By Kamaluddin Khan,
The challenges of castism, communalism and religious fundamentalism, involving separatism and violence in India, are the major threats to our secular polity. They weaken the working and stability of our secular federal system and militate against the basic principles governing our national life and providing meaning to our new identity. Our national movement was the biggest and the most widespread anti-imperialist movement in world history, because it was a movement of all patriotic elements drawn from the diverse regions, language groups, religious communities, castes, and tribes, urban and rural segments. Inter-communal and inter-caste tensions and violence over the years have disturbed national peace and order. In recent years there have been recurrent and increasing number of communal riots, caste carriages and linguistic animosities. This disruptive element should be suppressed with firm step if India is to emerge as a demo critic secular polity.
Secularism is one of the major instruments for building a modern polity. It is one of the fun damental values of our national life, emphasized by the national movement and the founding fathers of the Republic.
In the Indian context, secularism and communalism are considered to be binary opposites. Secularism is a sign of modernity, plurality, co existence, rationalism and developing with a fast growing multicultural society. Communalism, which some consider as being based on love of one’s community, has come to acquire the derogatory meaning of an attitude that is narrow, based on prejudices about the ‘other’ and almost based on hatred and violence. In India to pursue communal politics as religion is the main identifying factor and also acting against the interests of the ‘other’. In the politics of the ‘1990s the essentially ehruvian notion of secularism itself began to be
challenged, without being totally rejected. In this context it is important to see what the term means or was meant in the making of the constitution and thereafter.
Its origin can be traced to the western world view. It is, therefore, important to understand its philosophical base to fully appreciate its connotation, its importance and its limitations. The word secular is derived from the late Latin sacularis which meant, among other things, ‘that which belongs to this world, non-spiritual, temporal as opposed to spiritual or ecclesiastical thing’. It is a form applied in general to the separation of state politics or administration from religious matters, and ‘secular education.’ is a system of training from which religious teaching is definitely excluded. Secularism which bean as a protest movement in the West, was a by-product of the chartist movement and cam., iv birth after the collapse of the revolutionary hopes which had been inspired by the European, revolutions of 1848. Philosophically, the term reveals the influence of positivism and utilitarianism. ‘Positivism supplied a conception of knowledge affording a basis upon which it was held that religious considerations could be ruled out and utilitarianism lent itself to a non-religious explanation of the motives and ends of conduct’.
The relation of secularism to religion was defined as ‘mutually exclusive rather than hostile’. Neither theism nor atheism enters into the secularist scheme because neither provable by experience. The term secularism was coined in 1850 by G.J. Molyoake (an Owenite Socialist, an atheist and the last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in Britian), who saw it a movement , which provided an alternative to theism. historically, secularism intermingled with and was at its best with atheism. Atheists like Charles Bradluagh, Charles Watts, G.E. Forte were closely associated with the movement. Bradlaugh argued that secularism was bound to contest theistic belief and that material progress was impossible, so long as superstitions born out of religious beliefs and practices remained a powerful force in society.
The essential principle of secularism was to seek for human improvement by material means alone, these being considered as adequate to secure the desired end. Its principles could be sustained by intellect and were equally applicable to all humanity. Morality was seen as being based on reason and as seeking to establish the common welfare, Reason had to be unfettered by religious considerations.
Western liberal ideas such as nationalism, secularism and democracy had an impact on the Indian intelligentsia, which increasingly incorporated them in its debates, resolutions and stralegies of struggle against British colonialism and later included them in the Constitution. Over the last fifty years many questions, both theoretical and procedural, have been raised. One of the questions much debated and contested in the 1980s and 1990s is the concept of secularism itself.
The tendency to privatise religion and compartmetalize life into the private and the public sphere was never very marked in India, and religion continued to sway the lives of the people. The British Government encouraged the tendency to perceive and calculate political interests in religious and communal terms. In spite of establishing the concept of the rule of law and a common judicial system, it based personal (family) laws on grounds of religious laws and differences. However, in spite of all these factors, it cannot be denied that secularism as a value had a tremendous influence on the leaders of the NationalNt Movement.
