Sheikh Chilly's pajama & oversold, overused idea of secularism

Sheikh Chilly needed to go to his in laws place to bring his wife home, as per custom of those times.

Sheikh Chilly had to go to his in laws place and he did not have a good pajama. He still had the Sherwani his in-laws had given him for the wedding but not a good, usable pajama to go with it.

A friend came to the rescue and offered his pajama with a condition. He (the friend) would also accompany Sheikh Chilly to his in-laws.  Sheikh Chilly, being the simpleton like the Indian voter, gratefully accepted the offer.

The pajama that the friend produced was very old, stained, tattered and almost at end of its useful life. It did not even fit him properly. It was definitely much worse than Sheikh Chilly’s own which he had not used for a long time but Sheikh, bound by his own word and the code of ‘takalluf’, accepted it without much complaint.

The journey began and after a short distance, they came across a caravan travelling from the opposite direction. The travelers of the caravan informed them that the jungle ahead was dangerous as it had some demons & wild animals and it is safe to cross it during the day only. The friend responded, “Thank you for the information but the pajama Sheikh Chilly is wearing is mine.”

This statement, the mention of ownership of pajama, was not exactly a violation of contract but definitely a breach of friendly trust. Sheikh Chilly got enraged and berated his friend, demanding an apology. The friend, realizing that he was wrong, not only apologized but also promised not to tell anyone that the pajama belonged to him.

Few days later, they came across another caravan, who informed them that the water in the lake at some distance away was very sweet.

The response was same, “Thank you for the information and let me tell you that the pajama worn by Sheikh Chilly is not mine.”

Sheikh Chilly got so enraged that he slapped his friend. Another apology and another promise ensued. (Disclaimer: Any resemblance is unintentional, so far.)

The promise this time was of not talking about the pajama. But as they neared their destination, another caravan came into sight. This caravan had begun its journey from the destination of these two, by now, pajama friends and knew Sheikh Chilly as a son-in-law of the village and they asked, “Going to your in-laws place?”

“Yes, we are going to his in-laws place and I am not permitted to talk about my pajama he is wearing.”

Easy to understand what would have happened.

Let’s get the analogy out the way, let’s rechristen the characters in the story.

Sheikh Chilly is the simpleton, innocent voter of India, the old, used, stained, tattered and torn pajama is the overused, disused concept of secularism while the friend is represented by political parties, thinkers, writers, social workers, sundry opinion shapers & rent seekers claiming to uphold secularism.

Postponing any discussion on other issues for another day, it is the pajama which concerns us, today.

Firstly Sheikh did not need it. He had better things of his own but did not know. This lack of knowledge proved too costly to him.

Secondly what was promised to him was not delivered. He wanted a pajama to go with the Sherwani, what he got was a moth eaten, mangled piece of cloth which was declared as a pajama. But he could not say no, more out of ‘takalluf’ or timidity or an unwillingness to hurt one who looked like a friend than any other rational or logical reason.

Third and most important is the issue of boundary limits of a pajama.  What is the purpose, objective, raison detre of the pajama?

It is a garment which needs to be loose enough to give the freedom of space and movement to its inhabitants while hiding them from public display while being comfortable enough for the wearer. it was an accessory, at best; not a haute coutre piece which would be discussed at each caravan, each fellow traveller in the jungle!

But more importantly, a pajama is only a garment, not a chhatisa* or an all problems solving tool like the raksha kavachs being sold on TV channels. It cannot fight the demons or wild animals in a forest.

Extending the logic further, you don’t search for your pajama when your kids flunk their grades. You don’t need your pajama to excel in your work at office or business. You don’t search for your pajama when your neighbor double parks his car blocking your way. You don’t use pajama in place of a helmet while riding a two wheeler?

Importantly, any discussion on the pajama needs to be confined to the boundaries of home. Can a pajama be the subject of discussion in a page 3 party? How funny would it be if the holes in the pajama are discussed during social calls?

It is just as stupid garment, to be worn to hide your modesty, not to be paraded at public functions or discussed in public.

So is secularism. It is a fictional cloak to keep your private practices hidden from others, lest they find them offensive; It is just an implement to separate your personal religious beliefs from public behavior. It is to be used, practiced and importantly, kept at home. Well, figuratively so. 

To complete the second analogy:

Firstly, we did not know we had better options than the western style secularism was imposed on us. But then that is our mistake and it is going to take a long time to correct.

Secondly, we were promised a noble, utopian concept, an ideal with an objective of achieving all-love-all eco system but what was delivered was a dystopia, created by selfish, divisive, hateful proponents of the same ideal giving us all-hate-all environment.

Thirdly, the proponents and advocates of secularism paraded it as the most important issue as well as achievement in the life of a nation and its people.

You don’t have roads, electricity, water, hospitals; no problem, you have secularism. Your daughters are unsafe on the road, don’t worry, be happy, at least you have secularism. You don’t have food on the table, don’t worry, eat secularism. Government official are corrupt, no problem, you have secularism. National security is under threat from extremists and terrorists, protect yourself with secularism. Government can’t ensure life of your dear one’s at a crowded event, console yourself with secularism.

They took secularism to public functions & parties (no association of pun intended), to public discourse (some people have only one qualification – they are secular) to policy making (education, jobs), even to national security and implementing rule of law (Review & withdraw cases against a community; secularism demands it).

We have seen how some exponents of this vile form of secularism question those they find inconvenient based on its false definition and usage.

“You went to temple, did you go to a mosque? Secularism demands equality; even in your beliefs.”

“Textbooks have to reflect the Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb, so what if they don’t teach true history.”

“Condemn Gaza strikes by Israel. Secularism demands it. Don’t worry who began the war.”

“Okay if Doordarshan telecasts even the loo visits of a political leader, but it can’t show address of a head of socio religious grouping even if the membership is over 5 million. Secularism does not permit it.”

So, my message to the advocates of secularism is simple.

For decades you made us believe that the false and faulty secularism is the ‘be all and end all’ in the life and journey of a nation; almost resetting its goals. You made us believe that if wearing this stained, torn cloak would hide our poverty, squalor, corruption, crime and other social ills.

Not anymore!

We refuse to be fooled anymore. We want rule of law, full accountability, good governance, honest & responsive leadership to lead us to prosperity, equality and peace. We would also have secularism (it is necessary to wear a pajama) but limit it to the space it deserves; on the shelves as well as in public discourse.