Secularism debate

Twenty years ago this week, Prakash A Raj analysed if Nepal should be a secular state. He argued that Hinduism is more tolerant than any other religion, and was evolving to correct the historical injustices against Dalits and women.

Two decades since, Hinduism has been weaponised for political and other gains. We have next-door India where the BJP has used religion for populist support. Some of this is already beginning to spread into the Nepal tarai in a volatile mix of politics and faith.

Excerpts of the article published in Nepali Times on issue #158 15-21 August 2003:

Hinduism is in many respects a 'secular' religion. Unlike some of the others, it does not claim that it is the only path to salvation. It does not claim that non-Hindus will go to hell. Hindus and Muslims have lived peacefully in Nepal for hundreds of years and there have been fewer religious riots in this Hindu kingdom than in the secular republic of India. Further, Hinduism does not divide the world into believers and non-believers and does not include the concept of jihad or fatwa. A huge mosque was constructed next to the royal palace in this Hindu kingdom in the past decade, replacing a smaller one...

… The mass murders and genocides in Europe were perpetrated in western 'civilisation', no such organised slaughter has ever occurred in the name of religion here. There were separate churches for blacks and whites in the US south till 100 years ago. Social mores change, cultural relations evolve. This is not to excuse discrimination and injustice in our society, only to say that Nepal as a kingdom and Hinduism as a religion do not have a monopoly on social ostracism.

For archived material of Nepali Times of the past 20 years, site search: www.nepalitimes.com