The case of Lt Samuel Kamalesan was a rare clash between an officer’s beliefs and the Army’s traditions, but today’s climate of politicised religiosity and a hierarchy pandering to it makes reform urgent.
Balancing freedom of religion with tribal rights, HC endorsed gram sabhas’ powers under PESA Act to curb inducement-based conversions, which it said were a ‘social menace’.
From devout believers to atheists, agnostics, and ‘rationalist believers’, humanity’s quest for meaning is shifting from divine surveillance to the power of ethics and reason.
With bad loans shrinking & capital buffers stronger, urban co-op banks’ new umbrella body NUCFDC is now prioritising rollout of digital transformation.
If deal goes through, Greece will be 2nd foreign country to procure vehicle. Morocco was first; TATA Group has set up manufacturing unit there with minimum 30 percent indigenous content.
Many of you might think I got something so wrong in National Interest pieces written this year. I might disagree! But some deserve a Mea Culpa. I’d deal with the most recent this week.
The author is a retired Army Cdr, one of the top 6 in the hierarchy. Hard to fathom this post retirement empathy on such a silly issue when he was in a position to change things. Did he? Nopes. Why does all this gyan and enlightenment boil to the surface post retirement in the top brass? Let’s address this issue first and leave cases of insubordination to the organisation and the courts.
I’m sorry but I’d disagree with the claim that this dismissal reflects a ‘colonial mindset’.
Such narrow-mindedness belongs neither in politics, nor in the armed forces. The officer’s misconduct lies not in his Christian faith (or someone’s hypothetical Muslim faith), but in the idea that religion, to them, is conclusive, exclusive, separative, and competitive (explained below). This view of religion underlies reactions like his, and it is precisely why the common all-faiths worship tradition of the military was anathema to, and ill behoves, an officer.
(Explanations of terms)
Conclusive: One’s faith is God’s final word.
Exclusive: No other belief system is valid or, as often implied and sometimes stated, even respectable.
Separative: All beliefs and practices not conforming to God’s word must be shunned and condemned.
Competitive: Different faiths are in a perpetual mutual competition as a means of salvation.
The author is a retired Army Cdr, one of the top 6 in the hierarchy. Hard to fathom this post retirement empathy on such a silly issue when he was in a position to change things. Did he? Nopes. Why does all this gyan and enlightenment boil to the surface post retirement in the top brass? Let’s address this issue first and leave cases of insubordination to the organisation and the courts.
I’m sorry but I’d disagree with the claim that this dismissal reflects a ‘colonial mindset’.
Such narrow-mindedness belongs neither in politics, nor in the armed forces. The officer’s misconduct lies not in his Christian faith (or someone’s hypothetical Muslim faith), but in the idea that religion, to them, is conclusive, exclusive, separative, and competitive (explained below). This view of religion underlies reactions like his, and it is precisely why the common all-faiths worship tradition of the military was anathema to, and ill behoves, an officer.
(Explanations of terms)
Conclusive: One’s faith is God’s final word.
Exclusive: No other belief system is valid or, as often implied and sometimes stated, even respectable.
Separative: All beliefs and practices not conforming to God’s word must be shunned and condemned.
Competitive: Different faiths are in a perpetual mutual competition as a means of salvation.