By J N Raina     
New Delhi (Syndicate Features): Buoyed up with the election results in Karnataka, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has got emboldened to rake up certain contentious issues, including secularism. Its President Rajnath Singh, while addressing the party’s National executive, raised the issue of ‘true’ secularism, embodied with other issues like Article 370, guaranteeing special status to Jammu and Kashmir (which it wants to abrogate), uniform civil code and ‘cultural nationalism.’ He chastised political parties for using the word “dharmanirpeksh” (neutrality with regard to religion), instead of “panthnirpaksh” (neutrality with regard to sects).

The word ‘secular’, which according to the Concise Oxford dictionary means “not religious, sacred or spiritual”, has lost its sheen, because of the ill-effects of vote-bank politics and huge demographic ‘invasion’, especially in Assam and West Bengal. Individuals and political outfits take secularism differently. It is widely misconstrued as ‘pseudo-secularism’ in political parlance. Its understanding has become flawed. There has to be a threadbare debate over the ticklish issue, seized of by the BJP, still considered to be a ‘party with a difference’.

The Cambridge Advanced Dictionary describes secularism as “the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country”. But unfortunately, the Indian version of secularism, which is ‘porous’ in nature, is an adaptation of the American model. No wall of separation exists between religion and the State, unlike in the U S. It is neither perfect nor workable to suit our national interest. No doubt India is a multi-religious society; it does not serve the desired purpose, based on the past 60 years of experience.

Kashmiri Hindus, who have become refugees in their own country, are the best judges to articulate about the Indian brand of secularism. There are certain ‘inherent’ weaknesses and lapses in the Indian system of governance with regard to secularism. According to Soli J Sorabjee, former Attorney General of India, Article 13 of the original draft Constitution had provided that all persons, including non-citizens, “shall have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health”. The word ‘propagate’ was inter alia meant ‘conversion’.

It is believed that founding fathers of our Constitution were not swayed by ‘narrow-mindedness’. “They had displayed the spirit of tolerance in keeping with our age-old traditions”, Soli says. But the stark question arises, what has been the outcome and who should be blamed for rapid rise of Islamic terrorism in India? Obviously, the very ‘custodians’ of our constitution! They have misused certain provisions of the Constitution.

The BJP has righteously taken up the cause and questioned the basis of the so-called ‘Indian secularism’ .It has in fact become a ‘farce’ .For the past two decades the Muslim fundamentalism has grown phenomenally. The country’s changing demography and communal riots from time to time, and series of serial bomb blasts are going against the tenets of secular democracy, giving a handle to the Hindu nationalist forces, seeking a change in the secular fabric of society.

The word ‘secular’ was missing in the Constitution till in 1976 (42nd amendment), barring in Art 25(2) (b). It was during Emergency that the Constitution was amended to suit the purpose of then Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi. She has been criticized by Rajnath Singh for introducing word ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ through this amendment, charging that it was from that day onwards that ‘widespread politics’ broke out over secularism. In 1947, India was declared a secular and a democratic State.

There has been no consistency in the interpretation of the word ‘secular’. Mahatma Gandhi said all religions are equal and the State will encourage the practice of all religions equally. As per the Hindu nationalists’ point of view, Hinduism believes that since there are different methods of worshipping God, ‘all Indians are Hindus’. But ultimately Jawaharlal Nehru’ views about secularism prevailed, based on western concept, that the State ‘shall not engage in religious activities nor promote any religion’. He had stated that the separation of the State and religion was ‘essential for the conduct of western democracy’. But what is wrong in doing away with the borrowed concept of western ‘roots of secularism’? We might adopt what suits us best.

Dr S Radhakrishnan, former president of India has said: “No group of citizens shall arrogate to itself the rights and privileges which it denies to others. No person shall suffer from any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion…..The religious impartiality of the Indian State is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism, as has been defined, is in accordance with the ancient religious traditions of India”.

So the concept of secularism is not new for Indians. When secularism was debated in the Constituent Assembly, Prof K T Shah was the only member who wanted to get a provision regarding secular character of India included in the Constitution. His amendment was defeated. It read as follows: “The State in India being secular, shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in the matter relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the union”. But the amendment was rejected forthwith. Had it been carried out, say political Pandits, the official machinery would not have been misused today, and it would have been barred from financing pilgrimages and other religious activities.

Said former Chief Justice of India PB Gajendragadkar: “The word secular, like the word, religious, is amongst the richest of all words in the range of meaning”.

India has its own national character. Why our country has remained enslaved and subjugated for over 1000 years is a matter of debate. It is a reflection on the quality of our leadership that has emerged from time to time. The very structure of the Indian society has to change, as also the age-old caste system, the bane of our democracy. The change has to be of epochal importance. Pertinently millions of people go and settle every year in the US and UK though both countries are not secular nations. So what is great about Indian secularism?

Some argue that the Indian Constitution Assembly took the decision on secularism in haste. Some political outfits, including the BJP, believe that age-old ‘grievances’ and ‘historical injustices’ have been committed, against the majority Hindu community, which needed to be rectified.  But the fact of the matter is today India has acquired communal tinge, and secular colour has received a setback.  (Syndicate Features)