 |
| Photo: by Author |
Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh said that the word secularism was the biggest threat to develop India's prosperous traditions and give it a spot on the global stage. Speaking on the occasion of the first launch of the edition of the Global Encyclopedia of Ramayana on 06-March-2021, he was referring to the way of using the principle in the past. The supposedly 'unconstitutional' remarks, however, received severe criticism from Asaduddin Owaisi, head of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a party that draws its nourishment from sectarian ideology in the name of secularism. The words like 'Secularism', 'Secular Forces' and 'Communal' et cetera have been the favourite catchwords for politicians who often use it to create a bogey of communal spectre and polarization of votes.
The idea that religion should neither be a guiding principle nor should it interfere with governance fits well with secularism. In 508 BC, when the concept of democracy was introduced in ancient Greek, people except women and slaves were given voting rights. Each citizen had had a single vote. The society was predominantly theistic that gave priority to religion and social status. The ancient states were not indifferent to religion. Tabernacles, lofty temples, synagogues, churches and mosques were patronized and often constructed by states. Talking or preaching against the beaten principles of religion was considered blasphemy and the culprits were brutally executed. The concept of secularism albeit occupied the thought process of early Greek and Roman philosophers, it is not antediluvian. Relatively new, the term ‘Secularism’ was first used by British writer George Holyoake.
With the growing prominence of intellect, the Age of Enlightenment started in 17th and 18th century Europe. The advocacy for the separation of religion and church from the governance started gaining ground. Thoughts accorded a sovereign status and the perception considered as the only valid source of knowledge. The changing perceptions were bound to develop cracks in the bastion of the intolerant, religion-based political system wherein the king was supposed to be the representative of God and the clergy as his aides. The opposition of the system was unacceptable and used to be brutally crushed.
In the Indian thought process, Charvaka were the main exponent of philosophy who put thoughts and perception on a high pedestal. Religious tolerance gradually made inroads. In the 3rd century BC, Ashoka the Great appealed to his subjects to follow religious tolerance and treat other religions with respect (Rock Edict - XII). In the 19th century India, devout Sikh emperor Maharaja Ranjeet Singh honouring other faiths had soldiers of different religions in his legions.
 |
| Photo: by author |
The medieval period of Indian history witnessed a watertight and intolerant system of governance of monarchs. They invaded and looted India. Some established their kingdom. Invaders became emperors who happened to be dynastic, wishes of whom used to be a command. Proselytization was a state policy. Non-muslims and Hindu natives were considered inferior subjects. Their faiths were corrupted, routed and trampled; the ‘jizya’ tax was imposed on them. In northern India especially, Hindu temples were desecrated, idols of deities were beheaded and temple materials were used to construct mosques deliberately on the fallen temple spots to trample the self-esteem of Hindus. The opposition was dealt with brutally and the 'culprits' were tortured to death. Rulers like Akbar, portrayed as a tolerant monarch, were religious bigots for a fairly long time.
 |
| Photo: by author |
The divide on religious lines was distinct during the British empire in India. They encouraged religious intolerance and created a furrow between Hindus and Muslims to establish and strengthen their rule, especially post-1857. In an upheaval against the British East India Company, both Hindus and Muslims participated in the joint operation and courageously fought the first war of independence in 1857, termed ‘mutiny’ by Britons. Even though that the upheaval was crushed and henceforth governance was taken over by the British crown, Britons sensed the threat of joint native force. Slowly and meticulously divide was created to appease a section of society. In 1909 an Act was promulgated to constitute a separate electorate for Muslims. Later it was furthered to include other communities as well by the Government of India Act, 1919. Cracks started appearing between Hindus and Muslims - the communities that fought as one in the first combat against foreign rule. The foundation of the Muslim league in 1906 ensured the divide on a religious basis culminating in India's vivisection in 1947.
Party spearheading the freedom movement in India sans Muslim League had been in favour of collective fight without any discrimination. Many illustrious leaders like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai contributed positively to the fight for freedom. Gandhiji wanted a wholly tolerant India with its religions working side by side with one another. However, there was a section of society that had a different ideology. Muslim League, which was constituted with the sole aim to garner the support of the Muslim population, started demanding a separate state for they could 'not live with Hindus'. They propounded “Two Nation Theory” and impetuously worked on it. Fierce communal riots were instigated, causing panic and colossal loss of lives and properties. People started transmigrating well before the actual vivisection of India. They were aghast, did not know as to why they were being displaced from their soil.
