The recent 7th Class text book controversy comes at the right time when the Kerala Government is hunting down the faith traders. Here is a translation of the controversy.
Principal: “What is your name?”
“Jeevan”
Principal: “Nice…father’s name?”
“Anwar Rasheed”
principal: Mother’s name?”
“Lakshmi Devi”
The Principal looks at the parents
Principal: “What should I fill in for the kid’s religion?”
Parents : “Keep it blank…or else add No Religion”
Principal: “Caste”
Parents : “not needed”
The Principal leans back on his chair and asks solemnly
Principal: “What if he wants a religion when he grows up?”
Parents : “If he wants a religion when he grows up, he can choose the one he likes then”
Does this sound anti religious ??
Secularism a concept that should be taught at a younger age. Every child must understand that his religion is not special. Its one among 100s of other religions and there is no point it giving it more importance than humanity.
If this textbook is removed from the curriculum we can no longer say that India is a secular country. If religious beliefs are protected in this country, then there should be protection given to non religious secular thoughts also. Having no religion is not a crime.
Religion is something personal. All the religious problems that our country is facing is due to the freedom given to the religious believers to take their beliefs to the street. We all have the freedom to believe in anything we like, and the same freedom is there for everyone else, be it your wife, your son or your friend.
Instead of banning the textbook, ban the following.
- Public religious processions
- Irritating noise making religions (pentacostes)
- Reigious instruction in aided schools
Secularism: The word any Indian is free to use and practice. Left government implemented secularism colorfully to the point without much bluffing or beating around the bush which none of previous 7th standard students have yet come across.
The difference in the new version and old version secularism lesson is the direct hit and the indirect hit respectively.
A protest against anything that comes their way is a politicians method. (I said anything).
Learning this 7th grade text will not make any kid a communist, as such the parties and people protesting against are god men enough. Who will stop all these unnecessary riots and politicians 3rd rate games? Who?? and When???
Comment by SAF — June 25, 2008 @ 10:43 am
The definition of a religion is not stated well anywhere, so do the so called secularism.
The main reason behind this is a continuing conflict between non religious aspect and religious aspect. Unfortunately this constitution differs people along with their religion. It gives powers only to the religions (which follows theistic approach), such as minority powers, reservations etc. But there are citizens coming under a different category -say non religious. They includes Atheist, Unitarians, Spiritualists etc. Even Hinduism is not considered as a religion by the Supreme court of India,instead, considers it only as a way of life.
In a sense communism can also be considered as a religion, which follows atheism with economic reforms which aimed on the well being of working class(This category is now a cliche), similarly socialism in a humanitarian economic reform approach(Utopia).
Since religion is such a perspective(infinite approaches theistic, atheistic) which (cl)aims to serve its purpose than serving itself, is infinite. Perspective can be imaginations(beliefs) or anything pointing to the truth.
Since perspective is a contradictory factor, where only possibility to bring harmony is to respect other perspective(An utopia again, since I can see frogs in his own well).
So teaching a perspective(often emotional and sensitive), what ever it is, a religious, or non religious view is quite destructive and dangerous.
That is what happened now, Two contradictory perspectives contradicted each other.
Fortunately, each perspective holds an underlying truth which never contradicts(because truth cannot be many, and its unique). So teach the truths, and make people aware of the facts.
“I can see the frog still in the well.”
Comment by Tony Jose — June 25, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Kenney,
I would’ve to disagree with you on this post.
I’m sorry.
Unfortunately, now SECULARISM is considered as a state of NO RELIGION.
As you’ve said it clearly,It means that all religions are equal.
NOW to the point.
The text book is not considered anti-religious.
It’s just that it gives no importance for religion at all.
This could be clearly understood as a ‘phase’ of the long-term objective of removing religions and making The God’s Own Country, GODLESS.
Are you saying that, Religion is a commodity that is to be selected the way you would select a pair of shoes??
:Clarifications:
I’m not a “religion-man” or “one-who-hates-LEFT PARTIES-for-no-reason”.
This is not a negative comment nor it insults the author, Kenney, who is a good friend of mine.
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
@Aravind
No need for disclaimers..my friend. These are mere intellectual discussions. No hard feelings !!!!!!
Religion is something very personal. I became a Christian just because I was born in a Christian family. Ultimately the only truth that we can verify is that I am a human. So humanity above religion. Thats all.
Why should a school admission form ask for ones religion and caste ? All that the text book says is that Its ok not to have a religion or a caste.
I am also in total disagreement with organised religion which tends to exploit the believers.
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
@Aravind.
)
Selecting / Choosing a religion is not like getting a pair of shoes but is like choosing your own life partner.
Any one is allowed to change religion as he/she wish. Quran have said clearly.. Not any one is muslim unless he/she know what Islam is all about, what Islam mean to be,what Quran is,how should one become a muslim,what all things are to be done, what all things are not to be done..and a lot more.
I believe so will be Bible, so will be any accepted holy books.
Being a member of a particular religion doesnt mean he/she is supposed to follow those rules, I am muslim for what my parents are, later may be very recently only I realized many things what muslims are doing has values than just a book full of rules. Only such realizations makes a man know what god is.
(by now the topic is getting deviated??
