Shiban Khaibri
The world is moving ahead very fast despite host of problems, mainly economic and terror related but never is a country of reckoning so much mired in being still in the conflict of how to “interpret” Secularism and in the process, even try to milk it politically for decades. Conversely, it could be argued that the contours of this term which otherwise have been the crux of ancient Indian thought and practice and continues to be so, are sought to land at stretching for political protracted gains at the cost of the interests of those who believed in it , continue to believe in it and shall continue to firmly religiously believe in it both as a tradition and as a civilization. You might rightly identify them as the majority community in this country.
We had the honour of having Vice President of the country in Jammu last week to address the 16th convocation of the University of Jammu and it is here where he sought the intervention or the “help” of the Apex Court of India to what he said ,”clarify the contours within which the principles of secularism and composite culture should operate with a view to strengthen their functional modalities and remove the ambiguities that have crept.” This is a debatable issue and thought provoking considered opinion that has come from the Vice President. A few pertinent questions through these lines, must be clarified even if not replied in absolute terms. Are principles of secularism not strengthened day by day in our country and are there any threats or breaches perceived in any way in them from any quarter? The term secularism was there in our constitution which we Indians gave to ourselves on Jan 26, 1950 properly defined in Article 25 but when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi added “secular” and “socialist” in the constitution in the period of Emergency just within a night by means of 42nd amendment, was it technically not unconstitutional as the preamble was sought to be changed appearing as if the people were asked to adopt the new constitution? Similarly, adding the term “socialist” meant restricting the economic planners of the country from choosing an economic model other than the Socialist one for our rapid economic growth. In an era of economic reforms, Globalization and free markets coupled with series of disinvestment measures, has the term “Socialist” not got diluted, if not altogether violated since it went against the basic preamble of the constitution? With our slews of economic reforms and massive drive for progressive privatization , have we then violated the constitution ?Similarly when in 1947 the country was partitioned on the basis of two nations theory and the only thing which prevented the majority of the people living in the country during and immediately after the partition from going the Pakistan way, was the inherent and intrinsic belief in “Vasudeva Kutumbakam” or the whole world is just like one family and there should be no discrimination on the basis of faith , belief, colour, language , region or whatever. To put the matter in the words of an eminent writer and journalist M. J. Akbar , ” If India is secular , it is because of the fact that Hindus are secular.” These were the words spoken by Akbar during the days when he had no connection, not even in the least, with the BJP. When in the hour of testing , very difficult testing indeed, and in the absence of having adopted no constitution , nothing of the sort, the basic tenets of thousands of years’ high traditions of “Love all and hate none” practiced by the inhabitants of this country bloomed with fragrance spread far and wide , unexpected ,if not hard to believe by most of the countries and we allowed Secularism, the Humanist secularism, to be our guiding principle and policy. Then, what ambiguity is seen by Shri Hamid Ansari which he wants to get settled by the Supreme Court of India?
Shri Ansari further said at the same venue, “Despite its clarity (in the constitution), different interpretations were placed on it and there is no real consensus within the court on which secularism entails.” In which context the Vice President made this revelation is not known but a premise is built that of some ambiguity on the foundations of ambiguities. The heterogeneity which Mr. Ansari is referring to being in our society as its basic characteristics resulting in “composite culture” stands firmly premised on both the existential reality of the society as well as on account of the religo- cultural civilization of its majority community. It is further watered and strengthened by the basis of the existence of this heterogeneity and that is tolerance, yes tolerance in its elasticity. Had it not been there, post 1947, India would have not been a Secular state. India would have had not two civil codes in operation, one exclusively for the largest religious minority the Muslims and the other, for all communities and hence implied participation by the state apparatus in matters outside the scope of the elements of secularism. Had India not been extraordinarily secular and tolerant, fatwas against Muslims raising “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and saying “Vandey Matram” would have not been issued as a matter of right with impunity. Had there been no tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of this largest minority , more than the population of Pakistan, hosting of Iftar parties by active politicians and those holding public constitutional offices would have not been there in India despite state expected to remain neutral and “unscathed” by considerations related to religious matters. Had we not been over tolerant, we would have not tolerated huge influx of Bangladeshi (Erstwhile East Pakistan) people, topsy -turvy(ing) our demographic equations mainly in our North Eastern states and influencing electoral results in areas like Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra and the like. Our approach to the problem continues to remain that of based on larger human considerations even at the cost of our national interests. Had we not been intrinsically secular, kind and so by conviction, resolution of Bangladeshi immigrants would have taken place in a way somewhat like what happened in Pakistan to religious minorities , mainly Hindus whose population has dropped from 27.83% in 1948 to an abysmally around 2% or even less. The argument that Pakistan is a theocratic state as against this country being a secular one, holds water with conditions that we turn our eyes blind and ears deaf in respect of the treatment being given to non Muslim minorities there since 1948 till date.
The term Secularism was coined in 1845 by George Jacob Holyoake which “relates to this world” and is the opposite of abstract religious considerations, and was projected with an aim to fight the then blasphemy laws in England. It is a political philosophy which forms its ethics without any reference to religious dogmas and is concerned to promote “Human art and science”. A few questions raised or instances cited in the aforesaid lines, definitely put question marks on the concept in Indian context in as far as it can be used and has been used as an alibi to appease minorities for electoral gains and for power equations. You can even parade a replica of Osama Bin Laden in that attire and get up in Bihar Assembly polls to woe votes of nearly 29% of the voters from the minority Bank even if it violates constitutional provisions and still claim being “secular”. You can remain silent for 26 years on not unfolding the reasons of ousting the entire Hindu community from Kashmir and still talk of composite and Ganga Jammuni culture and cry about ambiguities in secularism. Religious beliefs and respect for the sentiments of all faiths including chiefly of the majority community do not go contrary to the tenets of secularism in case it is in considered in its original form and not in the form it was spent and over spent in India for nearly six decades. In that case, it needs entirely a new definition and the name of the term, even if it meant to be brought about by an amendment to our constitution. Secular means “of this world” and let us make this world, in that this beautiful part of the world, free of invented ambiguities about secularism and composite culture as in no part of the world is there as much freedom and liberty to minorities as in this country but let it not be construed as a tool of majority bashing and ignoring their rights.
Neither is there any reason to have apprehensions about separation of religion and politics and the state continuing to have equidistance nor casting any doubts about composite culture getting weakened in any way. Equally, there is no need to guide courts, especially the Apex Court, as to how it, in its superb wisdom, interprets secularism and its contours as also provisions of our constitution.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel