|
Open Page
Meaning of secularism
|
Whatever be the past history, the Hindu zealots must realise that it is not the sign of wisdom to open the wounds of the past and take revenge for what are perceived as historical injustices.
|
THE RECENT communal riots accompanied by events of arson, loot and murder in urban as well as rural Gujarat and rural areas of Haryana and Maharashtra have tarnished the image of Indian secularism and the reputation of Hinduism as a tolerant faith. The social climate is thoroughly vitiated and the atmosphere is surcharged with suspicion and hatred reminding of the pre-Partition days. The nation is at the edge of a precipice. To prevent the collage, the nation must withdraw its steps from the path it has been led to under the influence of misguided elements. What are needed are a deep national introspection and a sense of balance and direction. It is the responsibility of those who are at the helm of affairs in government and in political and social life to provide these. But listening to them on TV and elsewhere it seems they are indulging in divisive politics and mutual recrimination, oblivious of the national interest and the consequences of what they are saying and doing.
In its recent conference at Bangalore, the RSS passed a resolution that the security of the minority community depends on the goodwill of the majority. The resolution was seen as an open threat to the minority though the spokesman of the RSS tried to explain that it was not meant to be so. The RSS should have realised that it was improper on their part to pass such a resolution. Security is the fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the state to preserve and protect this right, which does not depend on anybody's goodwill. Of course the minority community should have the goodwill of the majority but the reverse is also equally true. There should be a sense of mutual trust and cooperation among all the sections of society.
Secularism has been one of the essential elements in the basic structure of our Constitution which lays down that 1) the state has no religion; 2) all citizens however have the fundamental right to follow and propagate their own religion; and 3) it is the duty of the state to protect life, liberty and property of all citizens, provide security to them and enable them to exercise their fundamental rights. The state will not discriminate between the citizens on the grounds of religion and language.
A clear contradiction
While our Constitution has been based on secularism or dharma nirapekshita, our society is steeped in religion. Observance of religious festivals and rituals is part of our day-to-day life. Religious feelings govern our mode of thinking. Thus there is a clear contradiction between the basic tenets of the Constitution and the character of our society. These get reflected in our politics and public administration, which often work in a manner contrary to what is envisaged in the Constitution. The latest example of this is the participation of an IAS officer of the PMO in the shila dan ceremony at Ayodhya. This might have calmed down a potentially explosive situation in Ayodhya but it was clearly inconsistent with what the Constitution envisages.
This however is not the first or the only breach in the Constitutional provisions regarding secularism. The Representation of the People Act provides that appeals made on the grounds of religion to gather votes would be deemed to be a corrupt practice and would disqualify a candidate but this happens as a rule in all our elections. All political parties use religion to gather votes. This starts from the selection of the candidates taking into account the communal character of the constituency. Vote banks are systematically built on the basis of caste and religion and the very leaders who take advantage of these vote banks do so in the name of secularism. This has been the hypocrisy of our secular democracy.
Iftar parties
The caste and communal character of our politics inevitably enters in the conduct of public administration. While the Constitution envisages secularism in the sense of dharma nirapekshita, our politicians have conveniently interpreted it as sarv dharm samabhav. This has given free licence to our politicians holding high positions to freely participate in all religious functions with the official paraphernalia in attendance. Indira Gandhi started the practice of giving iftar parties for our Muslim brethren during Ramzan. Now political leaders vie with each other to throw such lavish parties at national and State capitals and the practice continues even in the regime of a BJP Prime Minister. Wide publicity is given in the media as to who attended these parties and what was served. It is forgotten that such politicisation of iftar is a sacrilege to a sacred religious practice much to the disgust of truly religious people. Moreover it creates a sense of discrimination. If iftar parties are given why not Diwali parties and Christmas parties?
There are two consequences of this mixing up of religion, politics and public administration. First it has given prominence in public life to religious leaders like sants and mahants, imams and priests. They have started playing an active role in government's decision making. The interference of religious leaders in administrative matters can prove dangerous to our secular democracy. Secondly, religious practices and festivals have started making serious inroads into the safety and convenience of our public life. In Maharashtra only Ganapati festival was public. Now even a Navaratri festival has become a public observance. Pandals are erected on roads obstructing traffic. Loud music is played on public systems disturbing peace. Namaz gatherings spill over the roads and in retaliation maha araties are also similarly performed.
The RSS and organisations of the Parivar have been constantly criticising the Congress rulers for their appeasement of the minority, specially the Muslims. They are saying that though Hindus are in majority they are being discriminated. They want the creation of Hindu Rashtra. They argue that their definition of Hindu is very wide. Whoever, irrespective of the religion to which he belongs, considers India as his janmbhumi, karmbhumi and pitrubhoomi is a Hindu. But if the minorities are not prepared to accept this argument how can Hindutva be imposed upon them? Such an attempt would only lead to alienation and disaffection.
A sense of insecurity
On deeper thinking it would appear that the demand for Hindu Rashtra arises out of a sense of insecurity, which some sections of Hindu society feel even though Hindus are in majority in this country. There are reasons for this. First, the Hindus were under the Muslim rulers for more than a thousand years. The Muslim invaders came through the Khyber Pass in the Northwest, ransacked the Hindu temples and built mosques on them and forcibly converted the Hindus. Even the Christians resorted to force for conversion of the Hindus as in Goa where the early Portuguese rulers ruthlessly resorted to `inquisition' under the leadership of Saint Xavier. Some historians tried to reinterpret this history and now there is a movement in the reverse direction. Whatever be the past history, the Hindu zealots must realise that it is not the sign of wisdom to open the wounds of the past and take revenge for what are perceived as historical injustices. We have to live in the present and what is needed today is for all Indians to work together with mutual trust and cooperation as citizens of the Indian Republic.
When there were attacks on the churches in Gujarat, the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, expressed the need for a national debate on conversion since it was alleged that that was the reason for the attack. The Leftists and secularists attacked the Prime Minister for daring to make such a suggestion. But the Prime Minister's idea deserves consideration. It is true that the Constitution gives the right to pursue and propagate religion. But propagation is not synonymous with conversion especially under threat or through pecuniary attractions to the poor and the ignorant in the lower strata of society. It is therefore necessary to introduce a clarification in the Constitution that propagation cannot mean conversion.
Though the Hindus are in majority in India, they are in minority in the world. Though India and Nepal are the only two countries with Hindu majority, there are a large number of Muslim and Christian countries in the world. More specifically there is a string of Muslim countries both on the west and the east of India — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and the Arabian countries on the west and Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia on the east. India has rightly tried to establish good relations with the Muslim countries of the world. But when Bangladeshi Hindus keep on being pushed out while Muslims infiltrate into India in large numbers in search of livelihood and Pakistan indulges in cross-border terrorism for grabbing Kashmir on the ground that Muslims are in majority in the Valley, there is disquiet and a sense of insecurity amongst the Hindus in India. This gives rise to the tendency to support Hindu fundamentalism. But religious fundamentalism is not the solution. Indians must realise that Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan has only led to violence and strife which pose a major threat to its peaceful existence. It has disturbed the political stability of that country and set back the clock of economic progress.
We have to realise that religious tolerance has been the basic tenet of India's ancient civilisation and it is also the hallmark of the modern age of globalisation. We should not waste our time in religious discords but rather move ahead with the use of science and technology to make our lives better, richer and fuller. We should follow the footsteps of European nations, which have forgotten their enmities and wars over centuries and have come together as a single economic and political entity.
P.R. DUBHASHI
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
