India: Secularism — A Grossly Abused Concept

in Politics

The country experienced worst ever communal riots, bloodbath, arson and other
crimes against humanity consequent to the creation of two independent
dominions for the Muslims and Hindus by dividing the nation after the partition in
1947.

by Dr. Jaipal Singh- Jan 17, 2018

( January 17, 2018, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The secularism implies equal
treatment to all religions in India without endorsing or giving any preferential
treatment to any one by the state. At the time of independence from the British
imperialists, the division of the country was made on the basis of the ‘Two Nation
Theory’ pursued by Mohammad Ali Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders – the
essence of which was that the Hindus and Muslims are so different that they
cannot peacefully co-exist together. Though Pakistan opted for and progressed as
a Islamic state but India practically opted for secularism without specifically
adopting it through the Constitution. The term secular was later included in the
Preamble to the Indian Constitution through the 42nd amendment in 1976 but
neither the Constitution nor any other law specifically defines the relationship
between the state and religion.
The laws of the country, however, implicitly ask the state and its institutions to
recognise all religions, enforce parliamentary laws, and recognise and respect
pluralism in the country. Notwithstanding these provisions, there is a clear
dichotomy in the applicable code of law because Hindus, Christians, Sikhs,
Buddhists and Jains in the country live under the common law but the Muslim
population has a separate Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law including the
matters such as inheritance, marriage, divorce, alimony etc. Such inequality has
created a large number of serious social and political issues such as polygamy,
extrajudicial and unequal divorce rights, inheritance rights, improving the quality
of education in religious institutions etc.
As against this in Western countries, the secularism implies complete separation
of the religion from State. However, many Western countries are officially secular
yet they endorse an official state religion. Germany, England and many other
West European countries have mixed population with the majority Christians and
other minority religious groups yet the countries are officially designated as
Christian nations. Thus Indian secularism is radically different from the conception
of secularism in the Western Europe which does not even pretend to have
equality or impartiality in the matters of the religion.
While conceptually the Indian position on secularism appears more rational but
its application by the state has been a cause of abuse as the political parties are
known to igniting the social and religious conflicts and take sides for consolidating
their voters’ base to stay in power. While several political parties including the
Communists and Regional/Socialists are in the play but in essence it is the role of
two national parties viz. Indian National Congress (INC or Congress) and Bhartiya
Janta Party (BJP) that really matters grossly influencing the socio-religious and
political fabric of the nation.
The INC, historically most popular and dominant political party established in
1885, is one with a broad-base that participated in the freedom struggle under
the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and ruled this country for almost six decades
after independence. Traditionally, the Congress has the image so carved of a
secular party on a social-liberal platform and centre-left leanings in the Indian
politics. On the other hand, the BJP is currently the largest political party in terms
of strength in the parliament and state assemblies which holds no secrets about
its right-wing ideology and staunch nationalist sentiments. The party has
undergone several transformations since it was first established in 1951 as the
Bhartiya Jan Sangh, and is often identified for its commitment to Hindutva.
Ironically, despite the professed ideology of an equal treatment to all religions
without endorsing or giving any preferential treatment to any one by the state,
the Congress brand of secularism constantly failed to follow it in the letter and
spirit under the long years of its regime since independence. The Party has been
often accused of giving a preferential treatment and appeasement to the minority
(Muslim) community and allowing them to continue with Sharia based own
personal law by recognising them culturally different from other Indians religions
and Christians as electoral strategy.
In fact, Manmohan Singh, ex-Prime Minister of the Congress party is on record to
say that the Muslims minority have the first and foremost right on the national
resources. In later years, the Communists and regional parties with socialist
makeup tried to snatch, and to a considerable extent successfully, this agenda
and tactics of the Congress in various parts of the country. Ironically, the followers
of this form of secularism claim themselves as the true secularists and liberals
who oppose any attempt of reforms in the Muslim community or uniform civil
code under the influence of orthodox Muslim leaders and clergy on the plea that
equal laws for all citizens, irrespective of their religion, would impose majoritarian
Hindu sensibilities and ideals.
On the other hand, the BJP is an advocate of Hindutva i.e. preserving and
glorifying the ancient cultural heritage and traditions of Hinduism. At the same
time, it talks of social justice and development of all communities and favours a
uniform civil code for all citizens under the state laws. According to this party, a
separate Sharia and religious laws for Muslims militate the principle of equality
before law and human rights, discriminate against Muslim women, permit
religious entities to interpret religious laws at discretion, thereby creating the
plurality of the unequal citizenship. This stand of the BJP is interpreted by a large
section of the Muslim community as against their interests and many political
parties compete among themselves, each claiming a true champion of the
Muslims’ cause. Simultaneously, the Congress, communist and socialist parties
charge the BJP as a communal party for their alleged approach and ideology. In
the following lines, the author intends to analyse the concept of secularism and
its application in Indian conditions since independence.
Nehru Brand of Secularism
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru ruled the country as prime minister after the
independence till his death in May 1964 and he is often lauded by many
historians, political analysts and intellectuals as true secularist. Nehru has
manyfeathers in his cap viz. freedom fighter, leader, statesman, politician,
historian, writer, reformist and humanist, and people have written and spoken
volumes about his persona and virtues. For instance, modern historian Ram
Chandra Guha holds him at very high esteem for his secular approach. Historian
David Kopf called Nehru’s book ‘The Discovery of India’ a gift to the Indian
renaissance movement by reconstructing more than five thousand years of Indian
cultural history with a pride, passion, and meticulous devotion. But here the
purpose is not to seek his glorious record or analyse the virtues and faults of an
iconic leader but to point out certain ground facts and realities, and implications
of his stated secular ideology on the Indian democracy.
The country experienced worst ever communal riots, bloodbath, arson and other
crimes against humanity consequent to the creation of two independent
dominions for the Muslims and Hindus by dividing the nation after the partition in
1947. While Pakistan opted to pursue future course as an Islamic state but India
with a Hindu majority remained a secular state though the Constitution was not
specifically spelled to that effect. Under Nehru’s premiership, the Personal Laws
of the Hindu community were promptly framed and Hindu Code bill passed by the
Parliament but he consciously and conspicuously avoided taking similar initiative
action for the Muslim community. By implication this gives an impression as if
only Hindus needed reforms and Muslims didn’t.
Now after seventy years, even a reference to reforms in the Muslim community is
suffice to ignite the violent reaction from the orthodox leaders and clerics from
the community alleging such person or party as communal and anti-Muslims.
Uniform civil code could have been a normal legislation around that time for the
simple reason that India was partitioned on purely religious lines on two-nation
theory where all other communities and people who stayed back had right to
enjoy same fundamental rights to live with dignity but also had obligation to
abide by the laws of the land.
Further, under the Nehru regime the legislation was brought for the
administration and acquiring the immovable properties of the Hindu temples and
Mutts but similar action was not taken for the minority communities, mainly
Muslims. In fact, it is not a secret now that when the likes of Sardar Patel and
Babu Rajendra Prasad took initiative to renovate the famous Somnath Temple in
Gujarat, it was opposed by Nehru citing secular credentials of the country. Even
after the renovation work was completed, it is alleged that Nehru (as prime
minister) opposed Babu Rajendra Prasad, then President of India, visiting Gujarat
for the inauguration of temple which of course he refused to oblige but
inaugurated it as a Private citizen.
On the other hand, Nehru is believed to be instrumental in facilitating the annual
Haj pilgrimage for Muslims by persuading the private ship owners to ply their
vessels to Saudi Arabia. Later, the Government of India under Nehru started the
Haj subsidy in form of discounted Air fares in 1959 with the Haji Act under his
regime. A categorical statement invariably invites opposition from certain
quarters but clearly, such actions do not fit in any module of secularism Western
or Indian; a national leader or party should either maintain equidistance from
religious issues of all communities or be equally helpful to all communities. One
would find it difficult to understand Nehru’s secularism – his reluctance to
appreciate religious sensitivities of Hindus while going out of way to facilitate the
monority communities for the same cause.
As a reformist and leader with modern outlook, Nehru is quoted as being critical
of several Hindu practices and rituals citing it as superstitions of a backward
community but he never dared to criticise or raise his voice against many social
evil practices of the minority communities. He was believed to have conviction
that the religion was irrelevant, backward and superstitious, and as an agnostic he
was a staunch believer of rationality, secularism and scientific approach for the
futuristic India. In Nehru’s perspective, the secularism was the freedom of religion
and conscience including freedom for those who had no religion subject to their
not interfering with each other and with the basic conceptions of the state.
Secularism, in his purported view, conveyed the idea of social and political
equality, and therefore a caste-ridden society like India was not properly secular.
Thus at conceptual level, Nehru’s vision of secularism was very broad and
laudable but while translating the same in practice he faltered on many counts in
his political life as can be seen from few illustrations in the foregoing paras. It was
like putting the Hindu majority on the defensive, and predicating Indian
secularism on certification by the minorities, that the majority is secular. This
brand of secularism neither fits with the Western concept nor conforms to the
Indian context. Needless to mention if there is defective foundation and
beginning, the entire structure is bound to be faulty and suffering in the long run.
Constitutional Amendment on Secularism
Vide the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution driven by Indira Gandhi, the
definition of India was changed from a “Sovereign Democratic Republic” to a
“Sovereign, Socialist Secular Democratic Republic”, while many constitutional
experts expressed apprehensions about the express need for such change. In fact,
even when the Constitution was being framed the issue of incorporating the
terms secular and socialist came into consideration at the behest of K.T. Shah,
another member of the constituent committee. The proposal was shot down by
B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, who was against
binding the nation by defining social and economic order, these being dynamic
factors prone to change according to needs and time. Besides, he was of view that
the Constitution must provide a mechanism for regulating the work and organs of
the state and not how the society should be organized in its social and economic
matters.
Notwithstanding above, the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India
was enacted by the Congress regime under Indira Gandhi in 1976 during the
Emergency. Apart from adding the terms secular and socialist in the preamble,
several other far reaching changes were effected in the Constitution through this
amendment. This inter alia included Fundamental Duties of citizens, limiting of
the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts in the context of the
constitutional validity of laws and establishing the parliamentary sovereignty with
unrestrained powers to make laws and amend the Constitution without judicial
review.
By this amendment, while the spirit of secularism was formalised but the
Congress government in essence continued with the policy of appeasement
hitherto fore as electoral politics. The classic Shah Bano case could be cited to
illustrate the point whereby the Congress government under Rajiv Gandhi with
overwhelming majority in the Parliament had overturned the verdict of the
Supreme Court Constitutional Bench granting the right of alimony to the divorcee
woman in 1986 under the pressure from the orthodox Muslim politicians and
clergy. This misuse of the mandate of people by the Congress government was
clearly neither healthy for the secular fabric and gender equality nor for the
jurisprudence in the country.
Secularism versus Communalism
Although the BJP in various transformations has always stressed on the Hindu
Asmita (Hindu Identity) and Rashtra Gaurav (National Pride) citing the ancient
cultural legacy of the Hinduism to the discomfort of many people and parties but
two events during the last three decades led to a for greater polarisation and
debate of secularism versus communalism in the political and social circles.