So, let people think and choose their religion and god (not to create one new god as a whole).
Comment by SAF — June 25, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Well, You’ve asked :
Why should a school admission form ask for ones religion and caste ?
Exactly, I agree with you 100% on that
The perfect logical answer to the issue is:
Inorder to stress SECULARISM, they could’ve created a “situation/story”, IN WHICH THERE IS NO TALK ABOUT RELIGION AT ALL.
For Eg: In the text book, they could’ve given a model of an application form that has NO COLUMN to write the RELIGION of the applicant.
But, instead of that, they’ve unfortunately used a situation (the one given in the text book), which says “No Need Of Religion” when asked “What’s the religion” !!
HOPE YOU GOT WHAT I MEANT.
(If not, ask it in the comments, I’ll reply)
In a NUTSHELL
There was absolutely no need of “that conversation” about the religion in that lesson. Isn’t it ??
They could’ve simply ignored the religion part (as it is said to be “completely personal”.)
Does The Hon. Government need to include and talk about personal aspects and likes in public textbooks? I Don’t think so.
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
@SAF
I request you to read my second comment.
(You’ve misunderstood my first comment, a bit)
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Well, over this matter, I disagree to Kenney, because Religion for each individual is part of culture. No one can say, culture needs to be adopted when the child grows up and he can choose a culture he wants……
Every man when born, is born into a culture. He cannot be cultural-free or neutral to any culture, as its culture that shapes his personality, his viewpoints, his behaviour, his way of expressions, his thinking etc….. He have the right to choose or modify his culture, based on his thinking after he attains maturity…. But for the period till maturity, he must have some culture, to live in the society.
Religion, is a faith. Its not faith of god alone, but faith in lifestyle…… Thus its very much part of culture…… It differs from caste to caste, religion to religion, individual to individual………..
I am born as to a Nair family, and part of a family, that has connections with Royal Family…. Thus my culture and viewpoints is derived from our age old customs…… I express my viewpoints, after considering my family heritage, status, moral values etc. Its because of influences of my religion of being an Hindu as well as my caste………
Likewise each over each individual, his religion plays a very important role…….
Our society is in state of conflict…. Secularism means, the Government is not RELIGION INCLINED and it has no special favours for any religion….. It doesn’t mean the government is ATHEIST….. The Government should respect all religion, be it HINDU, CHRISTIANITY or ISLAM or BUDDHAISM or JAINISM or ANY OTHER religion with equal respect and equal status……..
Government has no right to say, the citizens should raise their children religion-free and allow them to choose their religion. The indian constitution allows all citizens to choose religion of his choice, ONLY AFTER HIS MATURITY….. Till then he should be raised by his family/surroundings culture or religion…… Otherwise he shall be culture-free or in short will be a RASCAL, because all religions teaches each individual to uphold some values that all in the society recongizes.
In case of Inter-caste marriage, the government lacks some rule to determine the religion of children of such marriage…. Prior to independence, there were some definite laws regarding inter-caste marriage, which were not adopted after independence, creating confusion…..
In pre-independence days, most of princely states as well as in British India, its mostly Paternal system, by which child’s caste is always determined by father’s caste, irrespective of mother’s caste….. In Kerala, were we have maternal system among higher Hindu castes like Kshytriyas or Nairs or among certian Nambodhiri castes as well as in some orthodox Christian communities or some muslim families, where caste of Mother is the sole parameter for a child’s religion, irrespective of father….. In other castes of Kerala, its parental system, making father’s religion…..
But lack of clarity in Indian constitution, has created the issue……
But in event of such clarity, its foolish to say, a child should not have religion till he gets maturity, as then he doesn’t uphold any values….. Moreover it is more inflamable in religious tensions, as both caste members of the family try to influence such neutral child, making more religious tensions…..
The communist government is trying to create religious tensions, by trying to make children atheist, making them more prone to religious tensions in family, thus spreading to society…..
With regards,
Arun
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
They have not mentioned any particular religion. So there is no problem with that. And its perfectly fine, not to have a religion.
Religion should be personal and thats what I am also trying to imply.
Why do we have road blocking ponkala ? Why do we have irritating and noise polluting religious conventions ? Why reservation is given based on ones religion ? Why does the govt give protection to religious events ? Why do we allow the sikh to wear a turban ?
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
@Arun Mohan
Man….. all that the text book says is that its ok not to have a religion. The particular father is liberal enough to let his son choose his religion if he wishes.
Nothing is being forced on anyone. You can raise your child in any way you like. The text book never says that its a crime to raise a child in a particular religion.
And regarding intercaste marriages, the govt has not created any confusion. Its not right to force the fathers religion or mothers religion upon a child. Its upto the parents to decide. Govt has no role in it.
And I also would like to add that the religions in India a spoiled by the govts itself giving them all sorts of advantages that they dont deserve.
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Hey Kenney,
I was talking about that text book issue and said a practical solution that could’ve avoided this problem.
You yourself said that Religion is a personal thing (yes it is!!) and now you asks : “Why do we allow the sikh to wear a turban” !!
It’s the Sikhs’ personal aspect derived from another personal aspect: “THEIR RELIGION”.
So, since both TURBAN AND RELIGION are personal, why do you want to ban them from wearing a Turban??
Isn’t it their personal choice??
Same applies to Ponkala or religious processions.
And, Processions and religious events affecting Public Life is A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY from OUR CURRENT SUBJECT.
I feel absolutely no need to mix that with our current topic.
Again,
No Harsh Feelings…
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
@ kenney and Aravind
The Government is asking religion in its admission form, has some meaning…… For example, Indian Constitution has allowed some reservations for certain backward religious community….. In normal case these backward community faces religious discrimination in the society, though government is against. To avoid so, the government has made some religious reservations to certain sections for a period.
Such reservations could be extended only if a religion is know…. If you were born as Orthodox Christian, you are forunate to born in a community that has progressed well during past few centuries…..
But there are many in backward communities like Dheevra sabha……Its absolute nessecary for their progress…… If there is no column for religion, nobody will disclose which caste they belong and without knowing caste, its impossible to extend reservations…..
That serve the reasons for asking religion…. But also Indian Constitution gurantees citizens for not choosing any religion……. If the text book just teaches in normal way citizens has right to choose or not choose the religion as per constitution, there won’t be problems….. BUT WHY SPECIALLY ITS HIGHLIGHTED “the child is not following in any religion and doesn’t wish so” It highlights the ATHEISM interests, which is too against the spirits of secularism and freedom of religion
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
@Aravind
Thats the whole point. Its a personal issue. So why are the religious leaders and congress outfits protesting, when all that the text books says is its ok not to fill the religion and caste column.
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Kenney,
You, in the reply to Arun Mohan said :
“And I also would like to add that the religions in India a spoiled by the govts itself giving them all sorts of advantages that they dont deserve.”
This is indeed a contradiction.
It’s the same government who gives ADVANTAGES, now saying NO IMPORTANCE FOR RELIGION through their text books.
If they wanted to STRENGTHEN SECULARISM, they should’ve delt with those issues before attempting an attempt like the one they’ve done through text books.
Keep the issue of RESERVATION away from this discussion. Please !! (It’s a whole different story).
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
@Kenney.
Sorry. I wrote the previous comment without seeing your last comment.
I’m glad that you’ve got the exact point I meant.
Still i say that, they could’ve avoided the situation where it is answered “No Need of religion” and could’ve taken an approach that says nothing about religion.
Isn’t that be a good way ??
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
@ArunMohan
Now it looks like religions have the right to say and do anything they want and when a little bit of secular thoughts are introduced that a crime !!!!!
This is soooo unfair !!!!!
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Hello Kenneyji,
What I wished to say, the government is bound to protect the secular interests…. Secular interest is a middle point. On its right its RELIGION INTEREST. on its left, its ATHEIST interest. The government is sworn as a secular government. It cannot say to public “there is no harm without religion” as it is not atheist government like that one in China or Vietnam
It could say “THE CITIZENS has right to CHOOSE a Religion or Not,” But not highlighting on the fact “NO HARM IF NOT CHOOSING RELIGION”…. There is a techincal difference in these 2 sentences….. The former was neutral, whereas latter is biased…….
Hope you understood the meaning
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
THE FINAL POINT I’VE TO SAY
There’s absolutely nothing wrong in imparting SECULAR FEELINGS.
It’s just that, the method the Government chose to do that WAS NOT the BEST/SUITABLE.
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Dear Kenneyji
Hope there is no harsh feelings
I said, a government being a secular, cannot behave the way which religious groups say….. Because religious group is on right side of scale. Whereas Government cannot be on LEFT side of scale “NO NEED TO FILL RELIGION COLUMN”…… It should be on middle on the scale “ITS CITIZEN’S CHOICE TO FILL OR NOT” …….
Its just like a Akbar-Birbal story, where an astrologer who said the king would die within 10 years was sentenced for death, whereas birbal saying the King would live happily and without fear of death for next 10 years…… When the former said, it was on harsh tone, which nobody will like….. however a government is a neutral person…. It should act like Birbal getting into the middle tone, not on left tone……..
Hope you understood
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
@Arun Mohan
Buddy, there is no middle point here. Either you are a believer or you are a non believer. And every govt must respect both the groups.
If your argument is extended and the govt tries to be tooo neutral then every religious reference, every religious name and every reference of a religious ritual will have to be removed from all our text books.
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
[...] Discussion was more than a post I just now had a great discussion at Kenney’s Blog. It was that lively and nice, that is generated about 18 comments in 20 [...]
Pingback by That Discussion was more than a post « I’m Not A Diode — June 25, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
And I think you all have mistaken the context here. The text book never says that religion is not needed.
The parent says that its not necessary to fill in the religion and caste columns !!!!!
Read the conversation once again.
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Dear Kenneyji
I am trying to prove a point……. Government, is a body that has certain constitutional duties…. It has to respect both sides of scale, not right as well as not left……. Article 25 A states that all citizens are free to choose any religion of their choice. Article 25 B states all citizens are free to NOT choose any religion. The government cannot point out only ARTICLE 25 B as singular pointing to this article would contradict Art 25 A of the law…. so it has to highlight both…….
The government is bound to see both the articles….. It cannot behave the way which NSS or Archidiocese behaves as it needs to see only Art 25A or the way which Yukithivadi sangom says as they believe in Art 25B…….
And choosing the middle path, would mean, government needs to teach what correct things religions says as well as things what wrong things religion says ……….
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Kenney,
I’ve not mistaken the context. I’ve read it thoroughly.
All I said was THERE WAS NO NEED OF ASKING: “What’s the religion” as RELIGION IS A PERSONAL ASPECT.
They should’ve just asked all other details in the application form and should’ve kept quiet on anything related to Religion.
Instead, they’ve taken an approach that unfortunately sounds like IMPOSING A NEW UNFAIR THEORY.
(We (I and Arun Mohan) were not trying to prove you wrong.)
Comment by Aravind — June 25, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
@ Kenneyji
Thro’ the sentence its clear the government is saying “There is no Harm for not choosing any religion”….. This sentence is equivalent to say “No Need for religion”….. The government cannot say……
When anyone who reads the sentence, its clear, the protagonist of the story is not Principal, but the parents, who says NO NEED FOR RELIGION or religion is a child’s choice…… This highlights in every child’s mind that his parents has no right to grow him/her in their family religion……
This contradicts the Art 25, as citizens has right to choose religion of their choice ONLY AFTER ATTAINING MATURITY, not when they are children……
If so, they most of our value system should move like americans….. In US, a 10 year old boy can sue his father for beating him or checking his room on charge of privacy….. Can Indian Value system adopt this? Indian Value system underlines that children below 18 are under custody of parents whether satisfied or not. A child by birth, has to follow his parents value system, whether liking or not, untill age of 18, after which he is free to choice his own value system…………..
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 25, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
@Arun Mohan
Now you are reading between the lines.
Would it be ok if the govt adds a few more questions and answers ?
And regarding Indian value system, its not a mandatory thing to do. We let our elders do anything to their children. Its not a very good thing to do. We are restricting their growth. Suing a misbehaving parent is not a crime. (dont think that our value system is the best.)
In the US children are state property. If a child is left unattended, the parent will face charges. If he repeats this the state will take away the child. Just because someone gave birth to a child, it does not mean that they can do what ever they want to the child. Look at child safety laws in the US. They are far better than then ones in India. (this has to be a different discussion)
Comment by Kenney — June 25, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
From my previous post:
So teaching a perspective(often emotional and sensitive), what ever it is, a religious, or non religious view is quite destructive and dangerous.
That is what happened now, Two contradictory perspectives contradicted each other.
Fortunately, each perspective holds an underlying truth which never contradicts(because truth cannot be many, and its unique). So teach the truths, and make people aware of the facts.
“I can see the frog still in the well.”
Current Post
Truth is just that we are all humans, with different perspectives. If we respect each others and their perspectives the problem is very well solved
But Kenny,
U know how this place, u can never expect , respect from a different religion.(Respect only in norms not in deeds.) Here parties fights, religions fights, Perception and perspectives fight.
In such a gods own country. Introducing a view which is not bad is a great mistake. Its makes people believe that there are Seas, Water other than the frogs well
____________________________________________
Comment by Tony Jose — June 25, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
It is obvious from many chapters that the text book is trying to convince the students that there is no need of any religion. At this age students will come to the conclusion that there is no God, which is actually the hidden agenda of the text book committee.
Comment by Joe Cheri Ross — June 25, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Tony, you are very correct. The people who are opposing these text books are either ignorant or have a hidden agenda.
Religions always controlled man by keeping him ignorant. They always want us to be in the well.
Comment by Kenney Jacob — June 26, 2008 @ 1:28 am
What I try to convince is that government is a neutral body, that stands for respecting all religions and its customs and traditions/beliefs in equal zest and respect. It can’t defile any religion or promote atheism in the country, as Indian Secularism defines itself as a tradition of equal respect and dignity to all religions.
We must understand that each country has its own definitions of secularism. In france, secularism defines that Government has no religion and Government actions and proceedings has nothing to do with religion. Whereas in country like US, secularism means the government doesn’t discriminate any citizens on basis of his/her faith (though US Government do take most of its swearing in name of Christ).
Whereas in India, our tradition and legacy of secularism is different from others….. In India, unlike in europe or US, religion is very much part of life and civilization….. In Europe, religion is not part of Society, its simply a cult or faith. Whereas in India, our society is well knitted in socio-cultural-religious ties….. Throughout India, from the rule of Ashoka the great, our secularism means “RESPECTING ALL RELIGIONS AND ALLOWING PROMOTING ALL RELIGIONS IN THE SOCIETY IN EQUAL ZEST AND RESPECT” We have a cultural that NEVER STATES- RELIGION is different from Society or civil life.
Indian Secularism stands for equal respect and keen promotion of all faith in equal grounds in the society. At the same time…. We have Indian Army saluting Lord Padmanabha with 21 Gun salute, at the same time Central forces Parading before Osmania Central Mosque on Eid Ul fitur and National guards having its Annual Christmas Ball….. Our National policy never made to state the government must keep a distance from religion, as thats not our tradition.
We do have a tradition where Akbar celebrating Eid and Diwali with great pomp at the same time when he was against all the organized religions and believed in his own faith-Din-Illahi….
A country that bornes these tradition cannot digest or join with a statement of Government of saying “not having religion is not an issue”….. No body asked government to promote any religion or faith. But at the same time government should not promote atheism among those who believe in it…… No-one will have any objection if government participates or promotes in atheist programs, as those people who for such, believe in it….. But its unfair and against the very spirits of our tradition of secularism, where the government becoming brand ambassador of atheism and promoting it among those who donot believe in it.
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 26, 2008 @ 2:02 am
***Amen!*** Yeah that was kind of lame, i know. But i read this headline just after i read an article about those idiotic “god hates fags” hate group, proclaiming God killed George Carlin. So yeah, keep your bullshit to yourself. Hand out brochures if you must, but don’t show up on funerals with your signs and propagate hate towards other, you scum backs.
Comment by sunny beach — June 26, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I’m seriously perturbed at the notion that intelligent, supposedly rationale people who are well versed in writing commentaries and using technologies devised by “Man” and not an “Imaginary friend”, use it to the effect to rationalize religion…tsk…tsk…
I cant understand why; when men apply all their logic in every other aspect of life turn to zombies when it comes to religion.
Why does everyone purport so much immunity to religion alone? Why cant you see through glass that this is just like any other ideology.
Nobody says he/she is a socialist child, a capitalist child or a humanist child. But they throng to say, he/she is a Hindu child, a Christian child or a Muslim child. This mind control exercise is what breeds hatred and loss of perspective in young minds. For some reasons after all these years, I find this concept of secularism a threat to mankind. All faiths are intrinsically meant to be unequal and divisive. Argumentative people can always claim that they keep religion to their personal self and feel they are immune to all injustice done in the name of their religion. But your perception of moderate views go a long way in fueling fundamentalism in people who are always kept in a delusion.
Religions have never made life easier. They have complicated it to a point, where we spend time, money and energy in return of selfish favors; no different from a Hippie enjoying a joint and going into a trance.
What India/World needs in this 21st century is a whole bunch of people who can look beyond the prejudices of the past and live together in a kind and humane environment. Religions are never going to let that happen
Comment by Sanil Mohandas — June 26, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
According to my view, the 7th std book is the necessity of the time. its the high time to wipe out all the nonsenses which we are practicing in the name of religions.
Why the followers of the religion fight on the street against this book? this is more dangerous than the communism. a person has all the rights to choose his religion. it should not be influenced by the any other person even if its his parent, on his childhood.
Eliminating the concept of religion can end one of the biggest evil exercised by us today- the religion-wise reservations. so think once again before you take your sword against the book.
Comment by Renjith — June 26, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
@ renjith
With full due respect to your viewpoints, I am sorry to disagree with your comments and viewpoints, though ihere are some truth in it.
First and important thing, religion cannot separted from our system, just thro’ one book reference. Because in our society fabric, religion is the most important thread that knits our social system and culture.
It took more than 200 years in Europe, in attempts to separte religion from state and restrict at personal level. Then who can we destroy a 5000 year long fabric threads all overnight.
We are born into a great civilization, that is borne out a religion. We are proud, that our civilization is a cream and cradle for more than 12 religions….. We must even be proud that our country has developed our own forms of Christianity as well as forms of Islam.
Its not possible for eliminating or even restricting religion at personal level……
Moreover, elimination of religions from our system, could be more demographic catastrophic than what we have today….. See how system is in countries like vietnam or even in china………. Lot of people are always in demographic clashes than in our country. Consider US, where the crime rate is highest in the world and the only country which sentences more than 45% of its citizens behind bars….. The lack of religion and its value systems.
Nobody is against atheist principles…. Our value system is so broad that, we have space to accomadate them and allow to preach their ideology in their ways….. But teaching such principles forcibly on students, is really disgusting……
Regards
Arun
Comment by Arun Mohan — June 27, 2008 @ 12:32 am
I went through all the comments here. I just want point out one thing — I believe that all of you had studied in our school education about the history of Mohammed Nabi (I think this was in 8th standard history text ), history of Jesus Christ, lots of stories from Bhagavath geetha (I think we had it 5th and 6th ), about Guru Nanak, about Sreenarayana Guru (I still remember many times I quoted “ Oru Jathi, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu ” on my exam answer sheet) and so many religious leaders. Has anyone been biased by these topics? I think so called political leaders were here at that time too.
We had chapters regarding the religious transformation that happened in India by various religious protagonists later we also studied both communism and capitalism. So if you feel the conversation in the text would make the whole student fraternity think against religion or these minute percentage of students (studying state syllabus) in kerala would revolutionise all religious beliefs, it is fate!!!!!
Comment by Sarath D R — June 27, 2008 @ 12:37 am
@ Arun Mohan.
System(The physical aspect) and religion (A mental /personal prespective) are very seperate.
Since there are rules and conditions to both, where violation of these rules are crime and sin respectively, every person who breaks a law is a criminal and a sinner.
Crime now differs with country and sin differs with a religion. Each country and religion teaches their citizens and believers as the followers of the greatest traditon and greatest truth. Now since I follows the correct path, the correct religion every other person who denies my system/religion is a criminal/a sinner and others tradition/customer is a superstition. This will defenitely create a reservation (mental) in these beleivers and they will say that I follow the greatest tradition and greatest belief. Everything else is wrong to him. This creates borders and fights.
Arun Mohan, now let me ask you a question. What was the need for 12 native religions. Why…?
Why Supreme Court of India never considers Hinduism as a religion.
Why did we studied about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddism, Jainism, and neglected Scientology, Baha Mai, Zen, Taoism etc. Why do we learn only classified religions. What if we not study about another belief that God never exits(Atheism).
The ancient Vedic religion tadition supported everything, Theism, Atheism and everything. But when religions diverged to astika and nastika tradions[2]. It is divided as Hinduism(as astika, Theistic) and Buddhism, Thervada, Jainism(as nastika as Atheistic). When the division occured the rules and traditions multiplied. because rules and traditions multiply with ages.
The same happend to Abrahmic religions(Jewish, Christian, Islam, Baha Mai.).
Now a path , irreligionism (often confused with non religious) Irreligion is a lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion.[1] Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism or general secularism.
Since atheism(irreligious atheism) is a tradition which was followed long before christianity(reference to nastika tradition). and was one of the greatest prespective during one time. Teaching irreligious concepts is now a sheer necessity and since Indian Population hold 6.6% of irreligious people[1] which is much more than religious Christians and Parsies, teaching irreligious concept in the textbook is always a necessity.
___________________________________________
References
About Irreligionism
[1].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
About Astika and Nastika tradition
[2].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astika_and_Nastika
About Atheist Hinduism
[3].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
Comment by Tony — June 27, 2008 @ 2:47 am
Culture is something that changes over a period of time. We cant preserve it. And you cannot simply say that religions cannot be seperated from our culture. Everything can be chaged and will be changed.
I would say F*** the system. System is there to protect the interests of the powerful. System tries to prevent change. Whether its a religious system, political system or a social system.
I dont think we have a great culture. We must not forget that the great culutre of ours once didnt allow women of lower caste to wear a top. And If you want I can point out many more examples.
The point is that, No culture can claim that its the best. Culture improves when we mix.
Demographic clashes are here in India also. See the fight between Karnataka, and TN. Its not a European phenomena.
More people in US are in Jail not because of their value system, but becuse their police is more active than ours.
We are not saints !!!!!!
Comment by Kenney Jacob — June 27, 2008 @ 8:00 am
Hi,
I just want to say that all these abpve happenings are only political tactics to suck the relegious taste of us.
I will give 2 arguments here…just listen….
Regarding 7th Standard Text:
See if they( Ruling party or Purogamana chinthagathikkar or Broad minded people )…think that there is no meaning in relegion, caste and all …
1) Y they want to such columns in All application forms(including SSLC Book )…
2) Y they r not taking an INITIATIVE to remove all such things from these( at least from SSLC BOOK )…..
(I am not asking them to remove , at least take some INITIATIVE …..)
3) Malayalathil oru chollunduu Punnil kuthee Chora kudikkuka ennuu……( onnu kutham enganum chora vannal kudikkam)….
4) I have to give my relegion, my caste evrything where ever I go( even in Karshaka Pension form )..Then y i have to think all these relegions are equal?????????
5) Butt…avarkkuu ee columns onnum mattanum vayyaa..but they need all…..which means they need help from all relegios people…..A POLITICAL FIGHT…..
Regarding Opposing People:
Gandhee – You can walk through any paths in your life , but you will reach one junction at last…..gr8 words by gandhee ….the founder of our main opposing parties who is now making strikes and all against it…….
1) Their main argument is this text is projecting “Nireeswaravadham”…..
Parents : “If he wants a religion when he grows up, he can choose the one he likes then”
Does this sound anti religious ??…….is it???????
CONCLUSION : Replace all such columns from all such forms ..and add one Row with header as “ANNUAL INCOM”………get the financial state of each one in our developing INDIA…and try to resolve the economical unbalence ..if we want to become a developed country in2020…Instead of making quarrels for Eeswaravadham and Nireeswaravadham………
Leave all these as private to people…Y they put it to text and y somebody quarreling for it…….No body will loose nothing for putting it on text and removing it from text……….
SO ENIYENKILUM JANAM ee KAPADYTAHIL PEDARUTHU……………………..ennu paranjuu njan upasamharikkunnuu………….
TIP: Purogamanm through Nereeswaravadham is acceptable in 1980s….only
Now think logically according to the time and change your concepts..if they r really “Purogamanavadhees”
VOKEYYYYYYYY:)
Comment by Muralee — June 27, 2008 @ 8:12 am
lol @ “We are not Saints”
But, hey, we indians aren’t alone in this world.
There are even US congressmen/public office holders who have created controversy by refusing to swear their oaths on a Bible(as is their constitutional tradition) Zealots and Fanatics can only see one way of seeing the world; thru their rose-tinted goggles. Thats why they’re called fanatics.
<>
White Christian fundamentalists in the US are cooking up just as much trouble as the various pro-religion lobbies/parties in India.
This is all very troubling. I see a world where the entire world is now going to be severely polarized into 2 (or 3) superpower camps.
1)White Christian Fundamentalism and their military alliance with the Jewish state of Israel(a non-secular state like Saudi Arabia)
2)Muslim populated Arab, Asian, and European nations. Their sentiments about Palestinian rights have been face-down in the International schoolyard mud for a very long time.
3)A relative minority of Hindu fundamentalists in India (who have no clue what they are all about). They will probably form their reluctant alliances with the extreme Right-wingers in the US and Israel.(India has political precedent for this)
So, I think that Kenney has the right idea in mind when bringing up the need for non-exclusivity in religious preference for a Govt.
@aravind @arun:
I agree with your comments about both Section 25A AND 25B being equally and extremely relevant.
However, our Govt is in bed with a lot of other issues like caste and religion based Reservation. Its not an easy mistress to leave in the middle of the night. The system is that fuc*ed….
No party, not even the LEFT ’secular’ parties have the right to tell people that people don’t have the right to mold their offspring in their belief systems.
However, I want Atheism to be thoroughly examined in textbooks on a level on par with the HUGE coverage of other Major religions.
This once again reminds me of another raging debate in the US regarding the teaching of Darwin’s Evolution in American Primary schools. Once again the Fundamentalists want to impose their agenda of teaching the Bible’s theory of ‘Intelligent Design’.
On some accounts, India is better off than the US, regarding teaching of the Sciences. In today’s world, Fundamentalism (of ALL kinds) is clawing its way into our lives. This is the MAJOR factor influencing me in advocating a religion-neutral educational curriculum. Common-sense MUST prevail. Whatever happened to good old fashioned Country wisdom. . .
*sigh*
Comment by Vimal George — June 27, 2008 @ 9:17 am
[...] book issued by the Communist Govt. in Kerala has got Hindus, Christians and Muslims up in arms, since one story in the book, it seems, promotes atheism. Joseph notes that while people are focusing on one story, they are [...]
Pingback by Text Book Politics | DesiPundit — June 27, 2008 @ 9:50 am
This lesson is not for all. This is only for those who do not want to avail of the benefits of ‘reservation’.
If a child or his parents is told that the benefits of ‘reservation’ will be given only to those who belong to specified caste or religion, the parents will have to speak out their caste. That is why I say that this lesson is for upper caste students only.
Intention of the Govt. is dubious. On the one part they are incentives based on castes and on the other part they encourage children to discard caste.
Comment by അങ്കിള് — June 27, 2008 @ 10:04 am
@Kenney
I went through the text book and here are my comments:
Having an excerpt from AK Gopalan’s (auto)biography is not expected. He is a well known communist leader of yester years. This is like bombarding commie thoughts in class 7.
The style in which “Kudiyozhippikkal” and Karivellur Samaram are introduced indeed has a commie angle.
Too much stress on Land Reforms, unwanted.
Would a 7th standard kid understand Smt KR Gouriamma’s response to a bill, as told in the assembly?? Why are they doing this?
Pages on Human Devlopment Indices of Kerala, good, acceptable.
I don’t understand-what is being taught? Time line of the social changes?
Why is there an excerpt on how lower caste women used to have food left over by Antarjanams(Namboodiri Brahmin women)??? What are the commies trying to convey?
Channar Revolt-unwanted , again selling commie ideology.
Vaikom and Guruvayoor Satyagrahams-These should have been the ONLY one to be included in the text book, rather worth including.
Pratyaksha Rakshasabha-why get into every single point of social equality.
Wouldn’t the mention of Vaikom or Guruvayur be enough?
Same with the mention of Muslim Ikyasangham.
After going through all these portions, a 7th standard kid reaches a chapter that says, say no not only to caste, but religion. Should these things be taught in school, that too at this level?
Having the lines from all holy books-accepted.
But, I still haven’t understood the relevance of a question that asks which religion would be affected the max by inflation, water scarcity, contagious diseases and earthquake..!!!
May be they wanted the answer, people of all religions would be affected. sigh!
Chapter 3
Iniyum Muttott-the mention of Palm Oil rates was unwanted, rest accepted.
The next page that mentions a “rich guy” who says he will do whatever with his land while a passerby comments why are people protesting? These two kinds of people are painted a shade of ENEMY;yes, the commies what more jobless people for DYFI , SFI whatever.
The text says, “As discussed in a class, these were the meanings of Freedom”; instead this should have been an open discussion in every class. Shouldn’t that been a better way to do it rather than already having 4 meanings for freedom.
Parts of the British coming in-well, good! But comparing it with today’s situation? Do they expect an answer of the lines of communism?? Please, gimme a break!!!
Parts on Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries-acceptable.
Throwing light on the revolt of 1857, Jalianwalla Bagh massacare-yes, much needed at this level. If not in class 7, when?
Other parts on Indian History like pages on Khilafat,Dandi Satyagraha,Quit India-acceptable.
This chapter ends with a note to start a discussion on Land grabbing, caste/gender based discrimination, accumulation of wealth–is this an NDTV debate?
News clippings on Forest Guards/Excise attacked,or Sand/Liqour mafia attacking people-UNWANTED.
Then why not include DYFI/SFI vandalising,killing people in Kannur??? HUH!
Asking the students to compare the British discipline to India’s prgress(ie Mukesh Ambani’s wealth)-Weird, useless
Portion on length of day/night-acceptable.
Other geography portions, parts on civilizations and the rest of the book seem fine to me.
Comment by Nikhil Narayanan — June 27, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Agreeing with Nikhil Narayanan. Neutrality of the text seems to be a question.
Comment by Tony — June 27, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
“The point is that, No culture can claim that its the best. Culture improves when we mix.
More people in US are in Jail not because of their value system, but becuse their police is more active than ours.”
These are gems.
Its been enlightening to read all the posts from the fine discussion going on in here. The preservation of truth is like a silent war going on and on. And in this case its prize is the youth. Partial truths are as dangerous as lies.
Comment by Anurag — June 27, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Dear publisher,
Your suggestion to ban “Irritating noise making religions (pentacostes)” is baseless and meaningless because “Pentacost” is NOT RELIGION and it’s experience. Your suggestion is just like the blind people those wanted to know what is elephant, one fellow identified elephant after touching the tail as “broom” and so on. So, please make the suggestion after studying or experiencing it.
If you still stick with your opinion, remember, there are other types of worship is going on in the midnight through loud speaker till early morning which disturb the sleep totally…. IT SHOULD ALSO BAN.
Comment by Wilson Varghese — June 29, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Dear Wilson,
I dont know what experience you are talking about. But Let me tell you my experience.
Your prayer hall is very near to the place I stay and on sundays its unbearable.
Ive seen your people giving lectures on streets. And the words you use and arrogant and stupid. I feel ashamed to say that you also believe in the same Jesus Christ.
Ive heard that you people dont watch movies and also dont visit a doctor.
These maybe a limited perspective, but confirms with the reality that I see everyday.
And I agree totally to your last paragraph. religious should not make noise…..
Comment by Kenney Jacob — June 29, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
@Kenney:
I don’t think its quite fair to target any particular denomination for the ‘noise nuisance’ crime. I hate ANY bunch of morons who have to run LOUDspeakers into the streets so that no one in 2 sq. kms can enjoy their peace with their families/study/read/other activities that need quiet. This practice is endemic to almost ALL Indian religious communities.
The Chennai city council has taken some steps in the right direction in this regard. eg. restricting public processions that disrupt city traffic/infrastructre.
I think some people may have their sentiments hurt when you try to pinpoint them as the source of all nuisance. The truth is that our collective skins have gotten thicker and we’re able to suffer LOTS of noise nuisance in the name of secularism and common sense tolerance of our neighbours. Its just that when it approaches the level of Acoustic vandalism, that it becomes much for our brains to tolerate, and we tend to lash out.
@Wilson Varghese
Please don’t take it personally. Its a common grievance of lots of neighbours of members of Pentecostal community, I hear. I haven’t had the fortune of this ‘experience’ yet. I lived in a ashram run by my college, so I KNOW how shitty your life can become. In this wonderful country of ours, everyone has a mouthpiece and a place to stand and speak your mind/belief.
But when it comes to hammering your ideas/beliefs down the throats of innocent passer-bys, that is where I draw the line. PERIOD.
Its called Civic Virtue.
Comment by Vimal George — June 29, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
@Vimal
I appreciate your comment. But let me tell you something. I dont give a damn about how these religious noise makers feels. I mentioned a groups name in particular cos they are well reputed for that. Goto a convention of theirs and you will know how they defame the whole of christianity.
I also have sentiments and feelings. These idiots are hurting my sentiments as well as the sentiments of the secular community. Dont we also have the right to defend our sentiments ? Or is it a monopoly of the reigions ?
Comment by Kenney Jacob — June 29, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Dear Kenneyji….
Be cool….. Infact I too agree about the loud sounds made from religious places….. I do agree that its not only christian denomations famous for it, but also even from Hindu community too……..
As you know, I do have a house in Karamana, apart from my aunt’s house….. Its rented out to a doctor who happens to be a Muslim….. Next to my house recently, a local temple nearby erected loud speakers…. The suprising fact is that, this temple is around 900 m away from our house… But the entire sankar nagar and all areas of radius of 1 km around the temple were hearing the daily Bhagavatam saptam, which runs from monring 9′:30 to evening 6:00 pm last week………. For a hindu like me, it may be a sweet note, but really it went a major embrassing when our tentant came to us and asked us “can we go to temple and ask them to take of the speaker? is there any sin associated with it”
I couldn’t understand why religious groups do this….. Those who want to hear saptham can go to temple and hear it… why should it be forcible hearing and that too eve for non hindus?
These things, even I can’t digest……
regards
arun
Comment by Arun Mohan — July 3, 2008 @ 12:58 am
comming back to the contents of the post of Kenny, a threadbare discussion is being held here at
http://scertkerala.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/13/
Comment by അങ്കിള് — July 3, 2008 @ 11:12 am
[...] we have all these religious BS in our textbooks, what wrong did that innocent 7th standard chapter do ? It never asked you to quit your religion, It did not preach atheism. All that the chapter said [...]
Pingback by The Old Text Book Issue Re-Opened — May 25, 2009 @ 5:46 pm