The secular state emerged in modern times as a response to the religious infighting that plagued Europe for centuries and put social life on a self-destructing path. The wars that were fought then because of religion posed a threat to the emerging modern Europe, underscoring the need to keep the state and religion at a very comfortable distance.

For many devout well meaning Hindus, however, the secular state is viewed as an instrument used to undermine religious heritage and culture and deny the relevance of moral teachings to public life. While this perception has an element of truth, it does not necessarily depict the general nature or principles of state secularism.

Secular states have no state religion which means that state is officially neutral in matters of religion or cultural practice, emanating from religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious belief or practice. This is not the same thing as an atheistic state where the state officially opposes all religious beliefs and practices. There is no danger of us turning into a North Korea, Former Soviet Union or even China. A secular Nepal will allow all to practice their religion and culture to their hearts content without any obstruction of any kind.

The secular state was designed to prevent organized religion from controlling public institutions; it did not necessarily aim at undermining religiosity, or alienating religious communities. Rather, it was perceived as a multi-religious society’s best defense against the imposition of the religious values and worldview of one community on another.

Separating religion and the state is usually based on three principles: neutrality of the state, freedom to exercise religion, and public powers related to religion.

In our case, such a step will naturally arouse a lot of opposition from organized Hindu groups in Nepal and India because it implies that state funding of all religious groups will come to an end. There is also a danger of a backlash from a certain group of very powerful Indians.

After a move to state secularity, all religious sites should logically become government property. In case the Nepali people thought that Pashupati belonged to the Nepalis, they are in for a big surprise. A group of priests called Pandas who hail from South India have traditionally from the time of a certain Shankhar Acharya administered the temple and its wealth - tax free and with no audit. That the high priest at Pashupati and his team are still all Indians will probably not come as new news to many Nepalis.

To hold on to their free wealth, they and their Nepalese friends will frighten Nepalis with dire consequences such as riots and killings if Nepal does not remain "the only Hindu country". They have had a strong connection with kings - they support and promote the belief that the King of a Hindu Nepal was an avatar of God Vishnu (making them all powerful to the religious Nepalis) and in return the kings allowed them to make money at Pashupati and other temples, which by some estimates is equal to the yearly development budget of Nepal. This means we would not need aid from India, US, Europe and Japan, if we could mobilize these funds. No wonder it has been so difficult to dislodge them from Pashupati. This cozy arrangement has to come to an end in a democratic Nepal.

I will leave it to other writers to talk about the ethnic minority/majority that are affected by the Hindu state and the caste system that we carry as a major drawback to our national development.

One argument that I see bandied a lot is that since the majority of the people are Hindus, Nepal should be a Hindu country. Being an educated and practicing Hindu, I like many of us Hindus do not hold the belief that Nepal should be a Hindu state just because the majority of us are Hindus (30 to 100 percent depending on who you ask). I think a lot of moderate Hindus like me would like to have a secular democratic state where we can all practice our religion and culture regardless of what it is.

Because Sajha is a community of Nepalis, a lot of propaganda is sure to surface here.
Look out Nepal, radical Hindus and dirty politicians are putting forward devious and nationalistic arguments aimed to regain or stop loosing their power and the King and his henchmen are their natural, historic allies!

I didnt read ur whole store...but the response to ur title is ....i dont give a rats arsh

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha...again one more guy!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am for a republic and a secular state. However, I beleive the best way to get both is via a constituent assembly and not pronouncements of parliament. I feel republicanism and secularism are where Nepal's future lies and therefore both principles need to have the legitimacy of having been adopted by a constituent assembly.

That said, what has happened has happened for the better.

My 2 cents.

Religious violence on the rise in secular India:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/30/india1626.htm
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Current_Affairs/Current_affairs.html
http://freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/India/summary.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_nationalism [indian nationalism is on the rise as well]

Or how about this:
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product961.html [rise of the religious right in America]


Of course there is no turning around now. The question is whether secularism will lead to violence in the future or not. Are we gonna let missionaries have free rein and let them convert people left, right and center? The fundamental question is this: why splinter Nepal even more? We are already divided by caste, ethnicity and politics. Why bring another issue, religion, to the fore? I mean has religion ever been a problem in Nepal? Your post above seems to not adequately address these basic questions. I don't see Nepalis starting a riot like they do in *secular* India in the name of a deity. Nobody wants to see their numbers dwindling--this is especially true for HINDUS, because we don't allow people to enter into our religion. People are only leaving it.

I'll just ask a simple question: why bring religion to the forefront when religion has never been an issue in Nepal?
It has seriously never been a big issue. Nepali Hindus are not particularly religious, as you may know, given that you claim you're a Hindu yourself. So why push people's buttons? Give me a good response to this question. I will check back tomorrow.

Seriousguy - Not sure if your question was directed at me but I have taken the liberty to respond and explain my position. A couple of points come to mind:

(1) I support a secular state because it is reflective of the multi-cultural nature of Nepal. We may be majority-Hindu, but we do have almost a 20%, and growing, non-Hindu minority. If everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, so should everyone's religion. The most practical way to recongize the equality of all religions, in my opinion, is not to recongnize any one religion as the state religion, as doing so implies a superior position in the eyes of the law for that religion. Nepal has gradually been moving towards more and more freedom in all aspects of life and if we don't do this now, someone else at another time is bound to do it.


(2)Secularism needs to come with responsibility and accountability. I oppose forced conversions and don't have much regard for proselytizing. However, such acts have been happening even when we have been a Hindu state. I firmly believe that the activities of religious organizations, Hindu and Christian, need to be brought under the purview of the law and regulated the same way as other organizations like NGOs. People who coerce or deceive others into converting to another religion should be prosecuted for fraud. And whether you are the Viswa Hindu Sangh or the Church of Latter Day Saints, you should be paying your taxes to the government and enjoy no special privileges.

(3) I also feel the Hindus of Nepal, myself included, have nothing to fear about secularism. I have enough confidence that the basic tenants of Hinduism are well grounded in our culture and our focus should be to reform Hinduism so that it appeals to all people. It is difficult to lure people away from a faith they feel comfortable with. That is also the best way for Hinduism to sustain itself in the long run in Nepal. Many of those turning away from Hinduism have been from the lower rungs of the caste ladder - if we can't address the grievances of the weakest sections of our society, they are bound to go to those who can. And shame on us for that.

(4) About secularism dividing the country further: Identity dynamics varies on who you are. For most Hindus in Nepal caste and ethnic identity often comes before religious identity. This is not always true for many Christians, Muslims and to some extent Buddists. A Christian is likely to see himself as a Nepali first and then a Christian and then only a Bahun or a Tharu. I say we are not dividing the country further by becoming a secular state - we are merely acknowledging the multi-religious identities that already exist in our society and securing that identity in written law.

(5) I agree that this was probably not the best time to bring this up. Like I said earlier, I think this issue belongs in the Constituent Assembly. However, it has been brought up now and has become a national issue and we can't wish it away. We have to deal with it and decide where we stand as individuals and as a nation on this issue.

seriousguy,

The state having a religion has been a big issue for many people and I think it is for this reason that parliament had to take this step, which has been welcomed by many, both Hindus and Non Hindus.

I apologise if you got the impression that I was "pushing peoples buttons". I am really concerned that we will allow religion to be used as a issue to divide the Nepalese people. At this time, it is the last thing we need.

I started the thread because i sincerely believe that people should be informed and educated about the origins of secularism and how it can be good for us in a democratic Nepalese kingdom or republic, whatever the people choose after the constituent assembly does its work.

Many of us do not seem to know what secularism is and tend to view it with distrust, and the Hindu extremist will use this ignorance to misinform people to gain an advantage. Look at what is happening in Birgunj right now.

.whatever the debate going on....

i guess i should specify my position before i say anything. i am asked what my religion is and i always answer, "i was born a hindu." i have not really thought about religion all that much. ok, i take that back, i have pondered on that a lot. but i haven't found a reason to further what i inherited or to change to something else. proselytizing is a sticky issue - but conversion should not be. if someone wants to shed a label, then it is that person's personal choice - who am i to say anything?

that being said, i think whatever has been proclaimed by the proclamation is valid until the constituent assembly. anything and everything in the proclamation (and more) should be and will be evaluated by the constituent assembly. this proclamation does not pretend that it will be the law of the land forever - it is valid only until the constituent assembly. so if you say that the secular issue should have been decided by the constitutent assembly - keep your voice up, we are still waiting for the all powerful assembly that will examine this issue...

Orion and freethinker,
I don't really think that removing the Hindu tag is the right thing to do, because, while religion-state separation was a necessity for Christian Europe, since only a few centuries ago the pope and his church wielded enormous power, we're only fanning the flames of religious hatred by bringing up the religious issue in a country like Nepal, which has never had religious problems historically. I don't think that Hinduism has really been imposed on the masses, because in the first place it is not an organized religon. Let me ask you all point blank this question: does Hinduism convert non-Hindus and exhorts them to become Hindus? Of course not. So people, we cannot really copy Westerners whose religion is completely different from ours, and whose religion has historically been imposed on the masses. Historically, even in Hindu India, people were given free rein to decide what religious path they would want to take. Parsees, Jews and Christians have all settled in India centuries ago, and they were welcomed with open arms. However, these religius gruops did not try proselytizing people. They settled in India and basically faded to oblivion. The whole Lutheran movement arose because some people saw that the religous leaders(bishop, priests) were essentially corrupt. It did not make sense that one required to pay the church in order to reach heaven. Furthermore, the Sharia law that Islamic states rely on is essentially an Islamic law. Did Hindu Nepal have impositions of this sort?So it seems to me that a distinction needs to be made between Abrahamic religions and a religion like Hinduism, which of all things, doesn't even have just one holy book, and just one deity and just one religious philosophy. Hinduism is by its nature a pluralistic religion. Also, even in "secular" America, Christmas is a federal government holiday, while Eid is not.
Having said all that, OF COURSE we cannot reinsert the Hindu tag again, because doing so would basically be taunting the Maoists, and they would truly make a big issue out of this. As I said, there is no turning back now. Nepal is not a Hindu country anymore, and it is going to remain so for ever from this point on. Now this is another important point as well. All major religions have countries in which these major religions have been declared official. For example, Thailand has buddhism, while Saudi Arabia has Islam. Do you all realize that there are no Hindu nations in the world today? I am not trying to sound an alarm bell, but this truly does seem to be a cause for concern, at least to me.
Also about one's identity, look, a human being has many identities. He can be a bahun, a Hindu, a Nepali, all at the same time. As I tried to show in my previous post, religious fundamentalism is on the rise all across the globe. While I do believe that a human being has many other identities that are equally as important, the trend has been that people give more emphasis to their religious identity. This is being seen in the Arab world, for example, and to an extent in America as well with the rise of evangelical Christians. In fact, Hindu nationalism is on the rise in India as well. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that, while there is no turning back, removing the Hindu tag will only drive Hindus towards fundamentalism. I expect to see Hindu fundamentalism on the rise in Nepal. I do agree though that keeping missionaries in check will indeed palliate some of the concerns. However, I don't think it is enough. Anyway, only time will tell. Another problem here is that Girija and his boys are only trying to appease the Maoists. Why appease terrorists?

Re: Do you agree with parliament's decision to declare Nepal a secular state?
« Reply #10 on: Today at 10:47:05 am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt in it and we must internalise that Birgunj is immediate reaction. Our society may not be able to digest new things but it will gradually accept change. We should be happy and be proud of what we have and what we own if we feel brotherhood and believe in it.
KB

Logged



Jai Nepal
Newbie

Posts: 27


Re: Do you agree with parliament's decision to declare Nepal a secular state?
« Reply #11 on: Today at 11:47:37 am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muna
Just for your information, three parts of Nepal is surrounded by India and not only birgunj. This movement is taking its pase and in few days time you are going to have a hard go. If byrning tyres and chanting slogans means democracy to you spammers, this is mean democracy to us also.
You know the agenda of secular state came after Tamrat gave few crore Rs to SAPM goverment and Kofi Annan then congraluted POPE> This game is not as simple as you think.
there are many NGO and INGO in nepal and the main motive is conversion. You see there are 250NGO in Karnali and look at the fate of people of karnali. Where does the money go.
Hindu dharma was spread to allover asia. Pakistan (not then in existance), Bangladesh, Afganistan, Thailand, COmbodia, tibet (hinduism was there before BON), Srilanka. Where did so many hindu's go. Converted. Its ok if they are converted to BUDDHISM or JAIN because they are ultimately Om KAr Parivar and specialised branchas of VEDA'a.
If to save your religion is crime I am am criminal so is George Bush, so is popre and so is his Holiness the dalai lama.
Sakyamuni le hamro Raksha garun

Logged



Muna
Newbie

Posts: 6


Re: Do you agree with parliament's decision to declare Nepal a secular state?
« Reply #12 on: Today at 12:53:50 pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL....So you seem to have lots of fake bribary datas. Good for you.
If you are so worried about conversion...do you seriously believe that Hinduism existed in Nepal from it's natives?
Who flourished them in nepal...?. I dont need to mention that .Do I?
Who are the pure Hindus of Nepal....Brahmans, chettries and their own suppressed counterparts( who looks and speak the same but are classed 'dalits').
Who do you think janjatis ( Newar from ktm, gurung magar, khas from west and the kiratis ( rai limbu) from east and others like thakali, tharu, tamangs)are-I m talking about the natives of nepal. Do you think they were hindus before the hindus started migrating from Northern India?
What happened to their religion and culture? D o you believe they purely think they are hindus?.If they are ...where do they fall in your shameless castal heirarchy....Brahmin, kshyetriyas, sudra or the other one ?
They never considered themselves falling under any of these ?

So why are you so worried about Conversion when hinduism itself was a conversion on all the natives of nepal at some point of time.


Logged




Pages: [1] Print

DOESN'T MATTER SECULAR OR HINDU. WHAT MATTERS IS IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TO FOLLOW DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. NO BODY IS ABOVE LAW AND CONSITUTION.SO NEED TO CHANGE CONSTITUTION AND GO FOR ELECTION FOR THESE KIND OF ISSUE.UNFORTUNATELY SPAM ARE NOT SO DEMOCRATIC . POLITICAL DECISION NOT SOCIAL ONE.SAD TO SEE THIS..SPAM BEING ABOVE THE LAW AND PREACHING DEMOCRACY WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS IT.

Enough of this crap !!

Jai Nepal
Newbie

Posts: 29


Re: Do you agree with parliament's decision to declare Nepal a secular state?
« Reply #13 on: Today at 05:20:26 pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muna
It will be great fun chatting with you. You seem to have great knowledge. Just to tell you, if you regularly view CNN or BBC you must ahve been aware of the tamrat fact and pope fact. this is not propoganda, but truth.
Just to tell you, mountains of Nepal are flled with Buddhist. The converted hindus are not becasue of compulson or becasue of greed. Converted busshist (like most of them in the west) are not becasue of the reasons like those of christians or Muslims.
Yes there are some setbacks of hindusm after the Manu sanskriti, but these are slowly being erased. Every religion have some setbacks and must be changed as per time. The catholics don't allow reading da vinci code, nor does the muslims bear the prophet cartoon nor do we hindus bear naked pictures of devi made by M.F Hussain.
Hindusm is the oldest reigion with Jain. It's existance is historically proved about 90000years ago. Even in parts of africa (where sun used to be their kul devta).
If you raad V.S Naipaul book (I don't exactly remember the name) every muslim -if he is not form middle east is a convert). Chriatian are 2000years old. so how do we have whole world covered by christians (go to doors of darjeeling , kalimpong, Nagaland, ), everyone there is a christian. Ar they not convert.
Hindus can proudly say, they have never converted any other religion. to be a hindu, you have to be born in a hindu family and go through all the sanskars.
The dharma is in razors edge after the SPAM declared Nepal a secular country. We must fight against it, by we I mean all the Om KAR PARIVAR
Namo Arahantanam


Logged



Muna
Newbie

Posts: 7


Re: Do you agree with parliament's decision to declare Nepal a secular state?
« Reply #14 on: Today at 06:33:07 pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In ancient times, Muslim armies attacked Hindus in India causing many to move east into Nepal. Slowly they came into contact with native tribes (most of Mongolian descent) of modern Nepal.
Extracted from an Indian book.

I suggest Mr jai Nepal you are one of the few disillusioned ones to believe that Hinduism originated in nepal itself??

Yes We should appreciate the peaceful and hormonial nature of the nepalese --that they have started to adapt themselves to hindu culture -though there are often anger expressed in communities like Newar or Gurung( for having their own culture supressed and having introduced caste heirarchy on thier own community -ever since they started inclining twds hinduism)

A good suggestion for you to read is a book by Dhor bahadur Bista.
You will get the reflection on how hinduism started in Nepal and how history has been biased to the original rulers of nepal-the natives(Janjatis)

WHUUT THE FUDGE !! MUNA MADAN OR MADAN MUNA OR IS IT m&m SHUT UP !!

WHO WANTS DEMOCRACY.....?

IF YOU WANT DEMOCRACY, PEACE AND FREEDOM..... YOU HAVE TO OBEY AND RESPECT DEMOCRACY, PEACE AND FREEDOM.

THEREFORE.... YOU MUST RESPECT OTHER AND SECULARISM AS WELL.

OR FINAL CHANCE FOR YOU ....

WELL EDUCATE FOR YOURSELF.... BEFORE TALK.

मेरो भोट नेपाल धर्म निरपेक्षमा।
हिन्दु धर्म र धर्म निरपेक्षको बिभेद हेर्नलाइ तलको लेख हेर्नु होला।

धर्म निरपेक्षता ः सबै धर्मलाई समानता


मोदनाथ प्रश्रति

- देशव्यापी जनक्रान्तिद्वारा शक्तिशाली भएर ब्युँझेको संसद्ले वंशगत निरंकुशताबाट देश र जनतालाई मुक्त गर्नुको साथै धर्मको वन्धनबाट राज्यलाई पनि मुक्त गरेको छ । धर्म व्यक्तिगत आस्था र विश्वासको कुरा हो । एउटै परिवारका सदस्यहरूले अलगअलग धर्म मान्न सक्छन् या कुनै धर्म नमान्न पनि सक्छन् । यसै कुरालाई संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघद्वारा पारित मानव अधिकारको विश्वव्यापी घोषणामा भनिएको छ- 'सबै व्यक्तिहरू जन्मजात स्वतन्त्र हुन् र ती सबैको समान अधिकार र महत्त्व छ । ... प्रत्येक व्यक्तिलाई विचार, मत र धार्मिक स्वतन्त्रताको अधिकार छ ।' -धारा १ र १८)
यसै कुरालाई समर्थन गर्दै नेपालको २०४७ को संविधानले पनि भनेको छ- 'राज्यले नागरिकहरूका बीच धर्म, वर्ण, लिंग, जात, जाति वा वैचारिक आस्थामध्ये कुनै कुराको आधारमा भेदभाव गर्नेछैन ।'

-११।३)

विश्वका कतिपय मुलुकले त धार्मिक सवालमा अझ बढी खुलेर संविधानमा यतिसम्म पनि लेखेका छन्, 'नागरिकहरूका लागि अन्तस्करणको स्वतन्त्रता अर्थात् कुनै पनि धर्मलाई मान्ने वा नमान्ने अथवा ईश्वरवादी वा अनीश्वरवादी विचारको प्रचार गर्ने अधिकार सुनिश्चित छ । धर्मका आधारमा शत्रुता अथवा घृणा भड्काउन निषेध छ ।' -रुसको संविधान, १९१७)

यसप्रकार धार्मिक आस्था वा अनास्था नितान्त व्यक्तिगत कुरा हुनाले धर्म परिवार, जाति या राज्यको भन्ने कुरा हुँदैन । दर्शन र विज्ञानको पर्याप्त विकास नभएको आदिम वा प्राचीन समाजमा कुनै जंगली गणको या अर्ध जंगली कविलाको सामूहिक धार्मिक आस्था हुनसक्थ्यो । प्रारम्भिक कृषि युगसँग पनि परिवारका सामूहिक धार्मिक आस्था हुन्थे । समाज दास युगमा प्रवेश गरेर वर्गीय समाजको उदय भएपछि र बौद्धिक समुदायमा धर्म र दर्शनको बहस चल्न थालेपछि परिवारभित्र पनि समान धार्मिक आस्था रहन नसक्ने युग आयो । वर्तमान समयमा महावीर, गौतम बुद्ध या प्लेटोजस्ता दार्शनिक एउटै परिवारभित्र फरक आस्थाका उदाहरण हुन् । यो क्रम निरन्तर अघि बढ्दै आजको नितान्त व्यक्तिगत रुचि, आस्था र आदर्शको लोकतान्त्रिक युगमा आइपुगेको छ ।

हो, दास युग र सामन्ती युगका जमिन्दार, राजा या सम्राटहरूले आफूले मान्ने गरेको धार्मिक आस्थालाई जमिन्दारीभित्रका कमैयाको, राज्यभित्रका रैतीहरूको र साम्राज्यभित्रका सबै प्रजाको सामूहिक धर्म भनेर लाद्न बल प्रयोग गर्थे । त्यो नमान्नेलाई नास्तिक विधर्मी भनेर लखेट्ने, थुन्ने, मार्नेसम्म पनि गर्थे । त्यसबेला जनताले बाध्य भएर आफ्नो आस्थाभन्दा फरक धर्मलाई पनि मानेझैं गर्नुपथ्र्याे ।

मध्ययुगको सामन्ती समाज अति संकीर्ण हुनाले अरूको भाषा, धर्म, संस्कृतिप्रति घनघोर घृणा गथ्र्याे र त्यसलाई दबाउन पन्छाउन सक्दो बल प्रयोग गथ्र्याे । त्यस बेलाको स्थिति झल्काउने एउटा संस्कृत श्लोक छ-

नवदेत् यावनी भाषा प्राणैः कण्ठगतैरपि

हस्तिना ताड्यमानोऽपि नगच्छेज्जैनमन्दिरम् ।

-घाँटीबाट प्राण निस्कने अवस्था आए पनि मुसलमानी भाषा नबोल्नु । कसैले हात्तीले कुल्चाएर मार्छु भने पनि जैन मन्दिरमा नजानू ।) यही कुरा २००७ सालसम्म पनि 'अंग्रेजी भनेको गाई खाने जातको भाषा हुनाले त्यो पढ्नेहरू नास्तिक हुन्छन्' भन्ने पण्डितहरूको घृणामा व्यक्त हुन्थ्यो ।

अचेल हाम्रो देशका केही मान्छे वैदिक या हिन्दु धर्म भारततिर जन्मेर पछि नेपाल आएको हुनाले विदेशी धर्म हो भन्ने कोणबाट पनि तर्क गर्छन् । वास्तविकता त्यस्तो होइन । इपू २००० तिर अर्थात् वैदिक युगमै हाम्रो मिथिला -जनकपुर क्ष्ाेत्र) वैदिक धर्म संस्कृतिको प्रमुख केन्द्र बनिसकेको थियो । रामायण कालमा जनकपुर र वाल्मीकीनगर

