Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
If day 1 of the Parliament is anything to go by, the winter session is bound to be an interesting one again. If the government and opposition can spar on a harmless subject such as celebrating Dr. B R Ambedkar’s 125th anniversary in the form of Constitution day, it will be APOCALYPSE NOW when GST and other important bills are tabled. Sonia Gandhi minced no words yesterday when she said that those who had no role to play in framing the constition were now swearing to protect it. She quoted Ambedkar in saying “No matter how good the Constitution is, if the people who implement it are bad, then the Constitution will also turn out bad. And no matter how bad the Constitution is, if the people who implement it are good, it will turn out to be good.” Congress’ attack on the government was along expected lines. The last few days and months have seen a whole deal of brouhaha on the rising intolerance in the country. Constitution day merely provided a formal venue, from where the Gandhis could mouth their oft repeated attacks on the government. However, the highlight of the day was Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s statement which put the Congress in the dock. He said “Secularism is the most misused word in the country…This must stop. Because of the rampant misuse of the word, there have been instances of tension in society”.
Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
Before we get swayed by Parliamentary debates that are usually full of rhetoric and low on substance, one must go through facts. India’s constitution came into being on 26th November 1949, after nearly 3 years of discussions. Dr. B R Ambedkar deserves full credit for drafting a progressive constitution that brought an ancient civilization into the modern world with the stroke of a pen. Of the 389 members in the constituent assembly, 208 belonged to the Congress, 73 to the Muslim League, 93 to princely states and the remaining 15 to other political formations. Muslim Leaguers obviously quit the constituent assembly once Pakistan came into being, leaving the Congress Party in an overwhelming majority in the assembly, hence removing the possibility for diametrically opposite political views to be present in the assembly. The constitution of India is one of world’s most amended, having been amended roughly thrice in every two year’s duration. The words secularism and socialism were added to the Preamble of the constitution through an amendment process in 1976, at the height of Indira’s emergency. This is not to say that Ambedkar or other makers of our constitution intended India to be a theocracy of any sort. However, it was this introduction of Secularism in the preamble that has proved to be controversial in India’s political discourse.
Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
One must understand the origins of the word secularism and its relevance in the Indian civilization to discuss this issue better. The term secularism arose in European politics in the aftermath of the French revolution that sought to undo the powers of the church and replace them with the powers of the state. In simple terms, Secularism became the war cry for separation of church and state. In medieval Europe, Church was an all powerful institution that possessed land, maintained armies, levied taxes and could throne and dethrone Kings. Secularization was an attempt to break the power of the church and create an alternate power center in the form of the state. Europe went through a catastrophic process of wars and wanton violence to replace the power of the church. In India, there was hardly any institution that could mirror the power of the church. During the medieval ages, India was ruled by invaders and while the majority of the population might have looked towards local priests or god-men, there was no single entrenched religious structure that towered over them. Added to this was the inherent Indian tolerance for foreigners with varied beliefs and ideologies, which made it very difficult for a single orthodox interpretation of Hinduism to persist. It is probably because of this that India tends to be very confused as far as the terminology of secularism is concerned.
Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
France was one of world’s first secular countries. It enforced Secularism after the French revolution, when it drowned priests in the middle of the ocean, in a rite known as Noyades de Nantes. This was the French way at curbing the church. As early as 1905, France established Laïcité whereby there is absence of religious involvement in government affairs. It especially prohibits religious influence in the determination of state policies. It is because of this policy that France is able to ban religious symbols such as Niqab, Skull cap, Christian crosses etc. with relative ease as individuals must appear as simple citizens in public sphere, as opposed to what they do in their private lives. Another example of a Secular state in Turkey, that in 1924 abolished the Caliphate and ushered in an era of secularism that continued till almost 2000s, when a more Islamic minded party took power. Even now, Turkey is still officially a secular state. Islam, which is the largest religion is controlled by the state to the extent that Friday sermons have to be state approved. Bans similar to France in terms of open public expression of religious symbols are still in place. Contrast this form of secularism with the one practised in the United States. In the US, the constitution bans governmental interference with the free exercise of religion and at the same time disallows the declaration of a State religion. The Indian form of secularism mirrors the US variant closely in practice. However, the historical context which led to the establishment of secularism (many of the first settlers in the US were victims of religious intolerance in Europe) was missing in India. The western world, in general gravitated towards being irreligious, at least publicly, as a means of undermining the church. Being irreligious eventually became a higher order virtue in Western society.
Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
Coming back to India, there is a difference between being Atheistic and Irreligious in the Indian context. Indic terms will convey this sentiment better. As a person, I may choose to be Panthnirpeksh (free from any sect), but I would not want to be Adharmi. The concept of Dharma in Indic religions is vastly different from what religion means in the Western world. This is where the first discrepancy between Indian secularism and secularism world wide lies. This is what Rajnath Singh spoke of yesterday, when he said the correct translation of Secularism should be Panthnirpeksh (Free from a panth) and not Dharmnirpeksh (Free from Dharma). That he was still booed down is another matter. The bigger problem however is that in India secularism has been reduced to pandering the needs of vote banks. In line with this ideology, majority religion must be limited and curtailed, while minority religions should be appeased at all times as they provide lucrative vote banks. Theoretically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the Indian variant of secularism (except for the Dharmnirpeksh part), but it is the practice of Secularism that has been prostituted to meet electoral requirements. It is this that rankles many Indians. And it is this that forced Rajnath Singh to launch a fierce attack on the Gandhis. Congress has for years now pandered to vote bank politics. It has used the flag of secularism to indulge in scare mongering among minorities. Rajnath’s emphatic speech today has dent a big hole in the Congress’s intolerance centered attack. One still hopes that something useful will emerge from yesterday’s discussions on secularism.
Rajnath Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the battle of secularism
