मनोगत

अभिप्राय 12

• भारतामध्ये चार्वाक दर्शन, बौद्ध दर्शन, जैन दर्शन, यांसारखी दर्शने ही नास्तिक म्हणून ओळखली गेली आहेत.

  प्रत्युत्तर

  • मान्य आहे. पण यातूनही आपल्याला नास्तिकांचा आकडा मिळण्याची शक्यता नाहीच.

    आपल्याला ह्या दर्शनांविषयी अधिक काही सांगायचे असेल तर थोडे विस्ताराने लिहावे. ह्यामुळे नास्तिक्याविषयी आमचा काही गोंधळ झाला असेल तर तो दूर होईल. किंवा निदान काही नवी माहिती वाचकांपर्यंत आपण पोहोचवू शकू.

    अभिप्रायाबद्दल आभार.

    प्रत्युत्तर

• नास्तिकतेची परिभाषा काय आहे? हे कळल्यास अभिप्राय देणे सोपे होईल असे वाटते.

  प्रत्युत्तर

  • May I say atheism is defined negatively. An atheist rejects the idea of god, and by corollary the idea of ‘judgment day’ or afterlife. Jainism also rejects the idea of a supreme god but various lesser gods appear in their literature—just like Buddhism, where reference to afterlife is commonplace. Many believe that (lesser) gods / afterlife were absent in pristine forms of Jainism / Buddhism, and that they were introduced later under the influence of Hinduism. We note that today Jains, for example, are not very different from Hindus in their religious practices. They perform “satya-jinendra” puja as against the “satya-narayan” puja of Hindus, and so on.

    प्रत्युत्तर

  • अनेकांनी ह्याविषयी बरेच काही लिहिले आहे. थोड्याबहुत फरकाने त्या सर्व व्याख्या निरीश्वरवादाकडे जातात. जसे देव न मानणारे ही नास्तिक्याची अगदी सोपी व्याख्या केली जाते, किंवा वेद न मानणारे असाही त्यांचा उल्लेख होतो, तसेच पारलौकिक शक्ती, कुठलीतरी अव्याख्येय उर्जा, भूत-प्रेत आदि गोष्टींना न मानणारे हेदेखील नास्तिकांचे व्यवच्छेदक लक्षण समजता येईल.
    ह्या अंकातील लेखांमध्ये कितीतरी जागांवर नास्तिक्याला वेगवेगळ्या अंगांनी बघितले गेले आहे. रुढी-परंपरांवर आंधळा विश्वास न ठेवणारा असाही हा वर्ग आहे.

    प्रत्युत्तर

• The December-2023 Nastik Parishad of Brights dealt with atheism in general. This time around, the Society announced a ‘resolution’ on state—religion separation: a responsibility conferred by the Constitution of India on every Indian citizen. Brights members at Sangli have done much work in their region to keep gods out of public offices. So, kudos to Brights.

  But the devil, as they say, lies in the detail. Having seen the draft resolution in advance, I was hoping a fierce debate and, possibly a state-wide action plan on the issue. All we got (I saw the videos though couldn’t attend the Parishad) was a one-minute reading of the resolution and no discussion at all. Rather, there was a stunned silence. So, the resolution did move, but wasn’t exactly adopted by the House.

  And none of the (high-profile) speakers even remotely touched upon the subject of state—religion separation. It is hardly surprising. Brights chose to invest much in celebrities as their speakers (preaching from the podium) instead of holding round-tables where the grassroots members can brainstorm, comprehend, build a consensus, and then commit to grassroots social engineering.

  Celebrities share no such commitment and have their carefully-crafted public image to protect. The audience is too mesmerized to challenge them. It’s like an enthralling, feel-good party with no take-homes. I had dwelled much on this aspect of the December-22 Parishad in my critical takes here.

  Scratch the surface and the hypocrisy of the celebrity speakers becomes obvious. For instance, Javed Akhtar, as an ‘atheist’, has no problem writing and selling a high-demand devotional song. “I wrote Sholay dialogs, didn’t I?”, was his lame argument to an enchanted audience. Nobody pointed out that those dialogs were for a negative character, but through that bhajan he actually promoted religiosity. Social activists as invited speakers are openly noncommittal to the concept of atheism any way. Or where they praise Brights, their hypocrisy is not even subtle.

  Nevertheless I congratulate Brights management for officially acknowledging the importance of state—religion separation, which not many organizations are willing to. This is a laudable small step in the right direction.

  प्रत्युत्तर

  • Hi Rajendra,
    Many thanks for your comments.

    1. Discussion on resolution: A draft of the resolution was made available to all the members of the society as well as other stakeholders to be deliberated upon. We modified the draft as and when suggestions were received. It was expected that the esteemed members (such as yourself) would contribute to the debate. Alas, not many responses were received!

    We’d like to add that the recitation of the resolution is tantamount to adopting it at the Parishad, as the preceding debate was supposed to have produced a draft that was nearly acceptable to all the members.

