Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society
Posted: 21 Sep 2016 00:57
X-Post from GDF....
ramana wrote:A few background reading materials:
1) Treaty of Westphalia (TOW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
It ended the Thirty years War in 1648The main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:
All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).[11][12]
Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.[15]
General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.
....
The treaty did not entirely end conflicts arising out of the Thirty Years' War. Fighting continued between France and Spain until the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659. Nevertheless, it did settle many outstanding European issues of the time. Some of the principles developed at Westphalia, especially those relating to respecting the boundaries of sovereign states and non-interference in their domestic affairs, became central to the world order that developed over the following centuries, and remain in effect today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_WarIn short it limited the power of the Pope and ushered in secular Europe.The Thirty Years' War was a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. It was one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history,[16] and the deadliest European religious war, resulting in eight million casualties.
Initially a war between various Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers. These states employed relatively large mercenary armies, and the war became less about religion and more of a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence. In the 17th century, religious beliefs and practices were a much larger influence on an average European than they are today. During that era, almost everyone was vested on one side of the dispute or another.
The war began when the newly elected Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II, tried to impose religious uniformity on his domains, forcing Roman Catholicism on its peoples. The northern Protestant states, angered by the violation of their rights to choose that had been granted in the Peace of Augsburg, banded together to form the Protestant Union. Ferdinand II was a devout Roman Catholic and relatively intolerant when compared to his predecessor, Rudolf II. His policies were considered heavily pro-Catholic.
These events caused widespread fears throughout northern and central Europe, and triggered the Protestant Bohemians living in the dominion of Habsburg Austria to revolt against their nominal ruler, Ferdinand II. They ousted the Habsburgs and instead elected Frederick V, Elector of the Rhenish Palatinate as their monarch. Frederick took the offer without the support of the union. The southern states, mainly Roman Catholic, were angered by this. Led by Bavaria, these states formed the Catholic League to expel Frederick in support of the Emperor. The Empire soon crushed this perceived rebellion in the Battle of White Mountain, but the Protestant world condemned the Emperor's action.
After the atrocities committed in Bohemia, Saxony finally gave its support to the union and decided to fight back. Sweden, at the time a major military power, soon intervened in 1630 under the great general Gustavus Adolphus and started the full-scale great war on the continent. Spain, wishing to finally crush the Dutch rebels in the Netherlands and the Dutch Republic, intervened under the pretext of helping its dynastic Habsburg ally, Austria. No longer able to tolerate the encirclement of two major Habsburg powers on its borders, Catholic France entered the coalition on the side of the Protestants in order to counter the Habsburgs.
The Thirty Years' War devastated entire regions, with famine and disease significantly decreasing the populations of the German and Italian states, the Crown of Bohemia, and the Southern Netherlands. Both mercenaries and soldiers in fighting armies were expected to fund themselves by looting or extorting tribute, which imposed severe hardships on the inhabitants of occupied territories. The war also bankrupted most of the combatant powers. The Dutch Republic enjoyed contrasting fortune; it ended its revolt against Spain in 1648 and subsequently enjoyed a time of great prosperity and development in which it became one of the world's foremost economic and naval powers. The Thirty Years' War ended with the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia. The war altered the previous political order of European powers. The rise of Bourbon France, the curtailing of Habsburg ambition, and the ascendancy of Sweden as a great power created a new balance of power on the continent, with France emerging from the war strengthened and increasingly dominant in the latter part of the 17th century.
But how was the Pope's power curtailed?
