| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
118927
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper I take the women's movement as the site for unpacking some of the strains and tensions involved in practical interpretations of secularism in present-day India. Several sources within and outside the movement point out that there has been a tendency to take the existence of secularism for granted, and that the supposedly secular idioms and symbols used for mobilizing women have been drawn from Hindu religio-cultural sources. Women from Dalit and religious minority communities have felt alienated by this. Hindu nationalists have cleverly appropriated these idioms and symbols to mobilize women as foot soldiers to further religious nationalism. Through a case-study of a grassroots women's NGO working in Uttar Pradesh, I seek to explore how women's organizations may be reshaping their agendas and activism to address this issue. Specifically, I will examine how and why the 2002 Gujarat riots affected the NGO, the ways in which it has started working on the issue of communal harmony and engaging with Muslims since the riots, and the challenges with which it has been confronted as a result of its efforts. In doing so, I will show how the complexities of NGO-based women's activism have become intertwined with the politics of secularism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
139676
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Debates about secularism in post-independence India have often revolved around the visions of two of the country’s founding fathers—M.K.Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. A sharp distinction is drawn between them by those who argue that the Gandhian model (or, what in common parlance and state discourses is called communal harmony) stems from Indian cultural and religious values, and lies beyond the realm of the state. The Nehruvian model, however, is a state project through and through. This article transcends this dichotomy to show that
the association of Nehru and Gandhi with these models does not necessarily mean that secularism and communal harmony faithfully reflect their ideas and, despite the differences in their aims and methods, both models are united in the discourses and practices of the state as strategies of ‘governmentality’. After redefining the core of communal harmony as reciprocity (rather than tolerance), I show how it is performed, how it supplements the state’s efforts to keep the peace in a religiously plural society by the force of law, and shores up the state’s
legitimacy deficit. However, the state’s simultaneous involvement in Nehruvian and Gandhian projects is not an innocuous fact because it undermines the state’s constitutional and secular obligations to non-discriminatory citizenship in the Indian nation. The argument is that the state’s endorsement of dargah-centred Islamic piety as an exemplary site of communal harmony and particular ideas of the Indian nation legitimized by communal harmony ‘problematizes’ the national belonging of certain kinds of pious Muslims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
173630
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the age of science and technology it is not correct to say that one particular community is responsible for spreading a particular disease. In fact it is a matter of hygiene, sanitation and common sense. It is a bias and a kind of myth towards a particular community. In this background the role of media was not up to the mark. This gave birth to hate, violence and the atmosphere of mutual distrust among the various communities living peacefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|