-

-चितवन) प्रसिद्ध दार्शनिक, सांस्कृतिक केन्द्र थिए । उपनिषद् कालमा कपिलवस्तु क्ष्ाेत्र तत्कालीन सांख्य दर्शनका प्रणेता कपिलमुनिको नामले विख्यात भइसकेको थियो । वैदिक र उपनिषद्कालीन विश्वामित्र, भृगु, और्व, पुलह, भारद्वाज, पाणिनि आदिका आश्रम हाम्रा पर्वतीय प्रदेशमा फैलिइसकेका थिए । वैदिक धर्मका विकृति वर्णव्यवस्था -जातपात छुवाछूत आदि) विरुद्ध बुद्धले कपिलवस्तु र महावीर जैनले विहारबाट नयाँ दर्शन, संस्कृति र मानवीय गरिमा र समानतामा आधारित जीवन पद्धतिको विराट आन्दोलन सुरु गरेका थिए । स्मरणीय छ- जातिभेदवादी ब्राह्मण धर्मविरुद्ध उत्रेका ती दुवै महापुरुष क्ष्ात्रीय वंशी राजकुमार थिए । उनीहरूले सबै वर्ण, जात, जाति, महिला एवं दलितहरूलाई समान मानवीय मर्यादा दिएका थिए ।

बुद्धभन्दा अगाडि कृष्णले हाकाहाकी भन्थे, 'सबै धर्महरू छोडी मेरै शरणमा पर । छुटाउँला सबै पाप शोक छोड धनुर्धर ।' -गीता १८।६६) तर बुद्धले भने, 'म आफूले बुझेका कुरा तपाईंहरूलाई बताउँछु । त्यो कति ठीक कति बेठीक छ भन्ने कुरा आफैं छुट्याउनुहोस् । कसैको कुरालाई पनि आँखा चिम्लेर विश्वास नगर्नुहोस् ।'

यसप्रकार ठूलबडा या राजाहरूले मानेको धर्म सबै जनतामा थोपरेर त्यसैलाई राज्य धर्मका रूपमा जबर्जस्ती लागू गर्ने र हरेक व्यक्तिले आफ्ना विवेकले बुझेको जीवन आस्था अँगाल्ने संघर्ष हाम्रै मुलुकका अढाई हजार वर्षदेखि चल्दै आएको प्रस्ट छ । व्यक्तिगत आस्था र वैचारिक स्वतन्त्रता सहन नसक्ने र सबै रैती प्रजा आँखा चिम्लेर मेरै आस्था र विश्वासको पछि लागून् भन्नेहरूले बौद्ध, जैनजस्ता जनमुखी चिन्तक र मानवीय समानताका पक्ष्ाधरहरूलाई दमन गर्ने, तिनका विहार भत्काउने, पुस्तक पोल्ने, भिक्ष्ाुहरूलाई पिट्ने मार्ने आदि निन्दनीय काम गर्दै आएका हुन् ।

