Is secularism the other side of genocide? – Murali K.V.

Constitution of India

Indian secularismSecularism was undemocratically added to the Constitution by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. The legacy of this dictatorial act has come to full fruition now with many judgements effectively declaring that secularism is to treat Hindus as non-citizens in their own land. – Murali K.V.

The term secularism was not present in the original Indian Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly and Bharat Ratna Dr. Ambedkar. It was undemocratically added by Indira Nehru while her party, the Indira Congress (not the Indian National Congress) was in power and had declared an emergency. The legacy of this dictatorial act of an illegitimate government has come to full fruition now with many judgements effectively declaring that secularism is to treat Hindus as non-citizens in their own land.

Everybody might be aware that drunken driving is an offence. Whether such a driver causes an accident or not they are arrested and prevented from driving as a “preventive” measure against accidents and fatalities. It is a matter of fact and logic that a significant proportion of those caught are highly unlikely to cause accidents even while drunk as different people have varying levels of resistance to the influence of substances and are known to drive relatively safely even while drunk! Yet, as a society, we take preventive and often punitive action (including arrest and punishments such as revoking the licence, etc.) against such drivers because it is almost impossible to predict when and who when drunk will cause an accident, fatal or not. So the idea of such a “preventive” policy is to reduce accidents and fatalities by prosecuting all drunk driving, which is generally considered a fair and just policy. There are many such “preventive” policies in force in most functional societies, such as “preventive” arrests or detainment for the prevention of unrest in the society, etc. Even such vague policies as the latter are accepted as fair and just by many.

If the above is the case (“preventive” measures) for isolated incidents of accidents and fatalities, should it not be the case that anything that significantly increases the risk of genocide should not be allowed but banned and ruthlessly prosecuted as it is a crime against the entire humanity to allow forces of genocide to operate freely?

It is an undeniable fact of over two millennia of evidence that certain theologies and philosophies holding sway over vast sections of the population across the globe have been a repeat and continuous offenders of the outrageous crime of genocide against the entirety of humanity. The most important fact of this is that none of these theologies or philosophies has shown any reformative tendencies and stopped their behavior even in the slightest.

In spite of Christianity being the cause and the justification for the white race to eliminate over 21 billion people (in today’s population count and density) across the globe, the entire races of Native Americans, Native Australians and many peoples of Asia and of course Africa, centuries of slavery and indentured labour, it is still seen fit and “secular” to allow the religion to exist without any change or amendments to its ideology whatsoever. Moreover, people argue as if Christianity is genuinely a religion of love (RoL) and has reformed itself. Has it? As recently as in the mid-1990s in Rwanda the Christian Church committed genocide of millions of poor Africans inside the Church premises themselves, and that too using the divide-and-rule policy where Christian Africans were made to kill fellow Christian Africans in the so-called places of god, the churches! [1]

Historically this has been justified by the Christians with various ludicrous “philosophical” arguments, such as non-Christians do not have a soul, it is the white man’s burden to civilise the “savage” non-whites, etc. However ridiculous it might appear these arguments still have sway as demonstrated by the current affairs and the past empirical facts of human history.

Similarly, Islamists in India have committed one of the largest recorded genocide, often unparalleled in cruelty and evil. Again, this is not a historical event or a historical series that has come to an end. As recently as in the early 1990s, all Hindu Kashmiris have been driven out of Kashmir. The almost non-existent Hindu population of Pakistan and fast-dwindling Hindu population of Bangladesh (now at less than 10 percent), from 25–30 percent mark in 1947 paints an undeniable picture of the continuing atrocities across the globe, especially the Indian subcontinent. [2]

Now, how does one constitutionally, morally and ethically justify supporting secularism that “equally” respects such empirically demonstrable forces of genocide and perpetrators of all sorts of crimes against humanity, such as these Abrahamic religions? How does one justify prosecution of drunk drivers but not proven genocidal forces by a constitution that guarantees the right to life of all law-abiding citizens? Can a constitution treat a murderer and a law-abiding citizen as equals?

Not all followers of these theologies are criminal in intent and many will never involve themselves in a crime perhaps, but can anyone guarantee that none of them ever will? If this society cannot tolerate drunk-driving, which appropriately it should not indeed, how can it tolerate forces of genocide (and other such unspeakable atrocities) to operate freely?

Of course, nobody can effectively do mind control and prevent people from believing in certain theologies or philosophies however demonstrably evil they are, but can a constitution guaranteeing the right to life of law-abiding citizens allow such theologies and philosophies to operate, organise and propagate freely under the guise of secularism, free speech and freedom of “conscience”? Is the promotion of genocide conscientious?

Will such a constitution or application of secularism morally and ethically be valid by any stretch of logic and evidence? The honest answer is NO. – PGurus, 10 November 2018

Notes

  1. Lisapo ya Kama Site, How the Hutu and the Tutsi have been created, Accessed September 1, 2018.
  2. Ambedkar, B.R., Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker and Company Ltd., 1941.

» Murali K.V. is a medic and a graduate of the University of Cambridge, England. He is involved in inter-disciplinary research for the inculcation of a scientific rigour in the outdated fields of humanities: putting “science” into social sciences.

The Pope reviews Christian history!


 

One Response

  1. Smallpox killed the Native Americans

    European colonization of Americas killed so many it cooled Earth’s climate – Oliver Milman – The Guardian – London – 31 January 2019

    European colonization of the Americas resulted in the killing of so many native people that it transformed the environment and caused the Earth’s climate to cool down, new research has found.

    Settlers killed off huge numbers of people in conflicts and also by spreading disease, which reduced the indigenous population by 90% in the century following Christopher Columbus’s initial journey to the Americas and Caribbean in 1492.

    This “large-scale depopulation” resulted in vast tracts of agricultural land being left untended, researchers say, allowing the land to become overgrown with trees and other new vegetation.

    The regrowth soaked up enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to actually cool the planet, with the average temperature dropping by 0.15C in the late 1500s and early 1600s, the study by scientists at University College London found.

    “The great dying of the indigenous peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth system in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution,” wrote the UCL team of Alexander Koch, Chris Brierley, Mark Maslin and Simon Lewis.

    The drop in temperature during this period is known as the “Little Ice Age”, a time when the River Thames in London would regularly freeze over, snowstorms were common in Portugal and disrupted agriculture caused famines in several European countries.

    The UCL researchers found that the European colonization of the Americas indirectly contributed to this colder period by causing the deaths of about 56 million people by 1600. The study attributes the deaths to factors including introduced disease, such as smallpox and measles, as well as warfare and societal collapse.

    Researchers then calculated how much land indigenous people required and then subsequently fell into disuse, finding that around 55m hectares, an area roughly equivalent to France, became vacant and was reclaimed by carbon dioxide-absorbing vegetation.

    The study sketches out a past where humans were influencing the climate long before the industrial revolution, where the use of fossil fuels for the manufacturing of goods, generation of electricity and transportation has allowed tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere.

    Widespread deforestation for agriculture and urban development has also spurred the release of greenhouse gases, causing the planet to warm by around 1C over the past century. Scientists have warned that the world has little over a decade to drastically reduce emissions or face increasingly severe storms, drought, heatwaves, coastal flooding and food insecurity.

    The revegetation of the Americas after European arrival aided declines of global carbon content in the air, dropping by around seven to 10 parts of carbon dioxide for every million molecules of air in the atmosphere. This compares to the 3ppm of carbon dioxide that humanity is currently adding to the atmosphere every year through the burning of fossil fuels.

    “There is a lot of talk around ‘negative emissions’ approaching and using tree-planting to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to mitigate climate change,” study co-author Chris Brierley told the BBC.

    “And what we see from this study is the scale of what’s required, because the great dying resulted in an area the size of France being reforested and that gave us only a few parts per million.

    “This is useful; it shows us what reforestation can do. But at the same, that kind of reduction is worth perhaps just two years of fossil fuel emissions at the present rate.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: