Of late there has been many cases of" honour killings" in north India. "Honour killing" takes place in situation where relatives object to a boy and a girl of different caste or religion wishing to get married. The Supreme Court of India on 19 April, 2011 declared that there is nothing honourable about honour killing and added that the institution, the 'caste-council', that pronounces such judgment is illegal, and therefore must be ruthlessly stamped out. The Bench further observed, " Over two centuries have passed since Thomas Jefferson wrote those memorable words, which are still ringing in history, but a large section of Indian society still regards a section of its own countrymen as inferior. This mental attitude is simply unacceptable in the modern age, and it is one of the main causes holding up the country's progress". Furthermore, the Bench expressed anguish over the two-tumbler system prevalent in various places. The two-tumbler system is that in many tea shops and restaurants there are separate tumblers for serving tea or other drinks to Scheduled Caste persons and non-Scheduled Caste persons because giving the same cup/tumbler to both the persons would considered to be "polluting" the latter.
In pronouncing the judgment the court quoted Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence, 1776, saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator by certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But is this truth that all men are created equal really self-evident? The cases stated above prove that this truth is not self-evident. At least it is not self-evident in India even today. How did Thomas Jefferson then arrive at such a conclusion?
We know that Jefferson was a deist. And for a deist God is wholly transcendent and he never communicates with the human world. So Jefferson could not possibly be informed of the profound truth he propositioned by his religious belief. In 1780s one British politician by the name William Wilberforce led a campaign against the British slave trade as he felt deeply moved by his religious belief that all men are equal and slavery is immoral. For Wilberforce his belief was deeply informed by his understanding of the God of the Bible, whom he believed has created all human being. Wilberforce campaign for nearly 30 years eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Even on the other side of the Atlantic, Jefferson was living amongst those religious people who believed that God, who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, created all men equal and that they are endowed with certain rights. And it is this belief that informed Jefferson that all men are equal!
Is there any religious belief that originated in the Indian sub-continent that teaches equality of men. Well, Sikhism that began in 16th century does teach equality of all its adherents. The titles "Singh" for male and "Kaur" for female are mandatory for adherents of Sikhism, and they are to erase the caste based title/surname that they had before they came to Sikhism. But Sikhism is a minority in India. Christianity and Islam though considered to be "foreign" religion do teach equality of all as well.
Is there any religious belief that originated in the Indian sub-continent that teaches equality of men. Well, Sikhism that began in 16th century does teach equality of all its adherents. The titles "Singh" for male and "Kaur" for female are mandatory for adherents of Sikhism, and they are to erase the caste based title/surname that they had before they came to Sikhism. But Sikhism is a minority in India. Christianity and Islam though considered to be "foreign" religion do teach equality of all as well.
ok then i think it is time to change the famous cote of Jefferson as "all human are equally created but religion is the line that makes them different."
ReplyDeleteforget religion and the world becomes one...
"Forget religion and world becomes one..." may not work. Atheist like Peter Singer, prof of Princeton University, may not endorse that all humans are equal and are endowed with certain inalienable right. For him infant or mentally deranged may not be "human person".
ReplyDeleteThe point is that there are certain religions that teach that all men are created equal and there are others that don't teach likewise. Similarly, some non-religious people teach that all human are equal (like Amartya Sen) while people like Peter Singer take a different position.
when you say about non religious people and atheist are they not the same? not exactly but they are more or less the same i suppose if the non religious people are being non religious knowingly. so i consider them as people who doesnt accept any religion. when they forget religion they are able to go deep in the biological science and comes out with idea of that.
ReplyDeletebut if you try to ask any religious person specifically that of the Hindu, Jews etc i dont think they will agree with that.
so as to say the christian also thought themselve that they are the holy people and the others are not. that is the reason for all the works of the missionary. so i would strongly be on the fact that religion brings the difference.
Even if we forget religion as you said, there will still be differences. Take non-religious individuals like Amartya Sen and Peter Singer; they have different views. That's what I was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Hindus' belief, take Meghnad Desai's writings. He says that Hinduism has never taught that all human persons are equal. Supreme Court's judgment also impllies that many people in India do not treat others are equal. The religion of these people is not mentioned. But we can safely say that it is meant for the Hindus. Don't you think so?
any religion which doesn't teach about the equality of the human race are not a religion but are group of people trying to bring war and violence in this world.
ReplyDeleteany person whether intellectual who speaks about the inequality of the human are pseudointellectual. they all should be considered as an empty pot.
There are religious teachings and intellectual figures who do not endorse equality of all human persons. This indicates that there is much work to be done even as a religious scholar or an intellectual figure.
ReplyDeleteI remember having read a news article sometime back where animal activists argue that one particular chimpanzee should be elevated to the status of human person so that it would have 'human right' and proper care would be taken of.
So we have some people considering other human persons as inferior; while some other persons want to consider even animal as human person!