SECULARISM: The belief that consideration of the present well being of Mankind should take precedence over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education. (source : Webster's dictionary)
THE BACKGROUND
The Constitution of India was passed by the Constituent Assembly on November, 1949 and came into effect on January 26, 1950. It declared The Union of India to be a sovereign, democratic, republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty; the words "socialist" and "secular" were added to the definition in 1976 by the 42nd constitutional amendment, during the emergency imposed by Smt. Indira Gandhi.
The premise with which we start this discussion leads us to believe that India adopted Secularism as a matter of state policy subsequent to the year 1976, when it was incorporated as a part of our Constitution. The fact that the founding fathers of the Constitution did not find it necessary to introduce this belief as a matter of state policy speaks volumes with regards to the fact of the concept of Secularism being part of the Indian psyche and engrained in our thoughts, and therefore needing no further assertion.
History is witness to the fact that theocracy was never a part of the policy/affairs of the Indian state from times immemorial. Although religion played a very important role in the lives of the citizens, it was kept away from the affairs of the state. The state per se remained completely Secular. Religion remained restricted to the temples and other places designated for it, the Purohit remained separate from the Mantri. India never fought Crusades for the sake of propagating religion.
In fact, the only period of time when the state propagated a particular religion as a matter of state policy was when Ashoka endorsed Buddhism. Ashoka after his experience during the Kalinga war used his army for the propagation of the edicts of Buddhism. One of the major reasons for the decline and fall of the Mauryan empire could be attributed to this intertwining of religion and the state.
In India although the stress was laid on the concept of Dharma, this dharma pertained to duties rather than religion. A king was supposed to adhere to his Rajya dharma, i.e his duties and obligations towards his people and not religion.
THE IMPLEMENTATION
1989 remains a watershed year for the 'Secularism' we witness today. An elderly Muslim lady, Shah Bano sought alimony from her husband. The case had been in the courts for years. In 1989, the Supreme court applying section 125 of the Criminal procedure code, granted her alimony. All hell then broke loose, since there was no common law for personal matters, the Hindu personal act applied for Hindus and the Muslim personal law for the Muslims. Even today, the country does not have a common codified civil law.
The erstwhile Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi initially made a spirited defence of the Court's ruling. Arif Mohd. Khan, a minister in the ruling govt. made an impassionate appeal in the Parliament in support of the Court's decision. But this spirit soon evaporated and life was back to square one. The P.M backed out in the face of resistance from the fundamentalists. That he was under fire politically, because of the Bofors issue did not help matters. The govt. brought in an amendment to annul the court's ruling. Shah Bano was not the only looser in this charade. The fundamentalists had smelt blood. The message that votes matter much more than policy was affirmed.
Bending down before fundamentalists is a double edged sword, for you cannot be seen to be pandering to one community only, since it is not one community alone which makes the hard walk to the voting booth.
The late Rajiv Gandhi started his election campaign later that year from Ayodhya with a call to usher in 'Ram Rajya', the very idea of which was anathema to his grandfather, Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first P.M of India.
The politics of fatwa made its appearance in force for the first time during the elections in 1989, when V.P Singh obtained the blessings of the Shahi Imam. Fatwas have been integral part of secular Indian polity ever since.
With the passage of time, the word Secularism has lost its meaning completely.
The govt. of India (whichever govt. it may be) pays Haj subsidy to Muslim pilgrims going on their annual Haj pilgrimage, pays subsidy to minority educational institutions whereas the law prohibits any govt. grant to institutions imparting religious education. So a school teaching Hindu scriptures does not get any grant from the govt. whereas a madarasa, teaching we all know what, gets grants from govt., ostensibly on it being a minority educational institution. The policy of Reservation does not apply to minority educational institutions.
Whatever the intention behind introducing Secularism as a part of our constitution, today it has become the last refuge of the politicians, who fall back upon the cliche of 'Secularism' while hiding their misdeeds. Therefore, the Sacchar commission can make recommendations regarding giving reservations to Muslims in govt. jobs, posting Muslim teachers in colleges in Muslim dominated areas. The pretext being that this will ensure greater representation to the minority community in govt. services and bring them into the mainstream.
The moment the idea of dividing people on the basis of religion, by providing jobs based on their religion is challenged, the person is branded as 'Communal' and treated as an outcast. No politician worth his salt is willing to answer the query regarding the necessity of reservations on the basis of religion more than 60 years of Independence. Why has no effort been made to provide quality education by the govt. schools free of cost or at subsidised rates? Quality education to all citizens irrespective of their religion would have negated the very need to reserve post for a Hindu or a Muslim. It might sound simplistic, but education open doors for progress, not Secularism as practiced by the politicians.But then again, an educated citizenry might see through this farce being played out in the name of secularism and stuff, so why educate?
Even the war on terror is being seen through the prism of the so called Secularism. Therefore the Shahi Imam can come to Saraymir in Azamgarh to express his solidarity with the family of Bashir, who was arrested for the terror attacks in various parts of the nation. The Shahi Imam can then brazenly claim that Inspector M.C.Sharma who was killed in the Jamia Nagar encounter was killed by the police themselves, in order to frame the Muslims. As far as conspiracy theories go, this statement is at par with the findings of the U.C.Banerjee commission which arrived at the conclusion that the train at Godhra was burnt from the inside by the kar sevaks themselves. But any one opposing the statement of the Shahi Imam or questioning the U.C. Banerjee commission about the reason why hundreds of people surrounded the train while it burnt and not helping the burning passengers is bound to be labelled 'Communal'.
Explosions in various parts of the country have become so routine that any single day which passes of peacefully is treated as an aberration and people are apprehensive about the next day bringing something even more grave. The security agencies who as it is are undermanned, demoralised and lack clear directives, are being made to conform to the Indian standards of 'Secularism'. The National Human Rights Commission has questioned the encounter at Jamia Nagar and openly accuse the police of targeting a 'particular community'. The same people never empathise with the victims of terrorism or the Kashmiri Pandits forcibly driven away from their homes.
The proposition of targeting a particular community would have been laughable, if it was not so dangerous. My request to these Hon'bles is to look around and 'get real'. Even the progenitor of terrorism, Pakistan is feeling the heat from this Frankenstein, and so are countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt. But nowhere does this shrill cry of targeting ' a particular community' while fighting terrorism raised.Bombs do not differentiate while killing innocents, be it the mosque in Hyderabad and Malegaon, or the Sankat Mochan temple in Varanasi, or the Akshardham temple in Gujarat.
At times it appears that the bombs practice more Secularism since it does not differentiate between a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, whereas our institutions differentiate everything into religious categories.
THE CONSEQUENCES
The Secularism being practiced in the country has resulted in dividing everything into a Hindu-Muslim issue. The vacillation by the Govt. in tackling terrorism for the sake of a vote bank has resulted in a situation wherein every Muslim is being treated as a suspect, because the common people have no faith in the determination of the political parties. A feeling has gained ground that the politicians will deal everything with their plea of 'secularism'.
It is an extremely unfortunate situation because as all Hindus cannot be categorised as nationalists, so all the Muslims cannot be categorised as terrorists. It is extremely unfair for a complete class of people to be treated as something which they definitely are not. Or maybe this is what our politicians desire. Labelling Muslims as terrorist will only consolidate the feeling of alienation and increase the ghettoisation, resulting in more votes in their favour. This marriage of convenience between Democracy and Secularism bodes ill for the future of our nation.
The other fall out of this flawed practice of Secularism has been the suppression of the moderate Muslim voices, who have retreated into the background, while the extremists take centre stage. Shah Bano was the starting point and the govt. action ( or inaction) yielded complete space to these fundamentalists. The question as to why the extremist voices are said to represent Secularism, begs an answer. The moderates are convinced that the govt. will side with the extremists when push comes to shove, so why compromise one's life and honour? An informal discussion with the editor of a leading Hyderabad Urdu daily, Siyasat Times, revealed that he had faced threats to his life while opening a call centre training centre for Muslim girls, in order to uplift their stature, not from the Hindu fundamentalists but from local Muslim fundamentalists. So much so for secularism, Indian style.
The act of the Jamia Milia University Vice Chancellor Mushirul Hasan, in deciding to fight the legal battle for the students arrested for their complicity in the terror attacks in the country is a link in the same perverted chain of 'secularism'. Agreed that everyone is innocent till proven guilty, it is still not understood that how a centrally funded University can take the onus of fighting a legal battle on behalf of these students. The money being provided to these Universities is Public Money, isn't it? We do not pay our taxes for them to be utilised in this ungainly manner, do we? Even the statement of the Vice Chancellor that they will be utilising money generated from their own resources, cuts no ice. Students getting admitted into the University are paying a subsidised fees on account of it being a Central University, and the fee is being submitted on account of them obtaining the services of a central University, nothing less and nothing more. What makes this money the private property of Jamia Milia University, Mr.Vice Chancellor? And furthermore, what message is sent to the misguided youth at large? That they are being persecuted by the state and only their fellow religionists will come for their help!
Recently an IPS officer was penalised for pointing out the anomalies of the sixth pay commission unduly in favour of the IAS officers, on the pretext of violating the Conduct rules. I wonder whether the same conduct rules apply for the Vice Chancellor, Jamia Milia University, since he for all practical purposes is a central govt. employee. But our esteemed HRD minister has publicly supported the stand of the Vice Chancellor. So much so for secularism.
The security agencies are demoralised to start of with, and such 'Secular' acts further enhances their insecurity. Why not let the law take its own course,instead of vitiating the already poor atmosphere!! Why does this country not care more for people who give up their lives at the call of their duty? How can people like the Shahi Imam raise questions, which only exacerbate the morale of the security forces, and get away without any legal or constitutional remedy for the officers? How can Ram Bilas Paswan roam around with an Osama bin Laden lookalike seeking Muslim votes, without the law taking its course? Is the minister not aware of the avowed pronouncement of this terrorist rgarding India being enemy no.1 along with U.S.A, Israel and Russia? All for the sake of 'Secularism' of course.
By the way, maybe the Vice Chancellor of the Jamia Milia University would enlighten us with the amount contributed by them for the recent horrible floods in Bihar. Or their 'Secular' hearts bleed only for a certain cause.
These so called 'Secular' acts also gives credence to the assertion of the lumpen elements on the other side of the fence, regarding the govt. taking sides. The only looser in this battle is the common law abiding citizen of the country, who only desires basic amneties, equality before law, equal opportunites irrespective of caste, creed or religion.
