Pluralism and Communalism

By K. G. Kannabiran,

A few years back I raised the question “whether a Political Party not subscribing to the Constitutional value system so clearly spelt out by the Preamble and the other provisions in the Constitution, have its party registered to contest and participate in the country’s election?

H V Kamath, a member of the Constituent Assembly, suggested to add a prefix “In the name of God” to the Preamble and this was opposed. It was put to vote in Assembly and was voted against it. In the debates, it was pointed out that invocation of God is inconsistent with freedom of faith promised by the Preamble but also to the guaranteed right. If we say ‘In the name of God’ the question that would arise is: whose God and which God’. That is because there is a plurality of religions and communities and that ruled out the recognition of any religion as a State Religion. The Country went on as a Secular State until electoral politics brought on to the political agenda religion for garnering power and progressively religion started playing a pivotal role in the electoral politics. This entry of politics of the religion of the majority became strident and aggressive after the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and its ascendancy was ensured during PV Narasimha Rao’s tenure as the Prime Minister.

The attacks on the minority commenced immediately after the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi. Majority religion, after it was brought on to the political agenda, the assault on the minorities increased. The second onslaught was on the Muslims in Mumbai in 1992 and in Gujarat in 2001 by the BJP. The scale on which attacks took place cannot be described as backlash or communal riots for that would be a gross understatement. Moreover, the attacks on Christian minorities in Orissa and Karnataka complete the attacks on the major minority communities. This would include the Hindu terrorism that we are reading almost every day in the newspapers.

The violence and the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim terrorism have to be understood as major breaches in terms of Constitutional governance. Whatever debates that take place has to be within the parameters of the Constitution. The Constitution is intended to govern the plural communities residing within this country. The ruling in SR Bommai was given in 1994 in the backdrop of Ayodhya, Babri Masjid and the riots that followed in Mumbai. The Supreme Court pointed out, "The founding Fathers could not have countenanced the idea of treating Minorities as second class citizens. On the contrary, the dominant thinking appears to be that the majority community, the Hindus, must be secular and thereby help the minorities to become secular. For it is the majority community alone that can produce a sense of security for others."

The Preamble declares the objectives having in view the plural communities who have been within the country for centuries. It is intended to govern the plural communities within the Hindu system equally and equitably and the plurality residing outside Hindu Community also for centuries equally and equitably. No political Party or Community has any authority to ride roughshod over the other constituents of this society. There cannot be a partial suspension/enforcement of Rule of Law. The government cannot ban all the minority communities’ outfits big and small and not ban RSS and its outfits and allow them the freedom of assembly to conspire and commit offences at will. The Schedule to Unlawful Activities Prevention 1967 will reveal the glaring partial suspension of Rule of Law. This partial suspension of Rule of Law was done openly in major conflagrations in Mumbai, Delhi, Gujarat and Coimbatore. This requires serious debate towards increasing Constitutional governance and this cannot happen unless the parties constituting the electoral system are disciplined. Violence cannot be checked, are preventive or punitive measures taken effectively by the police if one or the other major political parties indulges in violence.

We have been witnesses to endemic ethnic conflicts all over the world and that is one of the reasons that with some forethought the Constitution provides for the governance of the plural societies within our country. That a re-look at the governance multi cultural societies is necessary was pointed out by Bikku Parekh in his book, ‘Re-thinking Multiculturalism’ - “Citizens cannot be committed to their political community unless it is also committed to them, and they cannot belong to it unless it accepts them as belonging to it. The political community cannot therefore expect its members to develop a sense of belonging to it unless it equally values and cherishes them in all their diversity and reflects this in its structure, policies and conduct of public affairs, self understanding and self definition. Although equal citizenship is essential for fostering a common sense of belonging, it is not enough. Citizenship is about status and rights; belonging is about being accepted and feeling welcome. Some individuals and groups might enjoy the same rights as the rest, but feel that they do not quite belong to the community or it to them. This feeling of being full citizens and yet outsiders is difficult to analyze and explain but it can be deep and real and seriously damage the quality of their citizenship and their commitment to their political community. It is caused among other things, the narrow ad exclusive manner in which wider society defines the common good, the demeaning way it talks about some of its members and dismissive way and the patronizing way it behaves towards them. Although such individuals are free in principle in its collective life, they often stay away or ghettoize themselves for fear of rejection and ridicule or out of a deep sense of alienation.”(342.)

These difficulties were earlier visualized by Ambedkar. This problem has been plaguing the society all these years and on account of stagnation that has politically, socially and economically affecting the lives of the communities living together and to avoid conflicts there is in the constitution the stress has been on equality in all its facets.”

That is why the Constitution imposes certain amount of Constitutional discipline. It is made mandatory for every Constitutional appointee including the elected representatives whether to Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly/Council to swear to an oath that he/she will abide by the Constitution and is set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 provides for Registration of political parties and in subsection (5) it stipulates that the memorandum or Rules of the party or organization shall contain specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution as by law established, and to the principles of Socialism, Secularism and Democracy and would uphold the Sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. These provisions were brought into force on 15/6/1989. This amendment was to bring the election law in line with the Constitution.

The word Socialism need not create in us the Stalinist totalitarian nightmare. Socialism is the inarticulate politics of the millions of the poor who vote these anti poor leaders in whose political menu cards peoples well-being is there but may not be served. Secularism is not ungodliness but telling us all not to assure a better after life or a better rebirth. It says please do not prevent social change by these unverifiable promises & dreams of a better after life. Secularism briefly surfaced and was attributed to one G J HOLYOAKE and was briefly talked about towards the second half the 19th century in England and disappeared after the emergence of socialist thought. In the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when sweated industry and the economy were unregulated, it appeared and religion was not able to offer any redress for the misery by a vast army of working men. One need not misinterpret it as ungodliness.It does mean that religion should not guide the politics and economics of peoples lives on earth.

K. G. Kannabiran is National President of PUCL

Courtsey: Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee India