Secular values, beliefs should be reaffirmed

Secularism as an idea is considered by some as a Western import and by several others as an Indian value. Scholars and commentators have written volumes on the issue and the judiciary has delivered verdicts that are being commented upon as controversial, resulting in an ambiguous situation for the activists. The founding fathers of the Constitution had debated the issue threadbare in the Constituent Assembly and were finally satisfied with the provision of freedom of religion and conscience that became Article 25. It was KT Shah who brought an amendment to get the terms ‘secular and socialist’ included in the Constitution.

But Ambedkar and Nehru, who were groomed under the Fabian philosophy and secular culture, did not agree with it. It doesn’t mean that they were against the idea. If we read carefully the statement made by Ambedkar, it was abundantly made clear that freedom of religion and conscience would take care of the implications of secularism at the given stage of progress of society. He further elaborated that if an advanced and mature society needs it, they will go for the amendment at an appropriate time. Perhaps the nation arrived at the appropriate time in 1976 and through an amendment, the ideas got into the Preamble to the Constitution and were later sustained through different judicial pronouncements.

But there are critiques that challenge the idea on the ground that there is no need for a secular Constitution — both as a value and as a norm — since the Hindus constitute the majority and subscribe to the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (‘the world is one family’). The issue here is how the concept is viewed by different parties to the debate. Those who have interpreted it as dharma nirapekshata or sarva dharma sambhava did not spell out what they meant by dharma or religion. Unless we know what is an organised religion or religious practice, it is difficult to put it into practice.

In modern society, religion has acquired certain characteristics like faith, scripture, rituals, flag, holy book and other forms of organisation that might include political clout. Therefore, all religions, even if we wish to treat them on the same footing, are not similar. For instance, let us look at the two domesticated animals, cow and swine, or the marriage rituals of different castes within Hinduism and Christian denominations etc. We will have a lot of problems here.

Therefore, one solution that appeared was ‘to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India’ as a directive principle in Article 44. A similar directive in Article 48 was made under the organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry ‘on modern and scientific lines… take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.’

The two Articles were kept under the directive principles as instruments of instruction to the State to judicially adhere to while making laws, perhaps at an appropriate time. The laws pertain to the cow and other milch animals (including the buffalo), but a particular animal that is holy for some is made sacred and the buffalo that sustains our agriculture is kept aside.

It is also true amid the clamour for a uniform civil code. We often listen to some friends arguing for Hinduism to be made a state religion, like Islam in our neighbouring country, Pakistan. Is it possible? Islam is a monotheistic religion and Hinduism is polytheistic. Hinduism is not Brahminism or Vaishnavism alone. It is an amorphous concept that does not include the practices of non-dwija (twice-born) communities, as touted by a few. In fact, the religious practices of lower and Bahujan castes and Adivasis are different from the Brahminical rituals.

Some of the lower castes are kept outside the reach of the Hindu places of worship even today. Interestingly, a majority of the idols of goddesses are drawn from lower castes like Dombi, Sabari and Rajaki in the tantric and Natha traditions. It is different from the Brahminical saptamatrukas. The places of worship of the lower castes, particularly in rural India, are under a tree, mostly in the Dravidian country. It is difficult to place the Adivasis, Dalits, artisan/service castes, and even the Shudras who practise traditions that are different from the mainstream so-called Brahminical rituals as Hindu, given the present euphoria. The issue of diversity within Hinduism seems to have not been taken care of by many scholars, both Western and Indian, while examining the issue of secularism.

Secularism as a moral value had been cherished by Ashoka as a ruler and promoter. Perhaps Ashoka was one of the earliest rulers in the world who as a king inscribed (at Girnar rock edicts): “herein the following (are comprised), (viz.) proper courtesy to slaves and servants, reverence to elders, gentleness to animals, (and) liberality to Brahmanas and Sramanas; these and other such (virtues) are called the practice of morality… Whoever praises his own religion due to excess devotion and condemns others, only harms his religion.”

Therefore, secularism depicted by some as a European idea is misplaced. It became a value after the deadly experience of the Crusades; at the most, it was medieval. In British India, officers trained in utilitarian values were responsible for secular education in India after 1854. The grant-in-aid code of 1868 in the Madras Presidency was very clear about secularism in the sense of not allowing any kind of religious instruction in the government-funded institutions.

In fact, the same traditions were followed by the Nehru government after Independence before religion became a vote bank. It means secularism was practised in administration and other wings of the government. Even today, the executive, judiciary and the legislative wings are secular in their functioning except those political leaders who as public servants fail to follow a code of conduct and are susceptible to disciplinary proceedings as they cross their oath of affirmation. If it were a civil servant, it would have attracted disciplinary proceedings. It is the so-called secular activists who miscarry the nuances of secularism and fail to bring the culprit to book.