The Impact of National Movement
“‘hen the national movement for independence gathered momentum, it was realised by the leaders of the movement that a united India which aspired for freedom could be achieved from the British, unless the communal problem was satisfactorily settled. I ho culmination of this idea can he seen reflected in the Nehru (Motilal) Committee Report of 1928. The Committee recommended for the first time, a federation as a constitutional remedy, to drive out the twin evils of autocracy and compartmenlahsm from Indian political life.
The opposition of the Indian National Congress to separate electorates must be seen in the context of the struggle for ‘Stunraj’. Gandhiji firmly believed that without Hindu-Muslim unity and understanding, the British would never transfer power to Indians. That is why, throughout his life he stood for Hindu-Muslim unity. I le was also unreservedly opposed to the idea of separate electorates among the Hindus on a-caste basis. Hence, he opposed the British plan for separate electorates to the Scheduled Caste and even undertook a fast unto death till his position was accepted by both the British and Ambedkar.
Jawaharlal Nehru was very familiar with rationale of the (Motilal) Nehru Report. I le was also a close associate of Mahatama Gandhi. By the early nineteen-thirties, he eras already a leading member of the Indian National Congress. In the next decade and a half, he played a significant role in the Indian National Congress as one of its leading spokesmen. During that period, Nehru had the opportunity to study the communal problem in depth and find a suitable solution for it. lie was convinced that its solution did not lie in communal electorates and therefore he was opposed to that idea. In the same manner, he was also convinced that partition of the country on religious or communal basis was no solution and therefore he opposed it whenever he had an opportunity to do so. So our national struggle was organised on the basis of religious groups. So it grew out of its past history of a wide and general movement in thoughts and feelings which emerged gradually from the intermingling of different groups and communities in consequence of the impetus given to it by changes in social, economic and political life. This spirit was strengthened and enriched through our long freedom movement. The Constitution drafted by Motilal Nehru as the chairman of the Historic Nehru Committee in 1928, that eventually became the foundation for the Constitution of India; had a specific provision regarding secularism in these term: “there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in Commonwealth, nor shall the state either directly or indirectly endow any religion or give any religion any preference or impose any disability on account of religious beliefs-or religious status….”
INDIAN POLITY
The principal advocates of secular ideology in India were Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru’s secularism was based on a commitment to scientific humanism married with a progressive view of historical change. On the other hand, Gandhiji’s secularism was based on a commitment to the brotherhood of religious communities based on their respect for and pursuit of truth.
Jawaharlal Nehru has been a leading champion of the concept of the secular state. Indeed, the creation of India as a secular state may in time come to be accepted as ‘one of his greatest achievements’, to use the words of Charles I3owles. Nehru had a great aversion to the intrusion of religious factors into politics, and he is especially concerned with transforming India from a ‘caste-ridden society’ in which communalism constitutes a major threat to all the values that lie cherishes to “a national state which includes people of all religions and shades of opinion and is essentially secular as a state.” Religion is all right”, he has said, “when applied to ethics and morals, but it is not good mixed up with politics.”
This statement seems to be in direct contrast to the views of Mahatma Gandhi, whom Nehru himself once described as “essentially a man of religion, a Hindu to the innermost depths of his being.” In a famous passage in his Autobiography Gandhi wrote. “1 can say without slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what religion means”. Gandhi and Nehru, the master and disciple, approached the problem of the relation between religion and politics from very different angles, but essentially, their positions were not so far apart as far as the nature of Indian politics was concerned. Gandhi, a deeply religious man, saw merit and truth in all religions and he “felt that any type of political association based exclusively on adherence to a particular religion was worse than undemocratic”. Nehru, who profess himself to be an agnostic, said that “I have no desire to interfere with any person’s belief”, but he objects strongly to any efforts that perpetuate “a complete structure of society by giving it religious sanction and authority”, and lie desired a state which “protects all religions, but does not favour one at the expense of others and does not itself adopt any religion as the state religion”. Hence, it is easy to understand why both Gandhi and Nehru, though perhaps for different reasons, were so strongly opposed to the whole idea of partition, and why Nehru, referred to the decision of the Constituent Assembly in Karachi in November, 1953, to make Pakistan an Islamic Republic as “medieval concept totally opposed to any democratic conception.”
