The functionalists have repeatedly been proven wrong by religious enthusiasts in India. Earlier it was about Babri and now it is being repeated at Charminar of Hyderabad. Talcott Parsons had mentioned that religion serves two main functions for society. Firstly it helps in removing the anxieties associated with uncertainties in life. For instance religious rites are always associated with events as varied as opening a new business, marriage, birth of child etc. because humans are anxious about the outcomes of these events. Religious rites help lower the anxiety level and reduce stress in these new situations. Similarly religion also serves the purpose of explaining the less understood events of our life. For instance death of a person is often said to be in congruence with what God has planned for him because humans, so far, do not have any scientific basis of explaining sudden death and guessing about afterlife of men. Thus Parsons believed that religion is a uniting force in the society.
But incidents of Babri and now Charminar in Hyderabad appear to be grossly in conflict with Parsons's thinking. Was a thinker as great as him so wrong in his understanding of a concept as pervasive as religion ? Or is there a lacunae in our understanding of Parson ?
Let us look more analytically at Parsons' propositions. He told that religion is a unifying force in the society. The only variable in this statement is the society under study. Should we take all people of Hyderabad involved in Charminar conflict as belonging to one society or should we consider them as consisting of two different societies one of Hindus and the other of Muslims. The second option appears to fit nicely into Parson's propositions. The Religion has united all the Muslims of Hyderabad and all the Hindus of Hyderabad as one society. It is indeed acting as a unifying force. Then the conflict perhaps is between two different societies. If this is true then at false is India's ideals of secularism.
Right after partition, in fact even before it, India made it clear that it was a secular nation where the rights of Hindus, Muslims and other religious minorities would be given similar respect. However what is professed is often not practiced. After partition the Muslim government servants were seen with suspicion, especially those who had families or relatives in the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan. Several such employees were forced to either bring their families back from Pakistan so that they do not have any affinity with Pakistan or resign from their post. Years later the Mandal commission report highlighted that Muslims were underrepresented in education as well as jobs to a great extent. It indicates that something is wrong with the so called secular society of India which seems to favor the dominance of one community over another. Every society has a unique culture and the muslim society in India had come to acquire the culture of underachievement, different from those of Hindus, Sikhs, or Christians.
Having understood that the real problem lies in our inadequate understanding of the society, can we approach Parsons for stemming the rise of divisive forces among various societies in India. Parsons does not appear to have a solution for uniting two diverse societies. Perhaps we should look towards Durkheim then.
According to Durkheim religion is society and religious worship is the worship of society which is over and above the individual. By religious rites people reinforce the importance of society in their lives. Through them the collective conscience of the society is transferred to the individuals. What then is the collective conscience of the society of Hyderabad ? Or are there two collective consciences in Hyderabad, one of Muslims and the other of Hindus ?
Durkheim defines collective conscience as the shared beliefs, values, ideas of the people of the society which are existing at a level outside the individual. That the collective conscience of the two societies of Hyderabad, assuming they are different, are the same, is evident from the fact that there was no conflict a few days back. Then how did the conflict cropped up. Durkheim would explain this using social currants. It is these social currents which are short lived, but very strongly motivating, which lead to the two societies forgetting their collective conscience and indulging in conflict against each other. We must then control these social currents. Durkheim would suggest that these can be checked by increasing integration of the two societies. Such integration can only be gained when the larger society i.e. the Hindus are ready to show a bigger heart and allow the smaller society i.e. the Muslims to gain from the concessions. What India has been adopting in its international politics, like giving more gains to its smaller neighbors like Bangladesh, Nepal etc., it has to apply in its domestic politics too.
We must then ensure that Charminar does not repeat the way of the Babri and prove that the whole India is one society.
But incidents of Babri and now Charminar in Hyderabad appear to be grossly in conflict with Parsons's thinking. Was a thinker as great as him so wrong in his understanding of a concept as pervasive as religion ? Or is there a lacunae in our understanding of Parson ?
Let us look more analytically at Parsons' propositions. He told that religion is a unifying force in the society. The only variable in this statement is the society under study. Should we take all people of Hyderabad involved in Charminar conflict as belonging to one society or should we consider them as consisting of two different societies one of Hindus and the other of Muslims. The second option appears to fit nicely into Parson's propositions. The Religion has united all the Muslims of Hyderabad and all the Hindus of Hyderabad as one society. It is indeed acting as a unifying force. Then the conflict perhaps is between two different societies. If this is true then at false is India's ideals of secularism.
Right after partition, in fact even before it, India made it clear that it was a secular nation where the rights of Hindus, Muslims and other religious minorities would be given similar respect. However what is professed is often not practiced. After partition the Muslim government servants were seen with suspicion, especially those who had families or relatives in the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan. Several such employees were forced to either bring their families back from Pakistan so that they do not have any affinity with Pakistan or resign from their post. Years later the Mandal commission report highlighted that Muslims were underrepresented in education as well as jobs to a great extent. It indicates that something is wrong with the so called secular society of India which seems to favor the dominance of one community over another. Every society has a unique culture and the muslim society in India had come to acquire the culture of underachievement, different from those of Hindus, Sikhs, or Christians.
Having understood that the real problem lies in our inadequate understanding of the society, can we approach Parsons for stemming the rise of divisive forces among various societies in India. Parsons does not appear to have a solution for uniting two diverse societies. Perhaps we should look towards Durkheim then.
According to Durkheim religion is society and religious worship is the worship of society which is over and above the individual. By religious rites people reinforce the importance of society in their lives. Through them the collective conscience of the society is transferred to the individuals. What then is the collective conscience of the society of Hyderabad ? Or are there two collective consciences in Hyderabad, one of Muslims and the other of Hindus ?
Durkheim defines collective conscience as the shared beliefs, values, ideas of the people of the society which are existing at a level outside the individual. That the collective conscience of the two societies of Hyderabad, assuming they are different, are the same, is evident from the fact that there was no conflict a few days back. Then how did the conflict cropped up. Durkheim would explain this using social currants. It is these social currents which are short lived, but very strongly motivating, which lead to the two societies forgetting their collective conscience and indulging in conflict against each other. We must then control these social currents. Durkheim would suggest that these can be checked by increasing integration of the two societies. Such integration can only be gained when the larger society i.e. the Hindus are ready to show a bigger heart and allow the smaller society i.e. the Muslims to gain from the concessions. What India has been adopting in its international politics, like giving more gains to its smaller neighbors like Bangladesh, Nepal etc., it has to apply in its domestic politics too.
We must then ensure that Charminar does not repeat the way of the Babri and prove that the whole India is one society.
No comments:
Post a Comment