before India became independent. While Ambedkar stood for creating equal rights and fair representation for lower caste Hindus to emancipate them from servitude of thousand years, Jinnah created a new nation for his Muslims taking them away from the rule of majority Hindus.

However, the story was not complete.

Many Muslims made India their home. Almost all Sikhs made India their home, so did many Buddhists, Jains, and Pasrees. India was home to many religions, and it intended to stay that way. India would not be a nation-state. It would be a multicultural democracy. While Pakistan defined itself a Muslim nation, India defined itself a multi-religious nation. And then, as if it had to prove Pakistan wrong, India became overzealous in its definition and decided not to recognize religion as a distinct identity ever again, fearing it would lead to breakup of the nation once again.

Added to this pain of Partition, India saw unprecedented scale of riots where more than half a million people, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, died on the streets. The new nations saw train loads of massacred bodies sent across the border to the other side as gifts. It was a horrible time. India continues to shudder when it is reminded of those times.

Because of these distasteful events that happened during its creation, India has never got to terms with religious identity. It fears it. It abhors it. The pain it has endured during the labor has left an indelible mark on India. It’s as if the labor was so painful and complicated that it had affected its psyche forever. India has matured into an adult on all other areas, but when it comes to religion it has nightmares and becomes restless as if it is a mental disease.

Because of this India has failed to accept religion as a legitimate identity to deal with group politics.

[Continued…]

Einstein on God

For many years, many theists and religious people have used some of the statements from Albert Einstein to demonstrate that he was a religious man, or that he believed in a personal God, or that he was ambivalent about belief in God, and so on.

The religious people fought a long battle, citing many of his remarks, sometimes giving quite childish interpretations and conclusions to prove that Einstein believed in a religious God.

“God does not play dice with the universe”

For example, his famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe” is wrongly interpreted as confession of his belief in God. One just cannot make such a direct conclusion. Many atheists refer to 'God' in their day-to-day speech. That does NOT necessarily mean they believe in a personal or religious God. The figure of speech using ‘God’ could mean differently in different contexts for different people, including atheists. But to conclude that Einstein was a believer from the above quotation is quite far fetched.

To understand why he said what he said, one has to know the context.

For eons, many cultures believed that God worked the laws of nature. (Biblical God has even created the nature with his hands, not necessarily abiding with laws of nature.) When Newton proposed Universal Theory of Gravitation thus setting the stage for Classical Physics, it was understood that the entire Universe was based on few well-understood laws of Physics making the universe and its workings deterministic. That means, if you knew the position of a planet at this moment, and know its interactions with the environment, we can predict its position at any time in future. If there is an error in calculation, it’s only because all the factors in the environment that influence its behavior are not clearly stated. So, the problem is with the guy calculating the position of this planet, not with the universal laws of nature.

So, if we are not able to predict future, it’s only because we don’t have the complete knowledge of all the factors affecting that future. But theoretically, if we knew all the factors, we can predict the future absolutely without any error. That was the understanding under Classical Physics.

Then came Quantum Physics!

It told us that nature was NOT deterministic. That it was not possible to predict the future. That unpredictability and probability are inherent part of this Universe. That even if you knew all the factors in the environment absolutely, you would still NOT be able to predict the future. That the outcome of events is probabilistic! That the God played dice with universe!

Even Einstein, the greatest thinker of our time, could not reconcile himself to this reality. When he got to know how Quantum Physics worked, he could not believe it and uttered the now famous quote – ‘God does not play dice with Universe’.

Later on, with more understanding of this new and revolutionary physics, he has accepted Quantum Physics, and became a champion of it. He went onto accept that God does indeed play dice with the universe.

For him and everyone who knows the context, using God was a figure of speech. It does not speak of religion or belief in supernatural being who watches over us.

Science without religion is lame

Another famous quote which is often cited to say that Einstein approved of religion is – “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Many people used this quotation to say that religion was equally important to Einstein as much as Science. This philosophical and sociological statement only promotes harmony between the factions, but does not tell much about Einstein’s religious attitudes.

However, many religious people have used this quotation to prove that Einstein believed in God and that he approved of mainstream religion.

Then came the final quote to put an end to all this debate.

“God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness”

In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”

And about Bible, he said: “[it is] a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

About Judaism, he said: “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

About Jews, he said: “I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.”

Conclusion

Einstein grew up in an environment where religion was extremely important. Though Einstein confessed that he ‘lost his religion’ at the age of 12, calling religion ‘a lie’, he remained slightly ambivalent when it came to the role of religion in society. His ideas on his personal god were closer to atheists, though he maintained respect for the necessity of religion.

His religion, if one can use that terminology, is captured more by his awe of the universe than the anthropomorphic God of the West or the human interventionist God of the East. To this effect, he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.”

But in no way he was a religious man as people describe their religions, and no way he was a believer in personal god as people define their gods.

At the same time, Einstein did not think he was an atheist. Some people categorize him as a deist - someone who does not believe in a personal god, or a religious god, but who believes that there is something more to this universe which is beyond human comprehension - but there is no room for miracles, prophecies or 'chosen people'.

Say Goodbye to Secularism

Indians are getting vexed by Secularism! They see it as an encumbrance; something they know is guaranteed in the Indian constitution but which they do not like to follow if possible. It is more akin to traffic rules of India, which most Indians would rather not follow though they exist as laws.

Now, a HC court judge has said that Indians should ‘follow dharma propounded by Bhagvad Gita’. He opined that Gita is a ‘dharma shastra’ of India. The court added that as India recognized National Flag and National Anthem, it should consider Bhagvad Gita as rashtriya dharma shastra.

This ruling is not just a freak episode and should not be seen as one. There are millions of Hindu Indians who would like to see such trends paving the way for a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. One commenter at CNN-IBN said that at least someone is speaking for the majority of this nation while politicians and the government is appeasing the minorities of India.

Secularism is becoming an extremely repugnant element of Indian Constitution. Many Indians abhor it. Hindus would like to completely abandon this charade of pretending to be secular which according to them is nothing more than ‘appeasement of minorities’ while ‘punishing the majority’. Muslims have never reconciled themselves to this. Always riding ‘special privileges’ where they continue to practice Islamic Law, depriving women of their rights, they would rather kick secularism out to just implement Shariat in its purest form.