The report of Mahbubur Rahman, and Professor Hasanuzzaman's observation on one or more of Nobel Laureate Professor
Amartya Sen's articles relating to religion in 'The Argumentative Indian' shows that Amartya Sen's views on Islam are utterly wrong and absolutely deplorable to say the least. Though I read Amartya Sen's Poverty and Famines and some of his articles many years ago, I haven't read the above book, but Hasanuzzaman's published observations are clear enough. According to the observations, Amartya Sen prescribed to the Muslims to reject 'Quraan and Sunnah' and accept Emperor Akbar's Deen-e-Ilahi, as, according to him, the latter is 'secular' in nature. The prescription is simply outrageous and obviously he himself has not administered the same medicine for himself, as according to him, Hindutvaism is secular!
One needs to be very careful to write about religion, especially in writing anything contentious about other people's religion. In the name of secularism, Amartya Sen, without any doubt, has hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslims, which cannot be supported. On the other hand, Amartya Sen, according to Hasanuzzaman, has surrendered to Hindutvaism, which he claimed to be secular. While being respectful about hinduism and the righteous Hindus, one can ask questions about the 'secularism' of many of the practitioners of Hindutvaists or Hindu fundamentalists. In this regard, Amartya Sen certainly needs to explain the thousands of communal riots perpetrated by many of the 'secularist' Hindutvaists in India. Our position is: We oppose communal riots perpetrated by any religious groups anywhere in the world; we support the principles of equality of human beings irrespective of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, social groupings and culture; and we oppose all imperialist wars, including the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, especially, the fanning of the flames of Islamophobia in support of these genocidal wars.
Amartya Sen supports imperialist globalisation, albeit with some reform to alleviate inequality and poverty. But, we want people's globalisation with the principles of equality firmly established and causes of poverty removed, which is totally a different position than that of Amartya Sen, who, I believe, needs to discern that without inequality, imperialism does not exist. I have similar reservations about his position on poverty and famines - he seems to have glossed over the questions of colonialism, neo-colonialism, exploitation, plunder, etc., which often are the real causes of famine, so that Amartya Sen has really failed to identify the real causes of famines, though his findings about distribution and freedom of the press are useful. This, of course, needs a long discussion.
Secularism is a much discussed subject with various and numerous analyses and views, which generally are debatable, including also the views of Hasanuzzaman in the present context. The questions of religion and tolerance and, in a way, of secularism ,exist in the human society from very ancient times, certainly from the Sumerian and Babylonian times. Whatever our standing on the subject, we need to respect each other's beliefs and have tolerance to each other's views, provided these are honest and have not arisen from any ulterior motives or as a result of capitulations to any unjust power.
I, however, hope to read the book under reference at some point and have a better purview of Amartya Sen's denunciation of Islam and his not-too-veiled support for Hindutvaism in the name of secularism and agnosticism, in addition to his support for imperialist globalisation, with some reform.
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:35:51 -0700
From: bd_mailer@yahoo.com
Subject: Amartya Sen on religion
To:
Amartya Sen on religion
Amartya in his 'The Argumentative Indian' has repeatedly mentioned that (Islamic and Muslim) tradition should be rejected and 'rahi aqbal' theory given by Emperor Akbar should be accepted as the main principle. He has even gone to the extent of saying that this demon tradition should and must be fought and rejected by the society.'
Dr Sen says, "Akbar not only made unequivocal pronouncements on the priority of tolerance, but also laid the formal foundations of a secular legal structure and of religious neutrality of the state. ...Despite his deep interest in other religions and his brief attempt to launch a new religion, Din-ilahi (God's religion), based on a combination of good points chosen from different faiths, Akbar did remain a good Muslim himself."
"The pursuit of reason and rejection of traditionalism are so brilliantly patent as to be above the need of argument. If traditionalism were proper, the prophets would merely have followed their own elders (and not come with new messages".
Prof Dr Hasanuzzaman Chowdhury on Dr Amartya Sen's book:
http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/04/05/75481
|
