In this paper I will evaluate Stepan’s article about “twin tolerations” in the light of Chatterjee’s article which is about the application of “secularism” in India. The subject they work on is different than each other but at the same there are some similarities. There are points which coincide between Stefan and Chatterjee and points where they’re opposed. In the rest of the paper I will make the evaluation by pointing out those differences and similarities step by step.
Firstly, I will briefly tell about the subject of papers. Stepan’s paper is about his objections to theorists like Huntington whom expects a religiously driven III. World War because of eastern civilizations’ anti-democratic cultural character. Stepan mainly objects the public belief in the west on rigid separation of church and state and opposes Huntington by showing the democratic movements in eastern cultures. Stepan relates the undemocratic practices not to cultural characterization of non-western cultures but to the harmful effects of military rules in those countries.
Contrary to Stepan, Chatterjee is questioning the applicability of liberal-democratic understanding of secularism in Indian concept. According to Chatterjee there are serious problems in the applicability of secularism to post-colonial states like India. This prbolems can be seen in the religious reform period in India which caused the state to transgress the liberal-democratic principles of secularism and “Both the legislature and the courts were led into the exercise of religious doctrine on religious grounds.” To solve the jurisdiction problem in India, Chatterjee is advocating communal cultural rights for minorities against the individual rights universalism. To resist homogenization adherents, Chatterjee takes support from Foucault’s ideas about governmentality which is: the containment of juridical sovereignty by governmental technology. Then Chatterjee changes Foucault’s concept a bit.
The Essay on Republic Day In India
If there is any year more important in Indian history than 1947, it is 1950, the year in which India became a Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, Republic. India obtained its independence on 15 August 1947 as a constitutional monarchy with George VI as head of state and the Earl Mountbatten as governor-general. The country, though, did not yet have a permanent constitution; instead its laws were ...
The main difference between Stepan and Chatterjee is on their understanding about secularism. According to Stepan there isn’t a strict church-state separation. He explains the democracy and religion relation like: “.. if we are looking for defining characteristics of a democracy vis-à-vis religion, “secularism” and “the separation of church and state” are not an intrinsic part of the core definition, but what we have said about the “twin tolerations” is. Stepan denies the applicability of secularism in any part of the world and advocates the practice of “twin-tolerations” . On the other hand Chatterjee acknowledges the presence of secularism in USA and by some differences in Europe but opposes the applicability of “secularism” in India. For Chatterjee secularism is a tool in the hands of Hindu right to homogenize the country and to construct a nation-state. Because of this subjective and oppressive use of secularism, Chatterjee opposes the conformity of western style secularism in India.
Chatterjee uses Foucault’s governmentality to take the issue from sovereignty problem in India to the identity problem and to work on the problem on a different aspect. Foucault’s “governmentality” is about the self-disciplining of people with coercion-consent combo by modern form of power. Upon this concept, Chatterjee concludes: “It’s naïve to think of secularization as simply the onward march of rationality, devoid of coercion and power struggles.” According to Chatterjee, in India there is a new form of secularism but not secularism and which means the failure of secularism in India. Chatterjee says: “Commenting upon Raymond William’s justly famous Keyword, Quentin Skinner has pointed out that a concept takes on a new meaning not (as one would usually suppose) when arguments that it should be applied to a new circumstance succeed, but rather when such arguments fail.” Because of this argument to say that Indians have their own meaning of secularism is a failure of secularism for Chatterjee. Chatterjee’s solution to jurisdiction and minority crisis in India is “resist homogenization from the outside, and push for democratization inside” which I will explain more detailed later on my paper. Unlike Chatterjee, Stepan’s solution is for an “even stronger Gandhian voice of India as a multireligious, civilizational home to a billion people.”
The Essay on Liberal Nature of Indian State
The state is being perceived as an “organised structural and institutional whole” epitomizing the power relations of society. The state in a developing society arise from historical factors and interacts with society through its decisive role in the economic process of the nation. To study the nature of any particular state, it is necessary to analyse to relation between state, power, ...