In Hindu traditions, the City of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh is remembered as the
birth place of Lord Rama. On a disputed site where Rama was born as per Hindus
belief, a mosque was built by a Mughal general Mir Baki in sixteenth century
apparently after demolishing a temple that existed earlier. Ever since this
remained an emotive issue for Hindus and a cause of numerous conflicts between
the two communities for centuries. On December 6, 1992 the tempers ran high
and the existing structure on the site was demolished by the Kar
Sewaks(volunteers) belonging to the Hindu community. This event had a major
political fallout and the minority communnty’s backlash leading to the damage
and destruction of hundreds of religious places of the majority community in
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The title suit about the ownership of the site is
still pending for a decision in the Supreme Court and the BJP and allied
organizations are actively supporting and pursuing the temple construction cause.
In another event on 27 February, 2002, a train returning from Ayodhya was put
on fire by a mob in Godhra, Gujarat. Consequently, two bogeys were completely
burnt killing at least 58 Hindu pilgrims. The event triggered an outbreak of
communal violence leading to human casualty and material loss in both
communities in hundreds but casualty on Muslims side was much more. This
unfortunate incident gave an opportunity to the Congress and other opposition
parties to openly side with one community by calling the Chief Minister of Gujarat
and the BJP party as communal and responsible for the violence. Indian politics
has always relied on polarising the electorate on religion and caste basis and
these two events were suffice for the Congress, Communist and Socialist parties
to take the mantle of secular parties while simultaneously branding the BJP as
communal party forever.
Of late, this secular versus communal divide has been so strong and acute that if a
Hindu common citizen or a political activist or leader talks about the Hinduism or
Nationalism or found promoting national symbols like National Anthem, National
song and National Flag, the issue is immediately politicised by a section of media
and political parties citing him as a ‘Hindu Nationalist’, which according to them is
a grave threat to the secular credentials of the nation. It is so difficult to talk
reason or make out a case that the ‘nationalism’ is love and pride for the nation,
and a person who loves nation cannot be threat for own countrymen. Nationalism
should not be insulted by qualifying it with ‘Hindu’ or any other community name.
Such divisory tactics played by a section of media, political parties and leaders
have caused a dangerous rift and polarisation in the contemporary Indian society.
Consequently, even on the issue of paying respect or acknowledging the national
symbols, the country always appears to be divided. A section of the Muslim
community openly opposes it arguing that the same is against Islam and Quranic
teachings while another section driven by nationalist sentiments calls it
unpatriotic. Self proclaimed secularist politicians quickly jump to endorse the
chorus of the former group keeping an eye on the electoral angle. For illustration,
recently the Uttar Pradesh BJP government issued advisory to the government
aided Madrassas for playing National Anthem on the Independence Day as is the
practice in other schools. A voice was raised against the advisory by a section of
Muslim politicians and clergy only to be quickly endorsed by the Congress and
other opposition parties. Needless to mention, a large number of Madrassas
defied the advisory and instead played ‘Saare Jahan se Achchha…’ another
patriotic song written by the poet Muhammad Iqbal who was among the chief
activists for the partition of India and the creation of an Islamic theocracy..
The ground reality is that the majority Muslim population is peace loving and
honestly believes in simply pursuing ‘Roji-Roti’ (livelihood) and ‘Deen’ (creed or
religion). They are not interested in such controversies created by the community
leaders and clerics that suits self-styled secularists (pseudo-secularists is a better
description) of the country but when they are misled by the community leaders
citing their religion is under threat, then many of them tend to fall prey to this
disinformation due to deep religious sentiments.
On the other hand, Hindu society has an impeccable record and proud history of
tolerance towards other religions. Since ancient times, Hinduism carried the
heritage of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (The entire universe is one Family) which
allowed them to willingly accept Jews who fled to escape Roman persecution and
Parsis (Zorostrians) facing Islamic persecution through genocide centuries ago.
Hindu kings and warriors never invaded any foreign land outside
Bhratvarsha(India) since ancient time to exploit and snatch others’ land or riches.
This philosophy is ingrained in Hinduism and Hindu psyche and in most of the
cases, they are known to retaliate only in self-defence.