Leads us to the Concordat of Worms (COW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_Worms
The Concordat of Worms (Latin: Concordatum Wormatiense),[1] sometimes called the Pactum Calixtinum by papal historians,[a] was an agreement between Pope Calixtus II and Holy Roman Emperor Henry V on September 23, 1122 near the city of Worms. It brought to an end the first phase of the power struggle between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Emperors and has been interpreted as containing within itself the germ of nation-based sovereignty that would one day be confirmed in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648); in part this was an unforeseen result of strategic maneuvering between the Church and the European sovereigns over political control within their domains. The King was recognised as having the right to invest bishops with secular authority ("by the lance") in the territories they governed, but not with sacred authority ("by ring and staff"); the result was that bishops owed allegiance in worldly matters both to the pope and to the king, for they were obligated to affirm the right of the sovereign to call upon them for military support, under his oath of fealty. Previous Holy Roman Emperors had thought it their right, granted by God, to name Church officials within their territories (such as bishops) and to confirm the Papal election (and, at times of extraordinary urgency, actually name popes). In fact, the Emperors had been heavily relying on bishops for their secular administration, as they were not hereditary or quasi-hereditary nobility with family interests, thus adding further suspense to the struggle. A more immediate result of the Investiture struggle identified a proprietary right that adhered to sovereign territory, recognising the right of kings to income from the territory of a vacant diocese and a basis for justifiable taxation. These rights lay outside feudalism, which defined authority in a hierarchy of personal relations, with only a loose relation to territory.[4] The pope emerged as a figure above and out of the direct control of the Holy Roman Emperor.
Following efforts by Lamberto Scannabecchi (later Pope Honorius II) and the Diet of Würzburg (1121) in 1122, Pope Calixtus II and Holy Roman Emperor Henry V entered into an agreement that effectively ended the Investiture Controversy. By the terms of the agreement, the election of bishops and abbots in Germany was to take place in the emperor's presence as judge between potentially disputing parties, free of bribes, thus retaining to the emperor a crucial role in choosing these great territorial magnates of the Empire. Beyond the borders of Germany, in Burgundy and Italy, the Emperor was to forward the symbols of authority within six months. Calixtus' reference to the feudal homage due the emperor on appointment is guarded: "shall do unto thee for these what he rightfully should" was the wording of the privilegium granted by Calixtus. The Emperor's right to a substantial imbursement on the election of a bishop or abbot was specifically denied.
The Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration. The two ended by granting one another peace.
The Concordat was confirmed by the First Council of the Lateran in 1123.
The Concordat of Worms was a part of the larger reforms put forth by many popes, most notably Pope Gregory VII. These included celibacy of the clergy, end of simony and autonomy of the Church from secular leaders (lack of autonomy was known as lay investiture).
....
In other words the COW gave the Kings and Pope power to appoint bishops. TOW on the other hand by giving the right to freedom of religion thus limiting the right of external powers(Pope) to interfere (appoint bishops) in sovereign states ushered in Secular State.
So this is how the secular state came about.
Between COW and TOW, the kings ushered in various reforms to reduce the power(economic, judicial, political) of the Clergy in their domains.
In India the new Popes are the CJI.
The power is judicial power. Its now being expanded with leaps and bounds into other areas especially Hindu law.
In other words the Supreme Court is becoming non secular with respect to Hindus.
The Kings are the modern day politicians like NaMo who are in pre-COW state.
So how does India come up with its own COW and TOW?
What COW did is it reduced bishop appointments to a game theory. Let me explain.
In every bishopric, the Pope has a choice: 1) appoint a bishop favorable to himself, 2) neutral to him or the King, and 3) favorable to the King.
The King similarly could 1)accept the Pope appointment, 3) reject the appointment. He has two choices vs. three for the Pope. He could stall the choice hoping the Pope or the candidate leaves! But not a real choice all the time.
Mostly it was not the bishops but the bishoprics that decided the appointment.
If the bishopric had low economic value (in end its all about money) the king would accept the Pope's choice. If it was high value, the King would insist on his own choice!!! Pope would insist on is own choice there too. As the Pope was far away the appointments were neutral or favorable to Kings.
At same time the King would work to reduce the power of the most valuable bishopric!
So in India think of Judges as the secular Bishops. Now modern power is judicial power.
The least powerful to most powerful appointments range from State High Courts to Supreme Courts.
The Collegium is the College of Cardinals who are already out of secular or politician power.
So NaMo has to reduce judicial power by getting new laws passed which limit the power of the judges. For this he needs to get more of his own elected that is acquire political power. Same time he needs the Collegium throw up a suitable candidate.