    2. Celebrities on secularism: I’m not sure whether you’ve watched all the videos. Celebrities being celebrities (i.e. having an excellent grasp of the audience psyche) did not just stop at expressing their views on secularism, but rather went on to to have a nuanced mini-debate. Consider Mr. Tushar Gandhi’s proposition that it is high time for India to transgress secularism and instead adopt atheism as state policy. That was quite a bold statement to make! Javed’s wit didn’t let the proposition slide so easily. He, quite aptly, mentioned the two dichotomies: (A) being a theist vs an atheist at a personal level, and (B) advocating secularism vs communalism at the level of the polity. A person can espouse any of the positions on any of the dichotomies. He went on to discuss several combinations of views that a person can espouse based on the two dichotomies above, discussing Savarkar, Jinnah, and Gandhi as cases. Perhaps, I reckon that a mention of Nehru (an atheist AND a secularist) would have made us happier!

    3. Breakout groups for focussed discussion: Events such as the Parishad are primarily intended for outreach. Although we are not opposed to the idea of breaking into groups to discuss topics amongst ourselves, we haven’t found substantive contributions coming out of such temporally constrained debates on the very day of these events. Might we suggest trying the brights website forum to continue debates, discussions, and deliberations?

    प्रत्युत्तर

    • This rejoinder reflects a communication gap. We have been working on state-religion separation since early 2023 as an inter-organizational collaborative project. “Project”, by the way, is the only (professional) way of achieving any objective.

      All rational organizations (say, under FIRA) have a common vision: To bring about a secular (read non-religious, atheist, rational, …) India. Every project through effective coalitions must move us closer to this vision.

      The primary challenge for atheists/ secular/ rational people is to do projects without leaders of mass appeal. This is by choice, because mass leaders create a cult that amounts to religion, which is not our domain.

      Let me elaborate: In Indian languages, we address people in three categories: in Marathi, they are tu, tumhi, and aapan (Hindi: tu, tum, and aap). This is because we, Indians have inherently adopted inequality (which is religion): basically, to avoid taking responsibility. A religious person wants someone else to take responsibility for their act. Hence, most Indians act like slaves even after 1947.

      We regard every other as low, middle, high — and above all, the highest, or god. So, when dealing with any other, an Indian either worships or expects to be worshipped. And worship, reverence, is the end of rationalism.

      In rational communities, leadership means taking responsibility: individually and collectively. So necessarily, when we do any project collectively, the team must act like a professional project team, not as a cult serving a leader.

      Project standards define areas of work, and team members can take up the area of their choice/skills. Project standards (e.g., PMI standard) are not scriptures but living documents created by experienced people, not by a god. Members join hands as equals and resolve their differences through debates democratically. They are not fettered by religious blind faith.

      Coalitions are necessary. We cannot achieve societal change without collaboration. But minus reverence, hence effectively. Celebrities are no use here, except for some social entertainment. (Unless they are willing to join our projects).

      Rather than working in (so to say) ghettos, we can all join each other’s organizations as members (as I do) to learn from and work with each other, to realize our common vision: a rational, irreligious India.

      Note that our being rational doesn’t give us some special responsibility. It’s the same daily life; that needs to be lived rationally. State-religion separation is just the means for achieving more effective governance to improve our daily lives. Nothing special. There are many projects to work together on. Environment, for another example.

      प्रत्युत्तर

• मला शंतनु अभ्यंकर यांचा लेख आवडला पण त्यांनी अध्यात्म हा शब्द न वापरता दुसरा समानार्थी, समर्पक शब्द वापरला असता तर बरं झालं असतं. काही लोक सुतावरुन स्वर्ग गाठतात. त्यांना अशा पळवाटा हव्या असतात.

  प्रत्युत्तर

  • आपला हा अभिप्राय आम्ही डॉ. शंतनू अभ्यंकर ह्यांचेपर्यंत पोहोचवू. त्यांच्याकडून काही प्रतिसाद आल्यास तो तुमच्यापर्यंच पोहोचेलच.

    पण आम्हाला वाटते ते एवढेच की आपल्याला शब्दांचे वावडे असण्याची गरज नाही. ज्याला त्यातून जो अर्थ काढायचा तो काढणारंच. हा शब्दाचा दोष नाही. तसेच तो शब्द वापरणाऱ्या लेखकाचाही नाही.

    अभिप्रायाबद्दल धन्यवाद.

    प्रत्युत्तर

• Honoured to be associated with सुधारक family.

  प्रत्युत्तर

• Directorate of Personnel and Training (DOPT) issuing an order beginning with “The Ram Lalla Pran Pratishtha” spells out the end of state—religion separation in India. This is the beginning of a reactionary Hindu State built on the rubble of a demolished mosque.

  This is exactly like the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” built on the blood of victims of Partition and ashes of secularism.

  प्रत्युत्तर