Chatterjee gives reasons for the unsuccess of secularism in India by showing the breach of three basic principles of secularism in liberal-democratic doctrine, which are: liberty, equality and neutrality. Since In India “There is nothing which is not religion and if personal law is to be saved I am sure about it that in social matters we will come to a standstill…” secular politics leads the depredation of democracy when the issue comes to the reformation of codes of private life and religious practices. Chatterjee resists the homogenization for this reason and says: “.. the minorities are unwilling to grant to a legislature elected by universal suffrage the power to legislate the reform of their religions. On the other hand, there do not exist any other institutions which have the representative legitimacy to supervise such a process of reform.” And this leads the overthrow of equality principle. Because of this assertion, according to Chatterjee there is no suitable way to solve issue in liberal democratic theory. He says: “universal forms of the modern state turn out to be inadequate for the post-colonial world.”
Stepan’s article was about the practicability of “twin tolerations” in Confucian, Islamic and Orrhodox Christian (Hinduism not included in most of the article) civilizations related to the institutions in those civilizations, free from their cultural characters. At the end of his article, Stepan specifies the hegemony of secular politics in Israel and in the early years of independence of India, then continues: “By the 1990s both of these political traditions were challenged by opposition movements which drew some of their support from forces that wanted to redraw the boundaries of the twin tolerations to give a greater place for more fundamentalist, more intolerant visions of the polis.” This problematic politics of India is liberal-democratic conundrum for Chatterjee. As I mentioned above, Chatterjee’s solution isn’t passing through a secularist solution like resisting the redrawing of the boundaries of state and religion in India because Chatterjee counts secularism as an oppressive tool for nation-state constructing and an idea which violates minority rights. Chatterjee’s solution is “resisting homogenization outside”. Nevertheless, Stepan’s solution is stronger Gandhian voice which will end in a successful homogenization.
The Essay on Pest Analysis for India
The paper will use PEST political environment, economic environment, sociocultural environment and technological environment analysis to examine whether International Business activities have increased or decreased in the past 10 years in India. The summaries will study International Business contributed or not to the economic development of the India. First of all, let us focus on the political ...
Until this moment I explicated the differences in articles. From now I will point out the similarities between Chatterjee and Stepan on their opposition to Rawls’ arguments. Both political scientists oppose Rawls idea of “taking religion off the political agenda”. Stepan’ contra-argument is on the basis of democratization of this process. “….he devotes virtually no attention to the subject of this essay, which is how actual polities have consensually and democratically arrived at quasi-constituent agreements to “take religion off the political agenda” of majority decision making. At the same time Chatterjee opposes Rawls for “..where the ‘wall of separation’ doctrine is solidly established, the remoteness of these arguments from the realities of the Indian situation hardly needs to be emphasized.” For different reasons both scientists oppose Rawls but the common point is their opposition to Rawls’ argument.
Above I stated the similarities and differences between Stepan and Chatterjee. Consequently we can deduce that Stepan’s concept of twin tolerations is unapplicable in India for Chatterjee. According to Chatterjee homogenization processes which aim to construct a universal civil code will end in the shattering of minority rights. For Chatterjee: “…the homogenous mould itself is by no means a neutral one, being invariably the culture of the dominant group..” . Since liberal theory treat all citizens equally, it doesn’t tolerate the rights of collective cultural rights. In liberal theory to claim collective cultural rights means “the right not to offer a reason for being different”. Chatterjee’s ultimate solution to political crisis in India is the recognizing of “collective cultural rights” of minorities. However Stepans solution would be the constructing compatible institutions for ensuring the “twin tolerations” which will result in homogenization of legislative and governance. While Stepan is concerned of totally democratization of a society Stepan offers to “push for democratization inside” a minority.
The Essay on South Korean Political Parties
Why have so many political parties existed in South Korea? We have previously discussed that the Chaebol is a prominent factor as well as is the existence of Koreas mixed-party electoral system. It is evident that a combination of these two factors creates the environment in which small minority political parties can thrive. Yet what would occur if these factors were to be manipulated? Would this ...
