Dear Rakesh Kumar,

Thank you for your comments about my article in IHN, August 2008.

The point I was making was that Doordarshan was the name of the state-owned Channel before it was changed to Saptagiri in deference to a Hindu god in a state which has a substantial number of Muslims and a sizeable number of Christians and atheists. If the state's resources are used for the promotion of one religion, would not people belonging to other religions feel alienated and nurse a sense of injustice?

What is the humour in a protest against an unacceptable solution?

The way forward is not to pander to all religions, but to be away from them all, while creating an enabling situation where each can practise his or her religion or non religious life stance privately.

Perhaps I could quote two relevant paragraphs from my article:

"Calls for secularism made by Humanists and rationalists are calls for state neutrality where people of all faiths and those of none have a level playing field to pursue their moral and intellectual progress. Humanists consider that for this to happen, a secular state is needed - one that is completely disassociated from religion, thereby protecting religion from the state and the state from religion ..."

"State media broadcast prayers and religious texts, mainly Hindu. Some have gone further, and in the case of Telugu language Doordarshan 1 Channel of Andhra Pradesh has changed its name to Saptagiri, in deference to the Hindu Lord Balaji, whose heavenly abode is Saptagiri, the seven hills."

Your experience and observation of the US is interesting indeed. As far as religion is concerned, the US Constitution prohibits a religious test for office and rejects any possibility of a state religion or a state supported religion.

When a government owned television channel changes its name for religious reasons, it is doing exactly what would be unacceptable in the US.

Yours sincerely,

Babu Gogineni
International Director
IHEU