हाम्रो देशमा वैदिक -हिन्दु) धर्मभन्दा पुराना परलोकलाई भन्दा यसैलोकलाई महत्त्व दिने तान्त्रिक, योग आदि प्राचीन शैवमार्गी, बोन्पोलगायत धर्म संस्कृति थिए । हिन्दु धर्म बाहिरका तिनै आस्था बोक्ने अधिकांश जनजातिहरू यहाँ छन् । बाैद्धमार्गीहरूको विशाल संख्या यहाँ छ । जैन मार्गीहरू पनि थुप्रै छन् । वैज्ञानिक भौतिकवादी -माक्र्सवादी) दार्शनिक आस्था अँगालेर ईश्वरवादलाई काल्पनिक मान्ने र अत्याचारपूर्ण वर्णवाद र छुवाछूतको हिन्दु रोगबाट पूर्ण मुक्ति चाहने समाजवादी मानवतावादीहरूको विशाल संख्या यहाँ छ । तिनीहरूकै संगठनको नेतृत्वले देशव्यापी जनक्रान्ति चलाएर हजारौं वर्ष पुरानो सामन्ती किल्ला र २३८ वर्षको वैशगत निरंकुश शासनलाई परास्त गरेको हो । निश्चय नै वैदिक संस्कृति र हिन्दु धर्मसँग सम्बन्धित विशाल वाङ्मय छ र त्यसभित्र दर्शन, साहित्य, संस्कृति, ज्योतिष, आयुर्वेद आदि ज्ञानको ठूलो भण्डार छ । त्यो हामी सबैको साझा संरक्ष्ाणीय सम्पदा हो । त्यति हुँदाहुँदै पनि हामीले बुझ्नुपर्छ- हिन्दु वर्णव्यवस्थाले हजारौं वर्षदेखि कुकुरभन्दा पनि तल अछूतको स्थानमा रछानमा खसालिएका झन्डै ३५ लाख दलित मुक्ति र मानव मर्यादानिम्ति मुठी कसेर आन्दोलनमा उत्रेका छन् । संस्कृतका पण्डित गुरुहरूले वेदमा छुवाछूत प्रथा छैन भनेर जति तर्क गरे पनि उहाँहरूले मनुस्मृति, गौतमस्मृति, धर्मसिन्धु, निर्णयसिन्धु आदिजस्ता जातिभेदवादी धर्म ग्रन्थहरूलाई नै हिन्दु धर्मका आधार बनाएर काम गरिहनुभएको छ । ती दलितहरूलाई घोर अपमान गर्ने यो हिन्दु धर्म बोकिनसक्नु भारी भएको छ । यही हिन्दु धर्म हो, जसले पुरुषलाई स्वामी र नारीलाई दासी बनाएर आजसम्म कजाउँदै आयो । लाखौं राजा रजौटा र धनाढ्यहरूका चितामा करोडौं नारीलाई निरीह सती बनाएर जिउँदै पोल्ने र अहिलेसम्म पनि थिचिराख्ने हिन्दु धर्मको पहाड सम्पूर्ण नारीहरूलाई असह्य भार भएको छ ।

यस्तो बेला जनक्रान्तिले राज्यलाई धर्मनिरपेक्ष्ा घोषित गरेर जागरुक नेपाली जनताको विशाल संख्यालाई स्वाधीन मुक्त चिन्तन र स्वतन्त्र आस्थाको युगमा प्रवेश गराएको छ । आधुनिक विश्वका ९० प्रतिशतभन्दा बढी राज्य धर्म निरपेक्ष्ा भएको नवीन युगमा हामी नेपाली पनि सगर्व प्रवेश गर्दै छौं । यो परिघटना नेपालले लामो सामन्ती निरंकुश दमनकारी राजतन्त्रको युगबाट लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रको युगतिर संक्रमण गरिरहेको अत्यन्तै स्वागतयोग्य सुन्दर र उज्यालो अवस्था हो । विवेक र आस्थाको स्वतन्त्रता नै सबभन्दा ठूलो स्वतन्त्रता हुनाले यसलाई हामी हार्दिक स्वागत र अभिनन्दन गर्छाैं ।

यस्तो बेला हिन्दु धर्ममा गहन आस्था राख्ने एउटा क्ष्ाेत्रलाई धर्मनिरपेक्ष्ाता भनेको धर्मको निषेध नै हो भन्नेजस्तो भान परेर चिन्ता लागेको हुनसक्छ । धर्म निरपेक्ष्ाताको वास्तविक अर्थ सबै धर्मप्रतिको समान सम्मानको अवस्था हो । आजको युगमा जसरी एउटा परिवारको हैकम चल्न नसकेर राजतन्त्रहरू समाप्तितिर जाँदै छन्, त्यसरी नै धेरै धर्म संस्कृतिहरूमाथि एउटा धर्म संस्कृतिले राज्य धर्मको ठाउँ लिन सक्तैन । आजका मान्छे राजनीतिक निरंकुशता मात्र होइन धार्मिक हैकम पनि सहन सक्दैनन् भन्ने कुरा सबैले बुझ्नु आवश्यक छ ।

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kol/nepali/kolnews.php?&nid=74845

HINDU KINGDOM.

Hindu Country withour King