Freedom came staggering; India was freed but paid a heavy price. The nation was lacerated, wounded and vivisected. Rampant communal conflagrations started on the call of "Direct Action" by the Muslim League. Large scale arson, loot and violence had left people in the lurch. Newly established Pakistan chose to be an Islamic state, but India opted for a secular structure. Religiously intolerant Pakistan became hellish for non-muslims. In India, however, Nehru was for a robust system indifferent to religion. The first Prime Minister of free India, Pt. Nehru was a visionary. He was an atheist but not anti-religious. For a country like India, which is pluralistic and varied with many cultures, languages and religious practices, secular democracy was the option that aligned to many west educated Indian leaders of the time. The Constitution, adopted in 1950, guaranteed the citizens a society free from religious interference but simultaneously gave them individual freedom of religious practice. It had to be a harmonious society. Article 14, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Constitution ensures freedom of expression, worship, and work. There is no state religion. Article 25 of the Constitution ensures “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”, while Article 26 gives the right to establish, manage and maintain every religious denomination or any section thereof. These provisions ensure individual freedom which aligns with Nehru’s thoughts. Later, with an amendment in the Constitution adopted in 1976 (42nd Amendment Act, 1976), “We The People of India” resolved “To constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic”. India was now a ‘Secular’ country not tangentially but directly.
Coming to the point of implementation, it is limpid that the Constitution and its provisions ought to be followed in its letter and spirit. Interpretation of the Constitutional provisions is under the purview of the judiciary. Interpretations and explanations of the constitutional provisions have been done by the judiciary from time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that preamble was part of the Constitution and could be amended. Secularism became a cromulent state policy after its inclusion in the preamble, therefore, it has to be observed diligently. In practicality, however, a deviation is witnessed.
The electoral politics of India is a complex process. In a society with different languages, groups and sub-groups, customs and practices amalgamated with diversified regional patterns, an absolute system are difficult, if not impossible, to have. The number of votes and the ability to convert votes into seats is the crux of forming the government. The political party or the conglomerate of parties that gets majority seats can form the government. Ostensibly it is the vote which is a decisive factor in government formation. Political parties in India started eying on en bloc vote-share of minority voters. In all practicality, political parties prefer to choose their candidates based on religion, caste, creed and influence in elections occurring after lustrum.
In the rat race of getting votes, the political parties started making alliances ignoring the fundamentals of ethics and compromising ideology. The ‘Grand Old Party’, Congress, having the onus of carrying the torch of Nehruvian secularism, showed the inclination for ‘Vote-bank Politics’. They enter into alliances with sectarian regional parties which have been vocal against the majority sentiments and lopsidedly critical to them. Congress allied with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala, All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) in Assam, and Indian Secular Front (ISF) in Bengal for parochial motives. Parties vying for Muslim votes are seen in the mad race to show themselves as their Messiah, shunning secularism and following preposterous appeasement policy. In the over-enthusiasm for appeasement, they even declared that minorities, particularly Muslims, have the first claim on the government resources while some claimed that they would strife and die for the Muslim cause. People of the country saw that Puja in Bengal was banned while religious processions of minorities were permitted. Iftar parties organized by the Chief Ministers of States and at the President House happened to be the ludicrous show of appeasement blatantly flouting norms of the Constitution.
The dent in the secular philosophy which started appearing in the period of Late (Mrs) Indira Gandhi, deepened when the then Prime Minister late Mr Rajeev Gandhi, yielding to the clergy pressure, turned turtle the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Bano case and later tried to pacify majority by letting open the gates at ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’. Vexed, especially after December 1992, the issue of 'Ram Janmabhoomi' has now been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after a very long legal battle. Numerous communal conflagrations took place which shook the very root of the system. People are now witnessing the pantomime of temple hopping and flaunting ‘Janeu’ by leaders of political parties ostensibly to balance the act of appeasement and to lure majority voters.
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was probably referring to fake secularism in practice. Appeasement of a section of society was nothing but lip service. It harmed the minorities who had been kept frightened and lured with freebies. They went up to an extent of disintegrating the social and national unity by favouring those who are a potential threat. The support for Rohangiyas and eyebrow-raising on the Army actions are but few instances. Muslims feel cheated and cornered except for those who are getting a major chunk of the cake. The people are smart, they understand the acts.
 |
| Photo: by Author |
Secularism is not about appeasing a group or two. Appeasement is discriminatory and is against the spirit of the Constitution. The law of land treats everyone the same. Fruits of development are for all. A socialist, secular and democratic setup is unitary, not only in words but also in full practicality. The step-motherly treatment towards the majority section of society gives way to social discontent, which is detrimental to the nation. Each citizen contributes their share for the emancipation and development of the nation. It is equally important that the majority population have a tolerant and compassionate attitude towards minorities. There is no place for fear, haterade and suspicion among the sections of the society. Mutual trust, understanding and respect are the keys to harmonious coexistence. This is the essence and spirit of the Constitution that the eminent members of the constituent assembly envisaged while preparing the voluminous and exhaustive document which is the sole source of governance in free India.
 |
| Photo: by author |
No comments:
Post a Comment