| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-Jul-03 05:53 PM
What follows is taken from last week's The Nepali Times.
Enjoy,
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
**************
Neither secular, nor Hindu
Nepal is not a theocratic state. The king is Hindu, not the kingdom.
By Sudhindra Sharma
The solution to the contemporary debate on secularism versus Hindu kingdom lies in opting for a middle ground that gives continuity to past traditions while simultaneously disassociating the state from aligning with Hinduism. This could be done by deleting the word Hindu from the clause that defines the kingdom, though not necessarily replacing it with the word secular.
By identifying Hindu as an attribute of the kingdom, the 1990 Constitution gives the impression that Nepal is a theocratic state.
The reality is far from that. Though some Hindu elements remain in the laws, the polity at large is not governed by Hindu religious scriptures and the state prohibits caste-based behaviour, that premier Hindu governance framework. The states claim to being Hindu in these circumstances are manifested in certain signs and symbols enshrined in the constitution or pursued through statecraft such as a ban on cow slaughter, the promotion of Hindu religious festivals, the sponsorship of Hindu religious discourses, including the use of Sanskrit, and a ban on proselytising.
There has been a weakening of these elements and the core Hindu institution that remains in contemporary Nepal, is kingship. Nepal is de facto secular, but by positing Hindu as an attribute of the kingdom, the present constitution damages the prospects for the consolidation of secular principles. There are various sections of Nepali society such as those who adhere to minority religions, the janajatis, the dalits and reformist minded Hindus who vehemently oppose the Hindu identity of the Nepali state and continue to advocate for the secular status of the kingdom.
Inserting the word secular in place of Hindu, however, is not the solution. A secular kingdom is a contradiction in terms because a kingdom implies the existence of a king and by implicit logic the kings religion. In the Nepali context, kingship has had a symbiotic relationship with Hinduism in the very emergence of the nascent Nepali state during the late 18th century. The continuity of that nation-state and of the Shah dynasty up to modern times, preclude the possibility of disassociating kingship from Hindu religion. Hence the suggestion to delete the word Hindu rather than insert the word secular.
There is a clause in the constitution that safeguards the position of the king and his alignment with Hinduism when it outlines that the latter should be an adherent of Aryan culture and a follower of Hindu religion. When this clause in the constitution has already identified Hinduism as the religion of the monarch, identifying the kingdom as Hindu, while modern laws are not derived from Hindu religious sources, becomes a vacuous statement. It is also unnecessarily provocative and dysfunctional.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 24-Jul-03 05:54 PM
In the debate between secularism versus Hinduism in Nepal the experiences of countries such as France, United States, Turkey and India have often served as points of reference, while other countries with monarchical forms of government, and ones with which Nepal shares some commonality as far as state structures are concerned, do not. For instance, the relationship between the state and religion in the United Kingdom, which recognises the Anglican Church as the official church and where the monarch is both the head of the state and of the church, but where the state at large is secular, does not inform the current debate in Nepal.
The experience of Thailand would be of even greater relevance than countries like the United Kingdom. Thailand, like Nepal, is an Asian country that has a monarch as the head of the state. More importantly, it has retained its independence. This in turn means there has not been a rupture between polity and religion as has occurred in many other Asian countries that have passed through colonial rule. Moreover, there has been continuity with tradition, though traditions, in turn, have been adapted and improvised to suit modern times.
There is still another similarity: the dynasty that rules modern Thailand and one that rules modern Nepal began from roughly the same period onwards beginning from the late 18th century. Both polities have been able to exist up to the present times through skilful negotiations first with colonial powersthe French and the British in the case of Thailand, and the British in the case of Nepaland subsequently with popular forces.
Some 94 percent of the population in Thailand is Buddhist. But nowhere does the Thai constitution declare Buddhism to be the state religion. It does, however, declare Buddhism to be the kings religion, though he is also seen as the protector of all religions. Chapter II Section 9 of the constitution of Thailand states: The king is a Buddhist and an upholder of religions. These are the core ideas present in the Thai constitution, learning which would be to Nepals benefit.
The implication is that the kingdom cannot literally be declared secular when the reigning king is Buddhist. Kingdom is after all an extension of kingship, but that it can be secular for all practical purposes. By perceiving the king to be a Buddhist while simultaneously a protector of various religions is an idea that can be traced back to Emperor Ashoka, the archetype of the righteous monarch or dhammaraja. Space is allowed for adherents of minority faiths to identify with monarchy. Moreover it does not portray monarchy as a zealot institution, which may have been the case had it said that the king is a protector of Buddhism.
Other Theravada Buddhist countries like Burma and Sri Lanka where colonial rule disrupted the complementary relationship that prevailed between kingship and Buddhism, have during the post-colonial era witnessed attempts to elevate Buddhism to the level of state religion (though there have been vacillations in this policy). This must be seen as a reaction against some of the policies enunciated during colonial rule.
The same could be said of the Hindutva agenda in India. While the Buddhist population in Burma and Sri Lanka is around 85 percent and 64 percent respectively, Thailand, with a much higher Buddhist population has, however, had no need to give special patronage to Buddhism precisely because of the relationship that exists between monarchy and Buddhism that continues to this day.
Thailand is naturally a Buddhist country without having the need to consciously articulate its identity as such. In Nepal, too, the present relationship between monarchy and Hinduism has not been disrupted. There is no need to articulate the kingdoms identity as Hindu.
(Sudhindra Sharma from Nepal is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.)
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 24-Jul-03 06:54 PM
Ashuji, leaving Sharmaji's view aside, what is your personal view on this subject.
Is the call for secularism being fueled by money of vested interested groups who are hell bent on conversion of religion. There is a ambitious goal set to convert to particular religion and the targets are the underprevieledge ones.
Do you think sudden brust of seccularism as our bitter experience with democracy will make some quarters fulfill their interest leaving the nation to bled tears of communal tension.
Will not it be right, that awareness and gradual social evolution (which I personally feel is on the way) the best way out. Will not the uproar bring out the zealots or fundamentalists in name of safeguarding religional beliefs and Gujrat like scenario being common in our courtyard.
I don,t understand why, religion and communal division is taken up as a tool to achieve political gains.
May the respective Gods of everyone give the power to think over it
|
| jaya_nepal |
Posted
on 24-Jul-03 07:12 PM
Nepal is known as the Hindu Kingdom. Nepal's King is the only Hindu King around the world and is given high honor and respect. Hinduism and King are inter-related in Nepal. While King exists, Nepal would always be considered as Hindu nation and if Nepal is declared a secular state, the importance of the King would dissapear on its own.
The recent demand by five agitating parties to declare Nepal as a secular state is only to undermine the importance of King. History clearly says that our great leaders can undergo any stance when it comes to power. And they proved that once again. I clearly understand that in course of time we should introduce changes in the society. But in a delicate democratic nation like Nepal, where curroption is rampant and there is no rule of any kind of authority, there has to a binding force that always maintain the sovereignity and integrity of the nation. King is the symbol of unity amongst all the Nepali people.
Can we imagine what would have happened without the King acting on October 4..?? I may sound a pro-monarchist, but there was no solution. People all around the country were rejoicing, they were all tired of the leaders that we selected. If King wouldnt have acted, no one could have averted a foreign intervention. A constitutional monarchy is must for a democracy like Nepal, where there is no sign of development.
Long Live the King, Long Live the Monarchy
|
