Santosh makes some very good points. I am not the type who is a lawyer
or can do hair-splitting arguments. I also dont have that much time,
being pre-occupied with many other issues.
Santosh, someone who I first knew as an atheist, is saying that imparting
religious education with private money is not illegal. No one said it
is illegal, but religious educations can be of two types --- one that
inculcates a sense of tolerance towards other religions, and one that
inculcates a sense of intolerance towards other religions. Which type
of religious "education" if one can call it one that Ekal Vidyalaya
provides is anyone's guess.
Secondly, I believe that teaching english alphabet without certain letters
in it is not just no education, but it is inculcating falsehood in children's
minds. One can imagine a lifetime of unlearning in the future for these
children just because there were no hindu gods beginning with Q.
Santosh should also read the TOI news item again and more carefully wherein it
is stated
that this above stuff is carried out in thousands of Ekal Vidyalaya
schools and it is not just a one-off case.
It is very clearly also stated that history has been altered in the
case of the story about the tribal mentioned. Santosh might like to
split hairs about that one; after all it is going to be history and
no one can prove it either this way or that way. But the point is ---
do we want histories about divisive nature of things to be promoted ?
What would be the implications of harping on DVDs of things that happened
years back Manohar Parrikar style ?
The difference between a secular outlook and a fundamental outlook for
me is very fundamental. A secular outlook even given that a certain
minority is appeased --- gives a win win situation for everyone, while
a fundamentalist outlook -- a lose lose situation for everyone.
Assuming even Birsa or whoever that was fought for Hinduism and against
missionaries ( having noted that past events can never be proved conclusively)
what is the intent of Ekal Vidyalaya in harping upon
that story right now, other than to eliminate Christians ?
In other words, there is no objectivity in Santosh's thinkng. By using
skepticism as an argument, and not giving proof to the contrary
( he still wants to investigate the historical Birsa story and I know
he will never finish with this), Santosh is siding with divisive forces.
regards,
Samir
