We 'the secular' people of HINDUSTAN

Introduction:

The constitution of India cannot be more apparent in its words when it enumerates that the State must not identify itself with any religion. This raises several questions in our minds.

1) Can a state and the rulers of the government be distinguished by any set of rules?

2) If Hindustan and Pakistan were divided based on religion, How did Pakistan emerge as an Islamic nation whereas Hindustan turned out to be a secular nation?

3) What is the true meaning of secularism? Is it a brotherhood between citizens or a political tool to consolidate power?

Let us try to find out the answers to all these questions by analysing unadulterated history, our constitution, and the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court in various cases.

What is to be secular?

The State being secular is the characteristic feature of the State to not adapt to one particular region. This is crucial for good governance as it would create chaos if the state starts to abide by the rules of a religion rather than the constitution. This drives us to our first question. If the Prime Minister or the President on behalf of the State abides by certain rituals of any particular religion, can that be accepted as secularism? We can have two different perspectives on this.

The Liberals may argue that the Heads of the State being the representatives of people with different beliefs in this nation must not define themselves with a certain religion. The Right Wing may argue that the heads of this nation can adopt any ritual based on any religion as it is their right to follow any religion and if that ritual makes them feel good about their work, then there is no problem in having any ritual on behalf of the State. So, which school is morally right? This cannot be legally questioned as this is a legal puzzle that will certainly open up many debating floors.

A moral conclusive argument can be put forward to address this trivia with the help of some basic legal knowledge. The fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution are vested upon all our citizens irrespective of their religion. Article 25 of our constitution guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practice, and propagate any religion of his/her choice.

When we read this article, it does not exclude the heads of the State or prohibit the heads of the State in exercising their vested rights. The heads of the State are also the citizens of this nation and can freely practice their religion. This takes us to a more complicated question, can the money of the taxpayers be used by the State for any such rituals?

The answer to this question is given under Article 27 of our constitution which prohibits the use of tax payer’s money for the propagation of a certain religion and in a Secularist’s point of view, this worry itself must not come into the minds of people as that is what secularism is all about. To understand this further and deeper, we need to understand secularism from a historical point of view.

Historically secular:

To understand secularism, we need to travel back in time to when new religions were introduced to the Indic civilisation. When Buddhism was spreading all across the nation due to the works of emperor Ashoka, secularism was first defined. Ashoka mandated that no one should honour their religion and condemn another religion without valid grounds.

This established both freedom of speech and expression as well as secularism. The rock edicts of Ashoka and many inscriptions from the Ajanta and Ellora caves[i] show that the people of different religions were living in brotherhood in this nation.

After this period, the Islamic invasion proved to be a changing point in our secular history. The invasions of Ghazni and Ghori were barbaric. Non-Islamic religious structures were destroyed and the whole nation was looted. Several people were forcefully converted to Islam and many others who refused were tortured and killed[ii].

When the Slave dynasty came to power (Establishment of Delhi Sultanate), non-muslims were called Kafirs and Dhimis, and high taxes were imposed on them. The most famous among them is the Jizya tax on Hindus which economically forced many Hindu families to convert to Islam. It was the Sharia law that was imposed all over the territory during this regime and it continued during the times of the Mughals. Akbarnama calls the so-called ‘most secular’ king Akbar the killer of Kafirs.

It goes on to say that Akbar earned the title ‘ghazi‘ which means the killer of non-believers. If we think that this secularism is brutal, Akbarnama further says that Akbar constructed a tower made of skulls of slain Hindus aka infidels[iii]. Several Indic kings in their territory upheld secularism and the most notable King on that list is Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj who even had Islamic commanders and soldiers in his army to fight the Mughals.

This secularism travelled down the Maratha reign for several generations. Several Muslim warriors fought alongside the Marathas’ army led by Sada Shiv Rao Bao Peshwa against the Afghan forces led by Abdali in the third battle of Panipat[iv].

The nation was considered more important than religion for years by all these great warriors and secularism continued to breathe for a short period until the rise of the British empire which gave a whole new twist to the history of the secularism of Bharath.

