Transforming the Notions of Time and Secularism: From Force to Organism Observance
Unpopular opinion: this unsustainable fusion of politics of anti-Semitism in India, which I don’t see how is relevant and of forced secularism is irrelevant now. An unreasonable article on ‘maatrbhoomi’ and ‘Semite’ India published recently is nothing but flawed connivance to reflect a biased and less transformed vision of secularism. I find this flaw too much and for decades, we have mistreated secularism for what not. It is so obvious that the manifestations of both — an ideology & a cult/ethnicity/identity are subjective, and cannot be absolutely adopted. One of the biggest reasons is that amidst ethnonationalism in the rules-based international order, the forced or sterilized version of secular governance and interference in the lives of the people and organizations in matters related to literacy and faith — has been catastrophic. Another understanding is that both classical liberalism and neoliberalism, as limited and sane conceptions in political science have been compressed and paired with the identity politics of the 1970s. The paradox proposed by a section of people that identity politics has been since inception is flawed, but after I read this article on anti-Semite India, it came to me that there is a larger-than-life paradox among social scientists and academics when it comes to understanding the norms of time conceived by the secular school.
The objective of the article is not to debunk the article tagged above. That piece is as good as fiction, because the basic providence of the article, that is — secularism cannot be existent without Semitic values is outrageously flawed. I would like to focus on something impeccable and different here. Let us then ask a billion-dollar question:
Cannot people understand that Secularism is a limited political concept?
The operational aspects of our life are partially secular and partially affected by the transformation of the substantial origins and enculturation of our culture. This misbehaviour to prove that India has been subjected to religious wars and sterilized secularization is fake and shameful.
Watch the interview with Sh. Arif Mohammad Khan on IndiaTV on how beautifully he explains the cultural pluralist (which is in reverse engineering of politics and society, maybe could a conciliation of secularism) song Vande Mataram and its acceptability in India.
Secularism by definition should be organic by nature. The paradox is that the Top-Down vision of secularism lacks rationality, and pretends utter scientific absolutism, which is naive, at least in the Indian case.
Love, hope, trust and rest cannot be secular because these substantive understandings can be culturally pluralist or ideologically driven. And none of both need to be political. Remember this. Therefore, secularism needs to be organic to accept cultural pluralism. Now, if traditionalism is put into question — then my response would be that traditionalism must not be accepted as a whole. It’s virtually impossible to turn back, and is unreasonable — our traditional values, therefore, need to be studied carefully.
You make and find new ideas from your history through which you have grown. Try hard for it. Even physics is not secular. It’s way provable how the Catholic Church misused Issac Newton’s Principia Mathematica and the so-called Christened concept of Mundane linear time was adopted.
Now, it is impossible to stay with the Mundane Linear Time Concept because Einstein debunked him already. However, Hawking doesn’t go too far as well. In fact — the time is both linear and cyclic and can be quasi-cyclic. That is why the growth of a civilization must be understood through a lens of multi-dimensional imagination instead of a 2D understanding of civilization histories. This would not only stabilize both secular and cultural values but also would be a helpful model to safeguard the rules-based international order and endorse a more reasonable organism of international law, where rule of law is self-autonomous and omnipotent. Anyways, let us get deeper into the question of why secular by definition is limited and organic:
Secularism is Skeletal, and its Transformation is Utilitarian
The paradox behind the power-identity nexus that the Socialists assume that either time is linear, and nothing could be preserved or they believe that time is cyclic. That is why their notions over foreign policy, polity, freedom of expression is anarchic and catchy because more or less, they incite people using short-term evaluations. The Victorian origins of the concept of human rights have transformed at length, and thanks to the liberal values of the US and Europe, human rights is not too abstract as a conception anymore. The problem is — socialists and Marxists are treating even the concept of human rights extra-interventionist. This must be stopped because the way international human rights, is universalized and secularized, no UN member then would be able to achieve rule of law and respect of human rights through this obscure model. That is also reflected in the flawed model of Transitional Justice, in the case of Africa and Asia, as noted by India in January 2020 in the UNSC meeting under Deputy Ambassador Naidu. This is why the extra-apologetic approach of the Kashmiri separatists is unacceptable. Even Ambassador Akbaruddin reflected this earlier in his interview with S Haider from The Hindu, which people must read.
Anyways, let us get back to the question of how Secularism can transform. My conception of Secularism — akin to Liberalism is open but non-interventionist. I simply propose that at an aesthetic level, not based on insane metaphysical notions, but based on reasonable cultural grounds, both Secularism and Liberalism must be transformed into procedural ideologies that drive international cooperation and the dire effort to achieve peace in the world. We have already tested the Semitic approaches of the US, the UK and the EU, and to an extent — the Putin vision in Syria. I do not think these 4 visions of the Global North have surreptitiously failed — but they need a rejuvenation. We cannot adopt the hyper-secular-realist model of the Chinese Communist Party/Chinese Culturalists, nor we can rely on the Middle Easterners like Turkey and Iran for a global policy. Even India’s cultural vision is imperfect and will have some flaws due to the lack of conservativism-traditionalism semblance in the Indic community and polity. Therefore, we can at least adopt a quasi-cyclic model of Secularism, which seeks its position of reference like the centre of mass of Earth in a fabric of time. Imagine it like a cocoon, being photographed millions of times until the butterfly comes out of it.
Can you feel how it would seem? That is what Secularism should be — procedural — friendly to both ideological correctness & cultural pluralism and resistant to ideological obscuration and cultural nihilism.
I cannot, however, conclude that this quasi-empirical observation of mine is an absolute model. Optimism is nevertheless an impeccable way to see such a model if it comes into being. Let us hope people really get sane and shun the disease of mass collectivism.