For several decades, Indian politics was dominated by a single political party
successfully staying in power by playing cast and communal cards. In the recent
years, educated Hindus have increasingly realized the designs of pseudo-
secularists and are pressing their cause for the true secularism where every
religious community should be treated at par by the government and Hindus
alone should not be ignored or taken for granted.
While the Congress and many other opposition parties continue to accuse the BJP
as a communal party, Prime Minister Modi on more than one occasions has
clearly spelt out the policy of government to allay fears of any minority
community, “The principles of equal respect for all faiths and secularism have
been fundamental components parts of the Indian ethos… …It is integral to the
constitution of India. Everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the
religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence.” Ever since in
office in 2014 at the Centre, the Modi government has pursued the policy ‘Sabka
Saath, Sabka Vikas’ (Let everybody join hands, for everyone’s progress).
The question is if a party talks about nationalism, invokes respect for the national
symbols, looks after the welfare of the majority community too along with the
minorities, bids for the equal rights of all citizens before law, should this mean
that the party is communal or it is a motivated agenda of the pseudo-secularist
parties and groups with vested interests? Unfortunately, elections have been held
in India on the basis of the cast and religion since independence and, therefore,
all political parties must share blame for this. Each party has its own vote bank
and tries to woo the vacillating population which falls under different religions
and castes. How could it be when one party does it they continue to remain
secular but when the same is done by the other party in retaliation or as a
counter-measure they are branded as communal. A fewe recent instances are
cited here to illustrate the point here:
• The Congress and some other parties criticise the BJP government move to
identify and depart the illegal immigrant Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals
(mostly Muslims) while they maintain a calculated silence over the plight of lakhs
of Kashmiri Pandits and Bodo Tribals in Assam which were compelled to leave
their own homeland/country.
• While thousands of million rupees have been spent over the Haj pilgrimage over
the years, steps recently taken by the NDA government for Amarnath pilgrims
were opposed by the opposition parties including the Congress.
• During the recent Gujarat elections in December 2017, the Congress president
had more than two dozen visits to temples during the campaign; and was
declared by the party leaders as being a janeyu-dhari pandit and Shiva-devotee.
Recently, another Congress leader has announced distribution of puja-kit among
Hindu devotees in Gujarat. It is not difficult for any rational minded person to see
the motive behind these overtures.
• The Chief Minister and Trinmool Congress Party (TMC) leader in Bengal stopped
Hindus to carry out religious rituals on the particular day in the recent past
because that coincided with Muharram of the minority community which has
almost 30% population in the state. Now the same leader attends a party event to
distribute thousands of cows and religious books to woo Brahmins in the state.
• The Samahwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh have been openly wooing Muslims and
Yadavas while the Bahujan Samaj Party doing same with the Dalit community and
Muslims; both claim themselves as a secular party while simultaneously accusing
the BJP as communal.
These are only few illustration and instead of deriving any conclusion, the author
leaves it to the readers’ wisdom to see motives of the parties involved. However,
the author would like to cite two more instances to illustrate the psyche of
common man and how politicians exploit it to their own interests and electoral
designs:
1. In July 2013, Nanglamal village in the communally sensitive Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh experienced violence between the two communities wherein two Hindu
people died and about a dozen were injured. The incident reportedly (official
version) occurred when a group of Muslim youth objected to playing hymns
during the Aarti in a Shiva Temple, damaged the loudspeaker, and started abusing
and beating people who resisted. Reason it was Ramadan month and a masjid
was located in the vicinity.
2. In another incident in September 2015, a case of mob lynching was reported
from Bisara village, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh wherein one Muslim man was beaten to
death and his son injured on the suspicion of slaughtering a cow-calf for the beef
consumption. Reason cow slaughter is banned in Uttar Pradesh and Hindus
venerate and protect cows since ancient times.
At the time of the first event, the Congress party ruled at the Centre while the
second incident occurred after the BJP came in power at the Centre in 2014. It
may also be relevant to mention here that the law and order is a state subject.
During both the events, the Samajwadi Party was in power in Uttar Pradesh,
which is long known for its pro-Muslim inclination. While the first case didn’t
receive much of the media or government attention and was dismissed as a minor
localised incident but the second incident was instantly blown out of proportion
by a section of national media and political parties accusing the BJP government
at Centre for spreading intolerance and communal hatred. A hype was created
nationwide with the Congress party in lead about the growing intolerance and
secularism being in great danger.
The incident became an international news putting the BJP government on
defensive at the Centre with several Sahitya Akademi and other national
awardees proceeding to return their awards against the alleged rise in communal
violence and intolerance. Ironically, through this commotion the fact was
completely ignored or forgotten that both the incidents were essentially isolated
and localised events involving local population and the culprits in both cases
should have been dealt with by the law and order machinery under the
jurisdiction of the state government without any religious bias.
While talking of the communalism, one should objectively consider the ideology,
policies and actions of a party towards people and communities and find out if it
is actually working for the unity or division of the society. Unfortunately, the
words secular or communal are being used in Indian politics simply based on the
stand and approach towards one minority community. The truth is Sikhs,
Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Parsees never figure in this debate in spite of
being genuine minority communities in India. Ironically, Hinduism in not merely a
religion, in a larger spectrum it is a cultural way of life which has survived several
thousand years of turmoil but a mere reference to Hinduism and Hindutva is
taken as offence by certain people and parties to brand any person or party being
communal.
Intricacies of Secularism in India
Whatever model of secularism, Western or Indian, that we take, it is difficult to
completely separate religion from the political system. Even the national heroes
like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, in their time, are known to use
religion and religious symbols to bring Indian masses together against the
imperial powers. Consequently, after independence the government continued
with association in religious affairs through institutions like the Department of
Religious Endowments, Wakf Boards, appointment of Trustees of Temples,
subsidies to Madrassas and Waqfs, subsiding religious pilgrimage etc. Where it
appears to have failed was that it remain extremely supportive and liberal, to the
extent of appeasement, in the context of one minority community but
conspicuously ignored the needs of the major community taking them for
granted. This dichotomy appears to have become a cause of discontent and
resentment among the communities over a period of time.
Perhaps due to their inseparable nature, whenever the issue of secularism is
raised it invariably has some political overtone of high or low intensity. Such
concern could be about the nature of relationship between state and religion,
interrelationship between different communities, and/or interdependence of
secularism and democracy. It is possible to address such concern through the
religious harmony which is ideally close to secularism but in practice difficult to
achieve because of different political interests and ideologies. Ironically, almost
every politician swears by the secularism but only few seem to really practice it.
Fortunately, in India the judicial and legal structures still have credence in their
ability to safeguard the secular fabric of the nation through constitutionally
guaranteed provisions.
It is no more a secret that the political parties are using religion and caste to stay
in power. The paradox is that on face they vouch for the secularism but in effect
they systematically build vote banks on the basis of selective religion and caste.
Compared to the yersteryear politicians who had some ethics, today’s politicians
do not hesitate to ignite communal divide and trouble so long it serves their
purpose and they quickly change or fine-tune their strategy according to the
situational demand. The case in point is the recent Gujarat elections. At the
national level, traditionally the Congress party boasts of true secular credentials
while in practice known for appeasement of one minority community to the
extent of ignoring the needs of the majority community. But during the recent
Gujarat elections in December 2017, the Congress party president visited
numerous temples to woo Hindu voters without simultaneously visiting any
Muslim religious site. Indeed the religion is purely a personal matter and a person
is not under obligation to visit or acknowledge shrines of other faith. But if the
politician is linking it with electoral campaign, a true secularist would either get
involved or maintain equidistance with all communities. For the communal
politics, obviously Gujarat is not found attractive with the minority community
population less than 10% in the state.
Almost every political party in India claims to be a secular party championing the
cause of the welfare and well-being of all communities through various
concessions. But unfortunately, vote bank politics of many such parties, and
policies and action when in the government, is often found to be violating the thin
line between concessions and appeasement. To prevent more damage to the
secular fabric of the nation, it appears necessary for these parties to have deep
introspection, a sense of balance and direction keeping the national interest
above all considerations. In fact, it is high time that the political parties and
leaders take measures to separate religion and state in the true spirit of
secularism and stop special consideration for any one community. Ironically,
many of these parties including the left-centric Congress, communist and socialist
parties, a section of media and self-proclaimed intellectuals charge the BJP as
communal force while assuming the secularist tag for the self by being
comfortable with their lopsided appeasement approach towards one community.
However, the main hurdle today appears to be the eco-system developed under
the grand old party over a long period to suit their continued stay in power.
Unfortunately, the elements with vested interests in the system are active in all
walks of life with a potential to derail any development and reform process. Such
elements are in politics, religious institutions, bureaucracy, judiciary and, in fact,
everywhere. I remember when I was still in government at a senior position,
when the present government came in power in May 2014, how dozens of senior
bureaucrates had sought to revert to their parent cadre unable to cop up with the
political change of guard with a demand of high performance in the new order.
When the elements of this eco-system join hands with the ambitious and power-
hungry politicians in a sinister design, the combination has a potential to cause
any institutional damage or derail any reform and development process.
Unfortunately this is what is happening today in the country and even judiciary is
not entirely free from this hangover. One wonders if the political outfits,
particulary the grand old party, will ever learn to shed off the erstwhile rotten
culture of the governance based on dividing the society on religion and cast basis
by simultaneously adopting a true secular character and spirit of governance with
‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’.
Epilogue
The so-called ‘secular’ parties have treated minorities, mainly the Muslims, and
scoring over them as a vote bank over the years by inciting a fear psychosis during
the elections and intervening period that they must support them or else the
‘communal BJP’ would come to power. Therefore, the onus also lies on Muslims
and other minorities to learn and get sensitized about the fundamentals of the
secularism and at the same time selfish motives pseudo-secular politicians and
community leaders. Unfortunately for many people in India, the secularism has
become merely a narrow interpretation of concern for the religious appeasement
of the minorities, particularly the Muslims with approximately 15% population
which they perceive more as a potential vote bank.
Communalism is a divisive force that identifies people in distinct, often under
conflict, religious groups while secularism tends to unify communities on the
principles of equity and mutual respect. Virtues of the empathy, humanism and
philanthropy remain basic traits of any truly secular person or party who would
always look for the welfare and well-being of all citizens without making any
distinction and discrimination on the birth, cast, creed or religion. Secularism, in
true sense, would necessitate rising above the religious considerations to ensure
natural justice and fair play with all communities. Therefore political parties and
social/political activists, particularly self-proclaimed secularists in India, must have
introspection as to what extent they qualify the essentials of secularism if they
are genuinely concerned with the progress of communities and nation. Common
people in all communities should also use wisdom to identify true and fake
secularists.
Under a properly functioning secular and democratic government, people
irrespective of their cast, creed or religion should be able to pursue their basic
requirements of food, comfort of life and social security. The religious beliefs and
spiritual matters should be left in the private domain, and political parties and
government should neither interfere nor favour any community with any
preferential treatment. The onus for this largely falls upon the two largest
national parties i.e. the Congress and BJP for their continued relevance in the
governance and nation building. It is the demand of time that they particularly the
former sincerely endeavour to pursue true secular values envisioned in the
Constitution for the inclusive growth and welfare of all communities and nation.
Common people must also use their wisdom and education to identify and reject
parties and politicians who play with their religious sentiments to further own
vested interests.
Jaipal Singh writes fot Boloji.com where this essay first appeared.
Posted by Thavam