**Skull tower built by Akbar as portrayed in Akbarnama**

The entry of the British into India brought Western secularism along with it and this gave the Indic form of secularism a whole new amendment. To understand western secularism, we need to understand how medieval European countries functioned. The interference of the church, especially the church of Rome in matters of the State was a big hindrance to the functioning of the government.

France made it clear through the law of 1905 (separation des eglises et de i etat) that the functions of the state were separated from that of the church. British in 1534, during the reign of Henry VII, terminated their official relationship with the catholic church. This form of western secularism entered India along with the laws of the British. Equity became a myth and equality became the backbone of secularism.

Secularism and constitution:

Secularism was an integral part of the constitution even though it was not explicitly mentioned during the time of its framing as held by the Honourable Supreme court on several occasions. The constitutional assembly debates prove this point as Dr.Ambedkar clearly stated during the session that there was no need for the word secularism in the preamble as the entire constitution was drafted with secularistic principles[v].

In the case of S.R.Bommayi Vs. The Union of India, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the word secularism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution (which implies that it cannot be amended through any form of legislation)[vi]. In the case of Bal Patil Vs. Union of India, the apex court ruled that the state has no religion more than that the state has to treat all religions alike and with equal respect[vii].

Political secularism:

The political secularism running in the country is a blend of liberalism along with the principles of western culturalism. Secularism is all about brotherhood and not appeasement. A secular country needs to provide the people belonging to minority communities equal opportunities as the people belonging to the majoritarian communities. The government must promote the equity principle rather than the equality principle. This brings us back to our third question. To find out the answer to this question, we must look into our contemporary social issues. The answer to this question will completely be relative as it brings up the debates of various ideological schools into several circles of issues.

The political system running in our country is inclined to religion in one or the other way. Several religious heads in their places of worship speak politics to gather votes for a candidate of their preference. They even derogate the beliefs of other religions to convert people and ascend to power through the votes of their victims. This very act may spoil the secularism of the nation as their malafide intention is to give the state a certain religion and thus breaking the backbone of secularism.

Some political leaders may even favour such people by showcasing them as one among them to consolidate political power. They participate in this mischief by derogating other religions on public platforms. This can be very easily done as the votes of minorities can be grouped by the heads of the religion in the name of religion and the votes of the majority community can be dealt with easily through the process of ‘divide and rule policy’.

Through this, they fulfil their political ambitions by breaking the very backbone of our constitution which is secularism itself.

Western Secularism Vs. Indian Secularism:

Considering the Indian Socio-political atmosphere with a western secularist perspective will only lead us to a downgraded society. It is like calling Arsene Wenger to be the owner of Arsenal FC as they both have ‘Arsene’ in their names. The history of the western countries is far more different than the history of Bharath. The cultural background of India does not have any equivalent counterpart. When this is the case, how can we imply a western culturalistic idea of secularism and incorporate it into our own? This becomes a misfit. Article 6 of the constitution of the United States of America makes the nation a constitutionally secular country but there has been no non-Christian president to date in the country[viii].

The secularism model that countries like France and England follow is originally to abolish the interference of the church in matters of administration. In India, the case is different. India has been targeted and looted by several invaders in the name of religion and politics. Incorporating western secularistic ideas into our nation will only lead to more chaos and appeasement politics. The 42nd amendment of our constitution adds the word secular to an already Indianly secular constitution and interpreting the word secular based on the such amendment cannot do justice to the word secular.

The constitutional validity of the amendment itself is in question as the words ‘socialist‘ and ‘secular‘ have been added to the preamble of our constitution during the time of national emergency without the consent of the parliament by disregarding all the due processes in place[ix]. In simple words, western secularism is a method of functioning the government to avoid the interference of the church in matters of administration.

India was already a ‘secular’ nation. She did not need any western invader to teach her brotherhood. She is the epitome of moral values. Western secularism overthrew the already secular model of India which created more diversions in the actual road of the meaning of secularism.

Conclusion:

Indian secularism is all about the brotherhood and unity among all the citizens of India irrespective of their religion, caste, birthplace, etc., A free India must be a place where brotherhood is maintained between all the citizens and where one religion does not try to put down another religion in the name of religion. No factor is bigger than the motherland as it is only the nation that was, which is, and which will remain forever. Jai Hind!