The definition of 'secular'

[Guest guest]

Title: The definition of 'secular'

>Author: Arvind Lavakare

>Publication: Rediff

>May 14, 2002

>

>It is on record that 'at least twice in the Constituent Assembly efforts

>were made to make a specific mention of the principle of secularism in the

>Constitution. For example, an amendment had sought to ensure that no law

>could be made which discriminates between man and man on the basis of

>religion, or applies to adherents of any one religion and leaves others

>untouched. All such amendments were summarily rejected by Dr Ambedkar.

>Later... he made it clear that he did not believe that our Constitution was

>secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities.'

>(Subhash C Kashyap, a renowned constitutional authority, in Reforming The

>Constitution, UBS Publishers & Distributors, 1992).

>

>It is a fact of history that despite Ambedkar's erudite view above, the

>Indira Gandhi government's Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, thrust

>the term 'secular' into the Preamble of the Constitution without defining

>or explaining the significance of that term. It was, you see, the period of

>the Emergency, and Madam Gandhi didn't need to explain anything to anyone.

>

>It is another fact of history that the Congress party of the Nehru dynasty

>ran away from the definition of 'secular' in 1978. That was when

>ex-Congressman Morarji Desai's Janata Party government introduced the

>Constitution (45th Amendment) Bill seeking to define 'secular' to mean

>'equal respect for all religions'. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha

>where the Janata government had a large majority, but was voted down in the

>Rajya Sabha by the Congress party's majority in that house. The result: the

>nation has been subjected to a harangue of 'secular' language and to a

>haemorrhage of 'secularism' by those 'intellectuals' in the media or

>elsewhere who have never been called to explain those two words.

>

>Indeed, there are people around who endorse the term remaining undefined.

>Thus, A M Ahmadi, a former chief justice of India, is on record as having

>said that 'the term "secular" has advisedly not been defined presumably

>because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and

>perhaps best left undefined' (S R Bommai v Union of India, 1994, AIR SCW

>2946 pg 2992).

>Judges are known to pronounce verdicts based on reference to the Oxford and

>other internationally recognised dictionaries. But someone holding the

>nation's highest judicial office ignores that word's dictionary definitions

>such as 'not concerned with religion' and 'keeping State and education

>independent of religion' and even the Janata Party government's definition

>of 'equal respect for all religions'. Instead, he prefers the shelter of

>undefined 'secular'.

>

>The result of such nebulousness is clear: one can be 'very elastic' and

>interpret 'secular' according to one's fancy and fetish. One can thus

>consider the Muslim League as 'secular' though that party doesn't sport a

>member of any other community, and one can consider the BJP as 'communal'

>(also known as 'anti-secular') although it has a Muslim as a member of the

>nation's council of ministers, another Muslim as a party general secretary,

>yet another Muslim as its most respected leader in Rajasthan, Christian

>members from Jabalpur, Mizoram and Nagaland and a Sikh as a prominent party

>spokesman in television discussions. Similarly, one can dub the pope

>'secular' though he has openly pronounced that man's salvation lies only

>through Christianity.

>Some other results of our undefined 'secular' country are as follows:

>

>· The government extends financial assistance to religious institutions.

>Why, under the 1925 Sikh Gurdwara Act, the state government spends millions

>of rupees for conducting elections to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak

>Committee that controls Akali politics.

>· The State allows public celebration of religious functions. Why, the

>holders of the highest offices of state and tallest political leaders make

>it a point to visit religious shrines and make a demonstration of paying

>obeisance to imams or cardinals or sadhus or swamis.

>· The state grants funds to educational institutions run for the benefit of

>one religion only. Why, the Government of India and state governments share

>the financial burden of 'modernisation' of madrassas and the Aligarh Muslim

>University is run entirely on government grants.

>· Minority educational institutions can prescribe religious courses and

>appoint or dismiss a teacher/faculty member according to their whims, but

>rules and regulations are in force for majority religion educational

>bodies. The various interpretations of the Supreme Court on Articles 29 and

>30 have ensured that unholy scenario.

>· Government subsidises the salaries of imams, naib imams and muezzins of

>mosques, but not of granthis in gurdwaras and pujaris in temples. Why, the

>Supreme Court itself has prescribed the scale of these subsidies, which

>amounted to over Rs 6,000 million annually, according to a publication of

>the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyasa.

>· Though the Jama Masjid of Delhi is not classified as a protected

>monument, Rs 0.7 million were doled out to it in the eighties by the

>governments of Indira Gandhi and V P Singh, while nearly Rs 10 million were

>spent on that institution by the department of archaeology between 1990 and

>1996. This 'secular' largesse is in contrast to the denial of even a rupee

>to ancient Hindu temples like Badrinath and Kedarnath.

>· Government-appointed administrators run several Hindu temple trusts while

>the mosques of Hazratbal and Charar-e-Sharif are free of such control.

>· Public holidays for religious occasions are accepted as being in

>consonance with a 'secular' State. Why, V P Singh's government declared the

>birthday of the Prophet as a gazetted holiday although no Islamic country

>gives that privilege to its citizens.

>

>It is the above perverse version of 'secular' that's been in vogue in India

>for 50 years and more. And yet it is precisely that undefined 'secular'

>which the Kesavananda Bharati majority judgment (1973) of the Supreme Court

>held as being part of the basic structure of our Constitution that

>Parliament could not alter. And in the case of S R Bommai v Union of India

>(1994), 'secularism' (whatever it may mean) was pronounced as a basic

>feature of our Constitution.

>

>That is why N S Rajaram, a leading pro-Hindutva intellectual, had, in an

>article in Organiser of June 18, 2000, warned that 'it is only a matter of

>time before the Hindus see through this fraud'. He warned that, if

>uncorrected, what existed was a ticking time bomb leading the country to

>chaos and conflict. The apparently endless mob violence in Gujarat

>following the Godhra carnage of karsevaks returning from Ram's Ayodhya is a

>traumatic, tragic reminder of that unheeded warning. Rajaram's article had

>therefore pleaded for a Constitution that does not allow room for

>discrimination in any shape or form.

>

>It's a great pity therefore that the National Commission to Review the

>Working of the Constitution simply shut out the resolution of that deadly,

>dangerous issue by recommending a definition of 'secular' and 'secularism'

>even when, as its tenure was ending, the nation was witness to the gory

>aftermath of Godhra.

>

>The irony of it all is that the NCRWC was headed by M N Venkatachaliah,

>who, on the day he retired as India's chief justice in 1994, had told PTI

>in an interview that secularism cannot mean anti-majority.

>

>

>----

> http://www.ofbjp.org

>----

>A worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists:

>Friends of the BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>----

>

>

>Click on the link below to be removed from the BJP News mailing list.

>http://www.ofbjp.org/listserv/.cgi?vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com

>

>

>

> The BJP News (http://www.ofbjp.org/news)

>

>

>

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.