Nehru insisted that free India should be non communal, secular state. “The government of a country like India,” Nehru declared “with many religions that have secured great acceptance and deep followings for generations, can never function satisfactorily in the modern age accept on a secular basis.” He boasts of the fact that “our Constitution is based on secular conception and gives freedom to all religions.”
The partition of the country and the creation of Pakistan did not change Nehru’s attitude towards secularism nor his faith in the value of secularism in the affairs of a modern state. His family tradition which was liberal in many ways, his education in England and his familiarity with modern secular movement in Europe, had driven deep into him the value and validity of secularism. It was the national movement and nation building in independent India that gave expression to his ideas of secularism. So, the Objective Resolution which he presented in December 1946, became the basis of the Indian Constitution in the following terms:
This constituent Assembly declares its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an independent sovereign Republic wherein shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India,
• Justice, social, economic and political;
• Equality of status, of opportunity and before the law;
• Freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action subject to law and morality;
• Adequate safeguards for minorities backward classes and tribal area and depressed and other backward classes…..
This was before the Constitution of India was finalised and the provision in the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights given final shape.
Indian Constitution & Constituent Assembly
The Constitution was made in the backdrop of the partition of India into two independent t ales and the most massive migration of population that the world have ever witnessed. Firm on it; commitment to uphold secularism; the Constituent Assembly stood for a secular state as against a theocratic. Article 25 describes glorious freedom as the freedom of individual conscience; Article 15 prevents discrimination on the grounds only of religion, caste, sex, race, place of birth or any one of them; the state is prevented tram imposing taxes on grounds of religion alone (Article 27) and imparting religious education in government schools (Article 26). The Constitution also establishes a single citizenship and ensure equality before law and equal enjoyment of legal, social and economic rights to al! its citizens through the equality provisions (Article 1.1-18) but retains cultural and educational rights for linguistic and religious minorities (Article 28, 30) in the hope that this would provide a constitutional guarantee to retain the plural fabric of society and eliminate any fear of the erosion of minority identities. Conceding these social rights to minorities is seen by critics as a violation of the principle of separation of religion from politics. Article 30 is a subject of controversy and the BJI’ demands its amendment on the ground that there should he no discrimination on ground,, of religion in matters of education and that the appeasement of the minorities must stop.
Who are the people who constitute a minority and what should be the relationship between the minority and majority on the one hand, and the sate and the minorities on the other are important questions :roe the point of view of the functioning democracy as well as of secularism and these issues were examined in some depth by the different committees on minority rights in the Constituent Assembly. The sub-committee on the Minorities placed the recognised minority communities in three groups:
1. Communities with a population of less than 0.5% in the Indian Dominion omitting the princely states.
1. Anglo Indian
2. Parsecs
3. Plains Tribesmen in Assani 13. Population not exceeding 1.5% C. Indian Christians I). Population exceeding 1,54.6
4. Sikhs
5. Muslims
6. Scheduled Castes
The sub-commit tee. Considered the question of political and cultural safeguards for the mortise. The political safeguards considered were the question of joint vs separate electorates, reservation of seats in the central and state legislative assemblies and in the cabinet and the administrative services. By an overwhelming majority in the Advisory Committee on the subject of Minority Rights and later in the Constituent Assembly, the system of separate electorates was rejected in the new Constitution on the ground that a common electorate would help remove the poison of communalism from the body politic. ‘the minorities themselves were not unanimous as to the necessity in their own interests of statutory reservation of seats in the legislatures. Reservation of seats in the cabinet, as a constitutional provision, was also seen as giving rise to serious difficulties and a constitutional guarantee for representation of minority communities in the public services in proportion to the population was considered as a dangerous innovation that was not in keeping with a secular democratic state.
The question, which group constitutes the minority and which the majority remains a subject of debate. A majority community at the national level, say the Hindus, may be a minority in certain stales. e.g. Punjab, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizorun, Jammu and Kashmir. It is not only religious groups who regard themselves as minorities. Minority status is also claimed by caste, tribal as well as linguistic groups to draw attention to a situation of self-defined deprivation. If the litmus test of both secularism and democracy is the place enjoyed by the minorities one must examine their demands and issues.
SECULARISM: ITS BASIC OUTLINES
The concept of secularism as embodied in the Constitution of India cannot be viewed in the sense in which it is viewed in the West, but in the context of the following provisions of the Constitution: the Constitution guarantees freedom of
conscience, freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion and also freedom to establish religious institutions and manage or administer their affairs. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion and guarantees legal and so(!al equality to all by providing for equality before law and equal protection of laws, prohibiting discrimination with regard to places of public importance and providing for equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The Constitution also guarantees religious minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and to conserve their script, language and culture.
The provisions would naturally indicate that the Constitution of India endeavors to build up in India the philosophy of secularism on freedom, equality and tolerance in the field of religion. And viewed in this context it is clear that tie Constitution does not build a wall of separation between the state and religion. The essence of secularism is that the state is non-part ion in its relations to citizens, no matter to whatever religion bier belong
Thus, the distinguishing features of a secular democracy as contemplated by the constitution are: (i) that the state will not identify itself with or be controlled by any religion; (ii) Thai while the state guarantees to everyone the right to profess whatever religion one chooses to follow (which includes also the right to be an agnostic or an atheist), it will not accord any preferential treatment to any of them; (iii) that no discrimination will be shown by the state against any person on account of his religion and faith; (iv) that the right of every citizen, subject to any general condition to enter any office under the state will be equal to that of his fellow citizens. Political equality which entitles any Indian citizen to seek the highest office under the state as opposed to what is found of secularism as envisaged by the Constitution.
Although the term secularism was not in the original text of the Constitution, secularism was a subject of animated discussion when the Constituent Assembly look up for consideration the provisions dealing with the freedom of religion.
Explaining the secular character of die Indian Constitution the Supreme Court observed: “There is no mysticism in the secular character of the state. Secularism is neither anti-God nor pro-God, it treats alike the devout, the agnostic and the atheist. It eliminates God from the matter of the state and ensures no one shall be discriminated against on the ground of religion.
The basic outlines of the secularism is enshrined in the following Articles of the Constitution:
1. Preamble: It is true that the word ‘secular’ did not first occur either in Article 25 or 26 or in any other Article or Preamble of the Constitution.l3y the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the Preamble was amended and for the words ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ the words ‘Sovereign, socialist, secular, Democratic Republic’ were substituted.
2. NNo State Religion: There shall be no ‘state religion’ in India. The state will neither establish a religion of its own nor confer any special patronage upon any particular religion.
It follows from that:
1. The state will not compel any citizen to pay any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious institution (Article 27).
2. No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly run by state funds.
3. Even though religious instruction be imparted in educational institutions recognised by state or receiving aid from the state, no person at lending such institution shall be compelled to receive that religious instruction without the consent of himself or of his guardian. In short, while religious instruction is totally banned in state-owned educational institutions, in other denominational institutions it is not totally prohibited but it must not be imposed upon people of other religions without their consent (Article 28).
3. Freedom of Conscience: Avery person is guaranteed the freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practise and propagate his own religion, subject only:
1. to restrictions imposed by the state on the interest of public order, morality and health (so that the freedom of religion may not be abused to commit crimes or antisocial acts, e.g., to commit the practice of infanticide, and the like);
2. to regulations or restrictions made by state relating, to any economic, financial, political or outer secular activity which may he associated with religious practice, bill do not really related to the freedom of conscience;
3. to measures of social reform and for throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Subject to above limitations, a person in India shall have the right not only to entertain any religious belief but also to practise the obligations dictated by such belief, and to preach his see%., to ethers (Article 2Fi)
o Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs: ‘liernes not only the fit-0,10m of individual to pro fess, practise and propagate his religion, them is also the right guaranteed to every religious groups or denominations:
1. to establish and maintain institutions (or religious and charitable purposes.
2. to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
3. to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
4. to administer such property in accordance with law (Article 26)
+ Equality Before Law: Article 14 grants equality law and equal protection by the laws to all. Article 15 enlargos the concept of secularism to the widest possible extent prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religions, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of public employment and reiterates that there would be no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth and residence.
+ Cultural and Educational Rights: Under Article 29 and 30 certain cultural and educational rights are guaranteed. Article 29 guarantees the right cf any section of the citizens residing in any part of the country having a distinct language, script or culture of its own and to conserve the same Article 30 provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”.
In M. Isnetil Earn p17 tVS Union i f India (Ayodhya Case) the Supreme Court has stimmerised the true concept of secularism under the Constitution as follows:
“It is clear from the constitutional scheme that it guarantees equality in the matter of ail individuals and groups irrespective of their faith emphasizing that there is no religion of slate itself The Preamble of the Constitution read in particular with Article 25 to 28 emphasizes this aspect and indicates that it is in this manner the concept of secularism is embodied in the constitutional scheme as a creed adopted by the Indian people has to he understood while examining the constitutional validity of any legislation. The concept of secularism is one facet of the right to equality woven as the central golden thread in the fabric depicting the pattern of the scheme in our constitution”.
It is amazing that some Christian leaders assert that the word ‘propagates’ in Article 25(1) gives them a fundamental right to convert people of other faiths into Christianity, by any means. The Supreme Court while examining the MP and Orissa Acts in 1977 held that “if any such right to convert be conceded, such right would belong to every religion, so that there would inevitably be a breach of public peace if every religious community carried on a campaign to convert people belonging to other faiths, by the use of force, fraud, inducement or allurement f-he state was, therefore, constitutionally authorized to maintain public order by prohibiting and penalizing conversion (including attempt to convert) if force, inducement or allurement was used by the person on persons advocating conversion in any particular case”.
Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of both he MP and Orissa Ads, after rejecting every plea raised on behalf of the Christian parties.
Theory and Practice of Secularism
When Jawaharlal Nehru framed the objective Resolution of the Constitutor secularism figured as an important aspect of C Known to be a secularist by ‘instinct’, Nehru associated secularism with modernity and considered sentiments based on caste and religion as backward and a belief from the past. He felt that religious tolerance, an essential aspect of secularism was a characteristic of Indian culture. But this was not all. According to Nehru, narrow religious groupings, binding or loyalties must exclude many sections of the population and only create Hindu nationalism, Muslim nationalism and Christian nationalism and not Indian nationalism. In a country with different religious groups, it is important to build real nationalism on the basis of the secularity. Secularism in essential for the survival of muhi-nation state.
What is a secular state? Nehru was not happy with the word ‘secular’ but used it for want of a better word:
“It does not obviously mean a state where religion as such is discouraged. It means freedom of religion and conscience, including freedom for those who have no religion. It means free play for all religions, subject only to their not interfering with each other or with the basic concept of our state”.
A secular suite, therefore, is not an anti-religious state but a state without a religion. It involves the concept of religious freedom for all faiths living within the state. Secularism is not only a characteristic of the state but involves the concept of religious co-existence and the concept of equal citizenship rights It also characterizes an attitude of mind which must be shared by the minority and majority religious communities living within the state.
K.N. Panikkar argues that there are three characteristics of the kind of secular state that India claims to be:
Firstly, the secular slate postulates that political institutions must be based on the economic and social interests of the entire community, without reference to religion, race or seat; that all must enjoy equal rights and no privileges, prescriptive rights or special claims should be allowed for any group on the basis of religion.
Secondly, it eliminates from the body politic ideas of division between individuals and groups on the basis of their faith and racial origin.
In the third place. It is obvious that a composite secular state must accept as the basis of its
policy what Aristotle termed as ‘distributive justice’, the idea that all communities must have power, as they must share the duties and responsibilities of being citizens.
Secularism is essential for democracy, even though in its ideal form it may not exist anywhere in the world. India ran into difficulties soon after independence on the question of a Common Chit Code (CCC) which was meant to bring about gender justice and equality uniformly amongst the different religious communities. The government, in spite of its majority in the Parliament, had to give in to pressure front orthodox Muslims that changes in the personal law amounted to interference in the religious laws of the community. Instead the Hindu Code Bill was passed which enacted changes in the Hindu marriage laws. The issue of a CCC has since been beset with acrimonious debate, convicting a question of gender justice and equality into a communal one. Many other such questions acquired a religious connotation and therefore became problematic for state policy.
Does the separation of the state (font religion involve a state policy of equi-distance, neutrality and/or non-interference? Rajeev Bhargav argues that (a) ‘modern secularism is fully compatible with indeed sometimes even dictate a defence of differentiated citizenship and (b) the secularity of the state does not necessitate strict intervention, non-intervention or equidistance but rather any or all of these as the case may be’. Bhargav therefore argues a case for ‘group sensitivity’ and ‘principled distance’ as against the policy of equidistance. However, what constitutes ‘principled distance’ may itself create controversies.
Bhikhu Parekh considers both the vision of the modernity (sendarisn) being a part of it) and the Hindutra imago of India as flawed, the latter more than the former. The modernist image defines India almost exclusively in political terms and has a limited cultural content. On the other hand, the Hindutva view of India has a considerable potential for mischief. It breathes the spirit of intolerance, alienates the minorities and even large sections of the majority and works against national unity’. K.M. Panikkar argued in the 60s. and the argument holds good even today, that “in a plural society what is required is an overriding loyalty to the state and a general tolerance of each other’s ideas and not an assimilation of different groups that is the type of integration that India evolved and to attempt to force any other on her would be to go against the principles of India’s historical evolution.” Bipan Chandra recognizes ‘the little grain of truth in the talk of minorityism’ but argues that communalism is a single ideology with Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian variants or manifestations. A simultaneous struggle has to be waged against all the different loans of communalism as their feed on each other. Communalism represents ‘ii rationality’, hatred, intolerance and obscurantism, and is harmful to both, the other and ourself. All communalism is harmful; the logic of minority communalism is separatism, and majority communalism culminates’ in fascism.
Thus, we see after forty years of independence Nehru’s concept of secularism has begun to be subjected to considerable critical appraisal both intellectually and politically. This vision is treated as idealistic, unrealistic and influenced by alien western concepts that cannot take roots in the Indian environments. Ashis Nandv observes that increasing inter-religious riots are taking places in cities, especially in and around industrial areas. Religious violence, according to Nandy, has something to do with the urban-industrial vision of life and with the political processes the vision of lets loose. Modem India has, therefore, a lot to answer for. Like Nandy, T.V. Madam regards secularism as a dream of a minority, which wants to shape the majority in its own image but lacks the power to do so tinder a democratically organized polity. Madan argues that the stone may be described as secular hut society in India is not. The majority does not know whether it is desirable to privatize religion and if it is how that may be done. Secularism, therefore, is a ‘social myth’ and an alien ‘cultural ideology’ that takes the support of the state and has failed to make the desired headway in India What has made great strides are Hindu revivalism and Muslim and Sikh fundamentalism. The failure of secularism, according to Nandy is attributable to modernity, whereas to Madan it is the existence of a primordial society which is responsible for it.
Akeel Bilgrami describes secularism as a statistic imposition, a vision of a modernist tyranny that just as surely (as the narrow communalism) stands against the pluralist and tolerant traditions that existed in the uncontaminated traditions of religions as faith and way of life prior to modernity’s distortions. Bilgrami’s criticism of Nehruvian securlarism is not that it is a statist imposition on a people who never wished to separate religion from politics but this imposition was not a doctrine that was the outcome of a negotiation between different communities. Bilgrami argues that even in the pre-independence period the Congress insisted on claiming that it represented all communities and refused to negotiate between different communal interests. On the eve of the independence, The Congress claimed to he a nationalist party like none other and represented an ‘implicit’ and ‘tacit’ negotiation for secularism. In this sense (because of its rarefied, non-negotiable status) secularism is ‘an imposition’, at best ‘a holding process’ rather than a substantive commitment- This suggests a limited success for secularism i which was shaky even during Nehru’s regime and started to give way opportunity politics leading to and climaxing in the Ayodhya incident and the demolition of Babri Masjid. Bilgrami argues that secularism can only emerge as a value by negotiating between the substantive commitments of particular religious communities, from the bottom upwards, with the moderate political leadership of different religious communities negotiating both procedure and substance’.
It is important to note that while none of the above critics rejects secularism, they all se. is as problematic to define and its,, as a concept that in some sways involves, in the Indian context, a mismatch between state and society. Further, the implementation of the policy of secularism loos left a lot to be desired. Communal parties and organizations Continue to be operative in politics. Even secular parties do not refrain from exploiting communal sentiments for political gains. External support to communal and secessionist movements aggravates the situations the government’ under pressure tries to placate different groups by allowing time on the radio and television for religious preaching, sometimes to one group and sometimes to another.
The Supreme Court and Secularism
On a highly politicized issue like secularism it is difficult for the judiciary to play a conclusive role. However, it is important to examine a few cases and judgemeuls made by the Supreme Court which highlight the issue of secularism versus communalism.
The constitution of India vests the Election Commission of India with the authority to hold free and lair elections and to take preventive steps to control malpractices. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Art, 1951, declares appeals on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, language or the use of religions or national symbols by the candidates or their election agents or by any other persons with the consent of the candidates or their election agents as corrupt practice. In the R.K. Bukhari rs. 13. R. Mehra Case (AIR-1975, SC 1788), the returned candidate and the other contesting candidates were both Muslims. It was argued that one of the candidates had criticized Mr. Chagla of the Congress party for not living a true Muslim as he had supported a change in the Muslim Personal I aw and that such criticism on religious grounds amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123(3). The Supreme Court upheld the view that propaganda
till grounds of religion, profession and practice is not merely an undignified personal attack on candidates but also an attempt to get votes by arousing the religious sentiments of electors. It further upheld the view that the unity and integrity of the nation and public peace and order cannot be allowed to be disturbed in the name of religion, for that would violate the secular democratic character of Constitution.
In the Harcharrnr Singh vs Sajjrrn Singh Case (AIR 1985 SC 236), it was alleged that the returned candidate, his election agent and other persons with his consent had appealed to the electors in the name of Sikh religion. The tried court dismissed the petition and justice Saliyasaclii Mukherji speaking further court held that mere distribution of tickets and sponsorship by a religious body like the would not itself constitute an appeal on the grounds of religion. In a similar vein in Kin tar Singh vs Muktior Singh (AIR 1965 SC 141), the Chief Justice Gajendra Gadkar speaking for the unit observed: “so long as, law does not prohibit the information of such parties and in fact recognizes them for the purpose of election and parliamentary life, it would be necessary to remember that an appeal made by such candidates of such parties (or votes may, if successful, lead to their election and in an indirect way may conceivably be influenced by consideration of religion, race, caste, community or language. This infirmity cannot, perhaps, be avoided so long as parties are allowed to function and are recognised, through their composition trap be predominantly based on membership of particular communities or religion.
Thus, the courts have failed to strike a balance between the requirements of secularism in the country and the right of a candidate of political party having religious affiliation to exploit his affiliation for winning the election. This separation is essential for the unity and integrity of the nation since election propaganda whether based on linguistic or communal rivalry can be quite poisonous and disturbs the whole democratic polity. However, courts come into the picture only when a particular Act is alleged to have been committed. There is an inherent limitation which prevents the courts from going beyond the judicial circumference and therefore the courts cannot be the appropriate forum for preventing the use of such practices.
Conclusion: Secularism has to play a decisive role at present stage of Indian democracy. It is so because today when the Indian democracy seems to face the challenge of narrow divisive trends and tendencies, a rational and scientific approach which is the basis of secularism has become a matter of utmost importance. Communal disturbances which have distinguished the public life in the recent past, as well the birth and growth of narrow and divisive trends and obscurantist theories are mainly the result of ignorance can be fought not by legislation alone, nor by a negative fiat alone, but by education, and in the process of educating the traditional Indian mind, secularism and all that it stands for the political leaders have to play a major role.
Kamaluddin Khan
Leccturer,
Patna Law College,
Patna University Patna