18

Secularism

Though it made its appearance in the Indian constitution through a late amendment to its preamble during the Emergency at Indira Gandhi’s initiative, secularism is one of the keystones of post-independence Indian polity. It does not imply separation of religion and politics, but rather the benevolent attitude of the state vis-à-vis all religious communities. Moreover, Article 30(2) of the constitution emphasizes that ‘The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.’

Ironically, Hindu nationalists have always looked at themselves as more sincere secularists than have Congressmen. They denounced the Congress Party as ‘pseudo-secular’ because of its bias in favour of religious minorities. As early as the 1950s the Sangh Parivar criticized the Hindu Code Bill which reformed Hindu customs of marriage, adoption, and inheritance, whereas the shariat and the personal laws of other religious minorities remained untouched. This issue resurfaced in the 1980s during what is known as the Shah Bano affair, when the Congress was accused of pampering its Muslim vote bank by reaffirming the status of the shariat in regulating the private sphere of this minority.

In contrast, Hindu nationalists claim they are the true secularists because Hinduism ignores theocracy: in their view the traditionally weak role of the state vis-à-vis the social order is in harmony with a loose religious organization—Hinduism in their view ignoreschurch-like hierarchies and has always accommodated a plurality of spiritual streams. According to them, religious minorities benefit from this traditional tolerance in a Hindu-dominated polity. This line of thought is disputed on the ground that if Hinduism ignores orthodoxy, it relies on strict orthopraxy through the caste system, which implies that religious minorities should pay allegiance to the value system of Brahmins; besides, Hindu nationalism has always assumed that religious minorities may practice their rituals freely in the private sphere but should respect Hindu customs in the public sphere.

One of the personalities the Sangh Parivar projected as the moderate face of Hindu nationalism, Atal Behari Vajpayee, articulated the official view of secularism of his ideological milieu in a systematic way. Born in Gwalior, the capital of one of the largest princely states of North India, Vajpayee first came under the influence of Congress and the Arya Samaj. He studied in the DAV College, Kanpur (where he earned an MA in Political Science) and became General Secretary of the Arya Kumar Sabha of Gwalior in 1944. He had joined the RSS earlier and was sent to UP as a vistarak in 1946. He worked for Deendayal Upadhyaya’s newspaper in the late 1940s and eventually became editor of Panchjanya. He then followed Upadhyaya into the Jana Sangh. He became S.P. Mookerjee’s secretary and assisted Upadhyaya in the party headquarters after Mookerjee’s death. He remained party secretary from 1956 to 1966. He ran for office for the first time in 1957 and won a seat in the Lok Sabha—he was re-elected ten times. He succeeded Upadhyaya as president of the Jana Sangh after the latter’s assassination in 1968 and was re-elected between 1969 and 1972 without interruption. He was the leader of the Jana Sangh parliamentary group from 1957 to the mid-1970s, when the party merged with the Janata Party. He was then appointed Minister of External Affairs in Morarji Desai’s government. After the disintegration of the Janata Party he was the first president of the Bharatiya Janata Party between 1980 and 1986. After ten years in a less prominent position, he was appointed Prime Minister for 13 days in 1996, leader of the opposition in Parliament in 1996–7 and then Prime Minister in 1998, and again over 1999– 2004. He was appointed chairman of the parliamentary group of the BJP after the defeat of his party in the 2004 elections.

Extract from Atal Behari Vajpayee, ‘The Bane of Pseudo-Secularism’¹

National integration is a continuing process. It is a feeling that has to be kindled with effort and fostered with care. In a big country like ours, which has always been full of variety and which is now going through a period of economic and social transition, it is impossible to check occasional communal incidents. But the very fact that we stopped our efforts at National Unity when it was automatically born as a reaction to foreign aggression and have now revived them as an antidote to communal riots at some places shows how unrealistic and illogical the thinking on the problem of National Unity has become.

The Basic Truths of National Integrity

We have to accept some basic truths for the protection and fostering of national integrity. The first among them is that from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari Bharat is one nation and not a group of different nationalities. Those according to whom different language groups are different nations are the agents of disintegration and destruction, so let us beware of them. Secondly Bharat is an ancient nation; so we are not engaged in creating a new nation but in preparing our old nation to face the new challenges. Our nationalism is as old as the Vedic declaration: ‘The earth is my mother and I am her son.’ For Western scholars, nationalism may be a modern concept, but for us it is as old as our life in this land.

Bharat or the Indian nation is basically a cultural unit. It was on the basis of this cultural unity that we have attempted to establish political, economic and social unity. Whenever these attempts failed, the country was divided into different kingdoms, but our cultural unity continued and it formed the basis on which we fought for unity in other fields. Even today we are not one because we are citizens of one State. Rather Bharat is one State because we are one.

Our national life is full of variety. There are many languages, many sects, many modes of life and many styles of art and literature. Thisvariety is the symbol of the richness of our life. We have to protect as well as foster it. And it is in this variety that we have to find and consolidate our unity.

Invidious Distinction of Majority/Minority

To divide the people of this country on the basis of language, regions [sic], sect, community or profession into majority and minority is still more dangerous. Those who are true to India are all Indians, whatever their religion or language. So on the one hand we have to rise above small loyalties and make our country our prime loyalty, while on the other hand we have to wean some people from extra-territorial loyalties. Freedom of worship is an integral part of Indian culture. The Constitution of India also contains this freedom. Indians have never discriminated on the basis of sect or religion. In the future too nobody wishes to have such a distinction. At the same time to base a minority or a majority on modes of worship is both illogical and harmful to national unity. The Muslims and Christians for whom India is a home have not come from outside. Their ancestors were Hindus and Hindu blood flows in their veins. A change in religion does not mean a change in nationality or culture. Culture is related to the soil and nationality to loyalty. The Muslims of East Bengal and Pakhtoonistan follow the same religion but their cultures are different. On the other hand those who forsake their loyalty to the nation become enemies even when they follow the same religion. Bharatiya Jana Sangh believes in bringing about a society and state in which all citizens will have equality of opportunity without discrimination. Language and religion would not form the basis of any discrimination whatsoever.

What is Secularism?

The policy of encouraging fissiparous tendencies in the name of secularism would be detrimental to national unity. Communalism has already led to one partition of the country. Now let us stop this unfortunate history from repeating itself. Secular just means pertaining to this world. According to Hindu polity, the State came into being for the fulfilment of earthly functions. Unlike in the west, in Bharat there was no conflict between the State and the religious order. Secular does not mean anti-religious or non-religious. In fact the people of India can never be secular in this sense. Secularism just means an impartial attitude of the State towards all modes of worship. The Jana Sangh champions the cause of such an impartial state and does not believe in adopting any one mode of worship as the religion of the State. At present some elements which are trying to draw us away from our glorious past, our noble ideals of life and from our great men and seers in the name of secularism are gaining strength. But we must remember that if we break with our past we would neither be able to face the challenge of the present nor have strength to build the future. We have to make India a modern nation. We have to see that the latest research in the field of science and technology serves to make the life of the common man happy and prosperous. But we shall never accept denying our past and our traditional culture as a price for bringing this about. The stream of our life has been flowing since Vedic Time and we want to give it still more strength so that it can assimilate into it many tributaries from many directions.

Muslims in India

The communal riots that have taken place in different parts of the country are a matter of some concern. Before 1947 we thought we had done our duty when we put the blame of such disturbances on the British. But the very fact that 20 years after our attaining freedom and establishment of Pakistan such riots take place indicates that we are mistaking the symptoms for the disease and are still not prepared for some basic thinking in this respect. We must seriously try to find out why quarrels among individuals deteriorate into communal riots. The shouting of pro-Pakistani slogans and radio reports of such riots from Pakistan immediately after they take place have added an element of greater difficulty to an already difficult problem.

During the last some years there has been a great increase in Muslim organisations seeking to foster separatism. Some of them, like the Jamiat-i-Islami, openly declare that Muslims can be safe and happy only in a State which runs according to Shariat. In addition, there are also secret societies which operate from schools and places of worship and keep promoting the nefarious idea that Muslims have no future in India. To say that minorities are not secure or have no future in the country in which the President himself, the Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt, and many Central as well as State Ministers, Ambassadors and high Government officials are Muslims is nothing but to discredit India in the eyes of the world. As a matter of fact all Indians, irrespective of their religion or language, are facing the same kind of problems. These problems have arisen out of economic backwardness. Giving it a religious, linguistic or regional colour is not only creating an interference in the way of national integrity but making the solution still more difficult. It is the duty of political parties to educate the people and save them from such selfish and separatist elements. It is a matter of surprise that the party which declares its secularism from house tops and is the first to berate communalism not only compromises with communal elements for political ends but unashamedly supports minority demands in the guise of protecting minority interests. If the country is to be saved from the tragedy of communalism, all parties must pledge to cleanse their minds of all communal virus.

We are Determined . . .

The solution of all problems of Bharat lies in arousing a strong sense of nationalism. Single-minded devotion to the nation and a readiness to sweat and if necessary also to give up everything can alone enable us to rise above sectarian, linguistic and religious considerations and behave like citizens of one great nation. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh has devoted itself to this mission. It is determined to confront and defeat all divisive elements, and their supporters—with the help of others, if possible, alone, if necessary.

Extract from Atal Behari Vajpayee, ‘Secularism, the Indian Concept’²

. . . Today, after four decades of India becoming free, we find the word ‘secular’ has become the main subject of a political debate. There is no unanimity as to what does the word ‘Secular’ actually mean. One political party calls it ‘secularism’, while the other party calls the same as ‘pseudo-secularism’. What has been described as positive secularismby one party, the other party calls the same as communalism. Parliament witnesses frequent exchanges between the political parties calling themselves ‘secular’ and the parties whom they do not recognise as ‘secular’. ‘Secular’ and ‘secularism’ were used on a wide scale during campaigns in the last general elections. The same can be said about newspapers. It is, therefore, essential that we should crystallise our views on the concept of secularism. In this process, we shall first have to understand the western concept of secularism and its background.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia volume 9 (1978) describes secularism as a movement towards ecclesiastic from the non-ecclesiastic. It also says that secularism came into being as a reaction to the tendency of the mediaeval period to regard the activities of human life in this world as insignificant and to devote all attention to God and the life beyond. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word secular means ‘related to or pertaining to this world. . . . not to church.’ The Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary defines ‘secular’ as ‘pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual, not concerned with religion, civil, not ecclesiastical.’

Therefore, it can be said that in substance, secularism means pertaining to the human existence in the present world and it should be understood that it does not require any reference to religion. Secularism is something different from religion, without religion or temporal. It is said that the word secularism was first used by Holioke. He differentiated between secularism and atheism. It is often the impression that an atheist neither believes in God nor in morality. One who believes in secularism lays emphasis on morality independent of God and religion. Secularism is said to have been in Europe during the Renaissance. The Encyclopaedia of Social Science (vols 13–14) tells us that while the success of the reform movements in various countries of North Europe led to the consolidation of irrational faith, the scholars and philosophers of the Italian Renaissance took the logical and empirical investigation to new heights. Their unrelenting quest for unfolding the secrets of nature and human life shifted the emphasis from the metaphysical to the physical world.

The origin of the modern concept of secularism can be traced back to mediaeval Europe when the Roman Catholic Church was dominant. The Head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, then not only enjoyed the religious power but also non-ecclesiastical and State power. Just like any other ruler, the Pope absorbed smaller independent or semi-independent ‘Jagirs’ into what he had got by way of inheritance. The conduct of the Pope was just like any other Head of State. There existed a well-knit system establishing the stranglehold of the Church. On the basis of continuity and tradition, the psychological and political influence of the Church crossed the state boundaries and extended to the entire Europe. Everyone from top to bottom, be it a king or a slave, claimed to be loyal to the Church. There was the threat of punishment by the Church. And this fear was always undercurrent [sic].

The Pope, in fact, is a political power even in the present time. The Vatican City is an independent State and the Pope is its Head. There is an ambassador of the Pope in New Delhi.

The Christian Church, as an organised force, reached its zenith of power during the reign of Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) in the Western hemisphere. The Pope could easily establish his hold on the rulers of England and France. He enthroned or dethroned three monarchs of the Holy Roman Empire and brought most parts of Italy under his personal control. He took a number of decisions which were adopted in toto in the judicial system of the Church. This resulted in human life coming under the purview of the Church.

Boniface VIII became the Pope in 1281. Maximum amount of bitterness was generated during this period because of his conflict with Philip of France. Ultimately, armed men sent by King Philip attacked the Summer Palace of the Pope. They could have captured or harmed the Pope. But they did not do so and went back. The shock of the humiliation was too great for the Pope who died after a month of the attack.

The struggle between the Pope and King Philip of France illustrates the struggle between the Church and the State. The basic question was as to whose writ would run? Would it be the political authority of the country, the ruler or the king, or would it be the religious authority headed by the Pope? A study of the struggle between France and the Pope helps us to understand the real nature of the conflict. King Philip of France and King Edward I of England were at war. Philip needed funds to meet the war expenditure. He demanded parsons to pay 10 per cent of their annual income for this purpose. The priesthood promptly complained against it to the Pope. The Pope issued an edict—a ‘bull’ which declared that a state is unquestionably under the supreme authority of the Church and as such no king or any other worldly power has the authority over the subjects of Church or their property.

This edict was applicable to both the kings, Edward and Philip. However, King Edward of England forced the priesthood to part with the fifth portion of their annual income. A threat was held out to the priesthood that anyone who disobeyed the command would be held prisoner. If anyone belonging to the Church did not hand over the money as stipulated, his property would be confiscated. It was asserted that King Edward’s suzerainty over such properties was beyond any doubt. It is noteworthy that the King had the support of his people in making such assertions.

However, the situation in France was different. King Philip retaliated against the Pope’s edict by banning the entry of any foreigner into France. It implied that the envoy of the Pope or any other official could not enter France. Even the English were not allowed. King Philip subsequently banned export of gold, silver and defence supplies from France. This choked the supply line to the Pope from an important source.

The Pope adopted the posture of compromise. But King Philip made his stand clear by bringing out a pamphlet, though it did not carry any name. The pamphlet propounded the theory that the authority of the temporal king had ascendency over the authority of the Church so far as the masses are concerned. According to the pamphlet, the priesthood should follow the dictates of the temporal ruler in all worldly matters. It said that the priesthood also was a part of the State like the general public and everyone was obliged to support the State.

Peace prevailed for almost a year. But after some time, the conflict again came to the fore. In an edict the Pope wrote to King Philip, ‘My dear son, you should not be misled by anyone to believe that there was no one above you on this earth nor should you think that you are not subordinate to the supreme head of the Catholic Church.’ This edict was read out to King Philip. The king’s associates were furious to be told that their king was not free to act in the way he wanted.

Philip called a joint meeting of the representatives of the priests, feudal lords and of the middle class and thus created a platform from which an advisor of Philip made a forceful appeal to French nationalism.

A reply was given to the Pope. It said that they (those in the court of King Philip) did not accept the authority of anyone in worldly matters. The reply emphasised that whatever was theirs was under the authority of the Crowned King. Insulting expressions were used for Pope Boniface such as ‘no salutation to one who calls himself the Pope’. It is important that all the three groups, the priesthood, the middle class and the feudal class, supported the king. The flame of French nationalism had been lit.

In Rome, at a religious congregation, the Pope read out an edict which clearly stated that all temporal kings were under the authority of the Pope. The edict spelt of [sic] the belief there was only one holy inspiration and it was that of the Catholic Church. There was no salvation outside the Church nor any forgiveness by the Pope. It further said that the Church had two swords—one that of the spirit and it is in the hands of the priesthood and the other sword was that of this world which was in the hands of the kings and the soldiers. This sword, too, should be used only with the concurrence of priests. The edict goes on to say ‘we declare that every human being should follow the Pope for his salvation.’

When the King of France heard about the declaration, he promptly despatched orators to different parts of the country to project the view that the French people should be free from the bondage of the lecherous and spendthrift Pope. The feelings of nationalism of the French people were exploited in a very shrewd manner and the common reaction was in favour of the king. Allies of the king were aware that the Pope would excommunicate him. The order of excommunication was to be issued on the 8th of September. A day earlier, the Summer Palace of the Pope was stormed. The incident has already been mentioned earlier.

We find that the conflict between the Church and the State led to the generation of nationalist sentiments which played a major role in the conflict. The same feelings led to the emergence of nation states in Europe and it was a significant development. We find that King Philip could defeat the Pope because he had the support of the French people. The same is true of King Edward of England who succeeded in either ignoring or opposing the Pope and the Church. Therefore, we can say that the emergence of nation states was a secular development.

The Pope was of the view that all Christian countries were under his control as he had the supreme authority over all the followers of Christianity. The jurisdiction of the nation states was limited to their boundaries only. As the head of the state, the king or anyone else could have only political authority. The authority of the Pope was of a religious nature and it transcended national boundaries. The authority of the head of a state was temporal in nature and was confined to the people of the state irrespective of their religion. Thus, the Pope or Church was essentially a religious entity whereas the State was ‘secular or independent of religion.’

So far as India is concerned, there had been no question of the supremacy of temporal or political authority, whatever might have been the nature of the political system of the country, autocratic, capitalist or democratic. The temporal or political power of the State maintained its equipoise because of the teachings of the Acharyas. This balance was the result of the moral and altruistic outlook. We have had the tradition of discipline and not the rule by religious leaders.

Indian political ideology has accepted the supremacy of the political system but they have never supported autocratic dictatorship. There is a need to put some check on the political authority. This check is that of law. Even during the Vedic period, the importance of law was recognised. The cycle of seasons, as conceived during the Vedic period, was based on the concept of law which regulates the entire world. It is said in the ‘Rigveda’ that the earth remains firm in its position because of the law (Niyam), the same law keeps the sun in its position in the sky. Similarly, the State has to function according to the law or ‘niyam’. These laws provide the foundation for the concept of Dharma. The moral and material well being of the people can be ensured by the State by acting according to Dharma.

We find that Dharma is used in the Indian thought in a much broader sense and in different contexts than the word ‘religion’, though often Dharma and religion are used as synonyms. The word Dharma has been derived from ‘Dhri/dhatu’, which means ‘to hold’. Thus we can say that anything that helps to keep something in its original form is its Dharma. The natural tendency of any object (or an individual) and its qualities denote its Dharma. Dharma is also used in the sense of duty. Therefore, in the social context, Dharma is important. Dharmais the ensemble of the rules and regulations followed in various facets of human life of an individual and the society as a whole. Indian traditions lay utmost importance on the following of Dharma. Dharma allows freedom of thought and faith but as long as you are following your Dharma or act according to your Dharma, you are on the right track.

We must realise the difference between Dharma and religion. Religion is related to certain definite beliefs. As long as one shares those beliefs, he remains a member of that faith, religion or ‘mazhab’. No sooner does one give up those beliefs than he ceases to be a member of that religion. Dharma is not entirely dependent upon beliefs. A person may not have any religious faith but still he could be called ‘Dharmik’. That means he has good qualities. Essentially, Dharma is the way of life. It is something more than just living according to certain beliefs. The practice of adding adjectives to Dharma is rather new. Dharma is neither related to a country or a period nor is it confined to a specific community. When Dharma gets associated with a particular community, it becomes religion. It also becomes religion when it is institutionalised.

Scholars speak of two categories of Dharma 1—General Dharma and 2—Special Dharma. Manusmriti speaks of ten attributes of Dharma like patience, forgiveness, compassion, honesty, purity, control over senses, wisdom, knowledge, truth and non-violence. All these are related to the conduct of man. Stress has been laid in the Shantiparva of the Mahabharata that a man should speak the truth, give donations, do hard work and should have purity, forgiveness and concern for others. He should be straight in his dealings, and should act with wisdom. He should also have the capacity and tendency to concentrate and to maintain peace.

The Mahabharata reminds us that a Brahmin who had the arrogance of his asceticism was obliged to go to a butcher to learn Dharma. Also in Mahabharata, Yudhishthira had said that the question as to who is high or low can be decided only by judging the conduct of a person.

One who acts according to his Dharma, acquires the power of ‘Punya’. The story of ‘Savitri–Satyavan’ can be cited as an example. Savitri is not depicted as any scholarly or a wise lady. She is great only as a wife because she had followed the ‘Pativrata Dharma’ and this gave her the extra-ordinary power that she could bring her dead husbandback to life. We have many other such examples which point out that the family an individual is born in or the caste of an individual are immaterial.

‘Shatpath Brahmin’ says that ‘Dharma is the Ruler of a Ruler, the supreme authority lies in Dharma’. The Mahabharata also provides evidence that the king had to follow the authority of Dharma. At the time of coronation, the king had to take a pledge that he would follow Dharma and would not act in an autocratic manner. The pledge was:

In the ‘Aranya Kanda’ of Ramayana, sages preach Shri Rama Chandra:

‘A king who realises taxes from his subjects but does not protect them as his own son, commits great Adharma.’

The same idea is expressed in different words in the Bhagwat. It describes the Dharma of the king as:

‘The king has to protect his subjects from calamities as a father protects his son.’

Maharishi Vedavyas described the attributes of a noble king in the following words:

‘The best king is one in whose empire all subjects live without fear, as a son lives in the house of his father.’

It was the responsibility of the king not only to maintain peace and order in his kingdom but also to ensure that his subjects are not subjected to any hardships.

According to the ‘Aapastamba’ Dharmasutra:

‘The king is bound by the Dharma to ensure that no one in his kingdom goes without food, no one meets an untimely death because of any disease or as a result of extreme cold or heat. It is the duty of the king to protect people against epidemics and famine.’

A king is also advised to protect his subjects from the atrocities and excesses of State officials:

‘State officials often become corrupt. They swallow the money that belongs to the people. The king should ensure that such corrupt officials are not kept in a position where they can indulge in undesirable activities.’

Referring to the treatment such officials deserve, it goes on to say that:

‘The king should take away everything whatever such officials have and then throw them out of his kingdom.’

The purpose behind the reference to the Dharma of the king as enunciated in our scriptures is just to bring home that Dharma essentially means Karma or duty. Anyone who ignores his duty i.e. Karma cannot follow his Dharma.

An analysis and comparative study of the Western and Indian concept of secularism leads us to the conclusion that the European secularism is something of this world and is independent of the Dharma or religion. On the other hand, a common man in India talks of life beyond this life and takes the belief as a matter of course.

We in India have an ancient religious and spiritual tradition. This tradition has left a deep imprint on the Indian psyche though it is true that the Indian philosophy also has schools like materialism and atheism.

Mahatma Gandhi describes the correct attitude towards religion as ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’, equal respect to all religions. The concept of ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ is somewhat different from the European secularism which is independent of religion. In fact by propounding the theory of Sarva Dharma Sambhava, Gandhiji continued the ageold Indian tradition which can be traced to the ancient saying of ‘Ekam Sadavipra Bahudha Vadanti’. We may say that the Indian concept of secularism is that of Sarva Dharma Sambhava. This concept reminds us of the ancient Indian tradition of liberalism and tolerance. Gandhiji’s great stress on Sarva Dharma Sambhava was reflected in our freedom struggle. Our objective was to free ourselves from the colonial rule and to establish democracy. Under the democratic system, every citizen has a vote and thus he is an equal partner in the election of a Government. There is no discrimination on the basis of his religion.

‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ is not against any religion. It treats all religions with equal respect. And, therefore, it can be said that the Indian concept of secularism is more positive. It is specially suited to India as followers of different faiths had been living in India since time immemorial, long before the advent of Christianity and Islam. The translation of the word ‘secular’ as dharmanirpeksha has caused some confusion. Dharmanirpeksha appears somewhat negative. It creates an impression that it negates something. Secondly, dharmanirpeksha has been taken to mean that it is unconcerned about or indifferent to religion. We should not ignore the fact that the Indian society is basically oriented to Dharma and has faith in it.

After a decade of the framing of the Constitution, Nehruji thought of this aspect while writing the preface of the book entitled Dharmanirpeksha Rajya (Secular State) by Shri Raghunath Singh (M.P.) Nehruji said that the word Dharmanirpeksha does not fully convey the idea behind the English word ‘secular’. Some people think that it is something against religion. Obviously, it is an erroneous impression. The correct interpretation of the Secular State would be that all dharmas or religious faiths are treated with equal respect. This way, Nehruji also supported the Sarva Dharma Sambhava. The education and upbringing of Nehruji was in modern and western background. He envisaged an ideal society which sought solutions to its social and economic problems by making full use of science and technology.

Despite his modern outlook, Nehru never wanted to cut himself off from India’s past. In his will and testament, Nehru wrote that he was proud of the glorious heritage which was ours and has been ours. He said that he realised that he, like all others, was a part of the long unbroken chain which takes us back to the hoary past, from times immemorial to the beginning of the early history. He saw that he would never break this chain as it is precious and he draws inspiration from it.

Nehruji wrote a letter to Bernard Hollywood in 1959. He said, ‘No doubt, progress depended upon physical well-being, education, health facilities and industries etc’. However, he anxiously hoped that ‘this progress would not be achieved at the cost of ethical values or to put it rather vaguely, by foregoing the spiritual attitude towards life and its problems.’ He said ‘he never meant that India acted on a high moral or spiritual plane. But certainly, India had continued to deliberate on such values and, at least, in principle, endorsed them.’ It would be unfortunate, he said, if India forgot these values in its pursuits of physical well-being.

So, we find that Jawaharlal Nehru was deeply committed to the old Indian tradition of spirituality.

Delivering the convocation address at the Aligarh University in 1948, Nehruji had said that he was proud of India, not only because of its glorious heritage, but also because of its extraordinary capacity to add something to it; to keep open the doors and windows of its mind and spirit, so that refreshing air is kept blowing into it from distant lands.

He further said that he was proud of this heritage and also of our ancestors who provided intellectual and cultural prominence to India. He put a question to his audience, ‘What do you feel about the past. Do you feel that you too are a part of it and India’s past belongs as much to you or you push it aside to go forward without realising or feeling the thrill that comes with the realisation that we are the inheritors and trustees of a great heritage.’ [. . .]

. . . Nehruji said, ‘You are a Muslim and I am a Hindu. We may have different religious faiths or we may even not have any religious faith, but our cultural heritage remains the same. It is as much yours as mine.’

Now we should ponder as to what extent our Constitution provides for a state which is based on secularism or Sarva Dharma Sambhava. We have already discussed secularism and Sarva Dharma Sambhava. Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25 of the Constitution propound Sarva Dharma Sambhava. According to Article 14, specific provision is made that all citizens would have equal legal rights and the State would not deny them any protection as provided under the law. According to Article 15, the State would not discriminate against any citizen on the basis of religion. Article 16 makes provision for equality in matters of employment for any post under the State or controlled by it. Article 25 provides equal rights to all citizens to follow or propagate any religious faith and the freedom of conscience. In fact, the Preamble of the Constitution speaks of providing equal opportunities and status. It also says that this equality has to be ensured for all citizens.

This way, our Constitution provides equal opportunities and equal protection under the law for all citizens and is against religious discrimination. It also guarantees equal status and equal opportunities to all citizens irrespective of their religion. In this context, it is understandable that the makers of the Constitution did not feel it necessary to add separately the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution.

But a decision was taken to add the word ‘secular’ by amending the Constitution 25 years later. Then there was a state of emergency. The Lok Sabha had completed its term of five years and was surviving on the extended life of one year. Most of the prominent leaders of the opposition parties were behind the bar. Even, some leaders of the ruling party who dared to oppose were put in jail. The press was under censorship. The freedom of expression was curbed. Complaints were voiced in Parliament that the Administration did not grant permission for holding even those meetings which were arranged for discussing the proposed constitutional amendment. The Law Minister tried to defend the Government by saying that such meetings were planned for some other purpose.

In reality the purpose of the constitutional amendment was not merely to add a few words in the Preamble. The statement of aims and objects which was attached to the Constitutional Amendment Bill stated that the Government’s aim was ‘to bring about a social and economic revolution in the country.’ Constitutional amendment wasnecessary to remove the hurdles that obstructed the ushering in of the revolution. The Government had come out with a statement that ‘vested interests are busy advancing their interests, at the cost of the public.’ In a statement, the Law Minister Shri Gokhale said, ‘Certain things have become inevitable for the Government. Therefore, the high ideals of socialism, secularism and national integrity are being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.’

We all know that the purpose behind the constitutional amendment was to give precedence to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights, to establish the prerogative of Parliament to amend the Constitution and finally to curtail the right of the judiciary to declare any law as unconstitutional.

Introducing the Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha, the Law Minister Shri Gokhale had said that the addition of the words ‘socialism and secularism’ was not just a play of words. He however, did not elaborate on the need to include these words. It may be noted that he had mentioned socialism and secularism in one breath. There was no separate discussion on them nor was any attempt made to define these two words. Shri Gokhale said that the two isms had been before us. We have tried to follow them and now we will follow them still more. He himself commented that one could say that the two terms could not be defined and then proceeded to say that even the concept of democracy could not be defined. It is interpreted in different countries in different manners. However, he said, we do know as to what ‘socialism and secularism’ mean.

During the course of discussion on the bill in the Lok Sabha, several members wanted to know the need for including the word ‘secularism’ in the Constitution. Shri Indrajit Gupta of the Communist Party of India even went to the extent of saying that India was already a Secular Republic. The State provided equal status and rights to the followers of different religions. Even those who did not believe in any religion got equal treatment. Shri Indrajit Gupta then said the only purpose of adding the word ‘secular’ in the Constitution one could make out was that we wanted to strengthen the secular character of our Republic and to give an assurance to the followers of all religions that the element of secularism would be underlined. He further said that India, unlikeits neighbours, was not a theocratic State. He insisted that the Government should spell out exactly what assurance it wanted to give to the followers of different faiths especially the minorities by adding the word ‘secularism’.

Many members who took part in the debate did not utter a single word on the inclusion of secularism. Shri K. Hanumanthaiah was one of them. What conclusion can be drawn from it? Does it mean that such members did not consider the subject important enough to be commented upon? Perhaps it would be rather unfair to them to think in this way.

Even those members who supported the move to declare India a secular republic, emphasised that we should not be guided by the dictionary meaning of the word ‘secular’. The most outstanding speech during the debate was that of Sardar Swaran Singh. He had headed the Government Committee on the constitutional amendment. In his speech, he clarified that the word secular as given in the dictionary was not the same as what we had in our perception. He even went to the extent of saying that as far as he was concerned the word secular, as defined in the dictionary, was not a concept that could be highly spoken of. He then referred to the conflict between the Church and the State in Europe and said, ‘Given this background, the Western secular concept was not acceptable to us.’ Sardar Swaran Singh said that the word secular has acquired a definite connotation in our country. And it means that, under the Constitution, followers of different religions are on an equal footing before the law of the land. He said, ‘Our secularism would not have the slightest suggestion that it was anti-religion. Secularism as we understand provides for equal respect for all religions.’

Shri Suleman Sait of the Muslim League welcomed the inclusion of the word ‘secular’. He however, interpreted that its inclusion would fortify the rights of the minorities. Shri Sait quoted from the speech delivered by Smt Indira Gandhi in April 1976 and said according to her, ‘We are striving to provide Indian versions of socialism and Communism’.

One of the debates in the Constituent Assembly was nearest to the Indian concept of secularism. This debate was held on the report of the Advisory Committee which had been constituted to go into the question of the minorities and their fundamental rights. Specially, some Muslim League members of the committee had demanded that there should be a separate electoral college for the Muslims. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel was the Chairman of the Committee. While presenting the report and subsequently replying to the debate, he had made important points. It is worthwhile to go into some details.

Sardar Patel emphasised the country’s objective to ensure equity for all the citizens and to remove all divisions, classifications and privileges in the shortest possible time. He reminded both the majority and minority communities of their responsibilities and said it was in the interest of all that a real and strong foundation of the Secular State was laid. In conclusion, he said ‘We all should forget about the majority and minority communities and should think only in the terms of one Indian society.’

During the debate, a Muslim League member again raised the issue of separate representation. He moved an amendment demanding the continuation and endorsement of proportionate representation in the Central and state legislatures (according to the population of Muslims). But the amendment was opposed by some other members of the Muslim League. They included Begum Aizaz Rassol, Col. Zaidi, and Maulana Hasrat Mohani. The tenor of the speeches made by those who had supported the amendment was such that even a leader of Sardar Patel’s mettle got perturbed. He made a speech which has acquired historical importance and it is as relevant today as when it was made.

Whatever he said is being reproduced: ‘Sir I would not take much time. I am pained to learn that this question has been taken seriously. This question was put forth in the Advisory Committee also but it had not generated as much debate as today. My friends in the Muslim League present here, those who moved the amendment and supported, had felt that they, in a way, had to discharge a duty. They had been pressing for the system of separate electorate. They had been used to it for a long time and they felt that the system should not be discarded all of a sudden. They could have simply put the amendment to vote. However, when I listened to their detailed speeches, I became aware that I was living in the period when the question of communalism had become a matter of controversy for the first time.

‘I did not have the occasion to listen to the speeches which pro-pounded the theory of communal system of elections in the Congress in the early days. However, several prominent Muslims have expressed their view in writing that the greatest harm has been done to India by the communal electoral colleges. The communal approach to the election process has injected poison in the body politic of our nation. Many of the Britishers, who had been responsible for introducing the system themselves, accept this fact. This communal system had led to the division of the country. Realising this consequence, I could never think that any such proposal could be put forward with any serious intent. Or if put forth it would be taken seriously.

‘When the creation of Pakistan was accepted it was also accepted that the remaining India, 80 per cent part of India, would be one nation and no one would indulge in the talk of two nations. There is no gainsaying that the separate electoral system is being demanded as it is in our interest. We have heard enough. We had been hearing of this for years and as a result of this agitation we find today that we are a separate nation. The agitation had centred around the argument that they were a separate nation. Separate electoral colleges or any provision of special status or privileges were not good enough for their security and were not acceptable. They needed a separate state. Ultimately, we had to say “alright, you take a separate state”. But the rest of the country 80 per cent of it would remain one nation. Do you agree to this? Or do you still want that we should raise the question of two nations even here? I oppose separate electoral system. Can you name a single independent country which has such separate electoral system? If yes, I would be prepared to accept the system. But the country be damned if such a separate system is to be continued in this unfortunate land even after the division of the country. The country would no longer be worth living in. I therefore, say not only in my interest but also in your interest that you please let bygone be bygone. We all can get united one day. I wish Pakistan well. May it be a success. May it build itself up in its own way and be prosperous. We may compete for achieving prosperity but surely we may not have a rivalry as is being witnessed in Pakistan these days. You do not know, in Delhi we are sitting on the top of a volcano. You do not know as to how much pressure is being put on us on account of what has been happening around us. Myfriends, the movers of the amendment say that the Muslim community is united today. Fine, I am happy to learn about it. You would no longer require our support. (Thumping of desks) However there are other minorities which are not organised. They deserve special facilities and protection. We want to be liberal towards them. At the same time, you want that we should accept reservations on the basis of population, for you have taken advantage of it for a long time and do not realise that discrimination is implicit in the system. Do other independent countries in the world have any system of reservations of this type? I am asking you, would you please tell me? You are an organised community. Then why do you act like a lame? You are organised. Be brave and strong. Stand on your own feet. Think of the nation we are trying to build. With the new Constitution we have laid the foundation of the nation. Chaudhary Khali-quzzama has said that the British element is no more and we should forget all apprehensions. The British have left but they have left behind a mischief. We do not want to make it a permanent mischief (Hear, Hear). When the British introduced this element, they had not thought that they would have to go so soon. They had done so with a view to ruling over us with ease. It is true that it is their legacy, but do we have to discard it or not? For this very reason, I am asking you, I am making an appeal to you to please think about it. Do you expect that there is even one individual in the country outside the Muslim League who would advocate the separate electoral system? Then why do you do this? If you say that you want to remain loyal to this country, I would like to ask as to how do you define this loyalty. Do you want to encourage loyalty for the other side? I had no intention to speak on the subject. But when the mover of the amendment motion spoke at such length and his party leader supported him, I felt that there was something wrong somewhere in the country. Therefore, my friends, I put this question to you. Do you want peace in the country? If yes, then please leave all this. You can neither do harm to Pakistan nor to India. The only thing that you can do is to make such things happen all over the country as are happening today around us. If you really want this you can have it. But I appeal to you that at least from our side we should prove that we have forgotten the things of the past. If you want to forget the past, we will have to forget what was done in the past and also as to who was responsible for the present sorry state of affairs. I would once again appeal to you to please withdraw the amendment and pass the motion unanimously to prove to the world outside that we are united.’

Immediately after the speech of Sardar Patel, some members made a strong demand for the withdrawal of the amendments. This was not done. The amendments were put to vote and rejected.

There was unanimous opinion in the Constituent Assembly as indeed all over the country, that the State should be secular in the sense that there would be no State religion nor would there be any discrimination of its citizens on the basis of religion. The question now arises as to why do we have this sharp controversy over secularism full four decades after the framing of the Constitution?

It seems that there are three main reasons. In principle, it was accepted that the Indian concept of secularism would draw its inspiration from the Sarva Dharma Sambhava—equal respect for all religions. It would not be anti-religion. Still the Government followed such policies and implemented them in such a manner that gave rise to the apprehension that the State wanted to keep away from the religion and treated it as a hurdle in the way of progress. The equality of all religions and also of their followers as implied in the Sarva Dharma Sambhava was not put into practice. Right or wrong, both the majority and minority communities started feeling that the scales were tilted one side or the other in view of political expediency and for the quest of power. The scheme of providing incentives and dis-incentives to tackle the problem of population explosion was not implemented on the ground that it would hurt the religious feelings of some groups. Such an interpretation makes the very concept of secularism ludicrous. A bride in the ancient times was given blessing with the expression of the wish that she may bear eight sons (Ashta-Putravati). Such a blessing was treated as in accordance with Dharma or religion. In the present times, if we start practising what we were told, you can well imagine what would happen to the country in a matter of few years.

The Directive Principles of the Constitution say that the State should make efforts for evolving a comm1on civil code. The Government’s failure in this regard has also helped strengthen the impression that no efforts are being made to achieve this as it may annoy some groups and hurt the election prospects of the ruling party. The objection tothe national song ‘Vande Mataram’ betrays the same mentality that had resulted in the unfortunate division of the country. The idea behind secular India was that the country once already divided would not have any further division and there would be no demand for its division in the name of religion, community or language. The violent disturbances created by the divisive elements in different parts of the country have given a blow to the feeling of one nation and some people have started wondering if the path we decided to follow in 1950 was correct. The public mind also gets influenced by what happens in India’s neighbourhood and what political systems are being followed by the neighbouring countries. The emergence of religious fundamentalism in some parts of the world and its alliance with terrorism has generated new fears.

I feel that had we translated the word ‘secular’ as ‘Sampradaya-nir-peksha’ or ‘Pantha-nirpeksha’ instead of ‘Dharma-nirpeksha’, in the very beginning, many apprehensions would not have arisen. Whatever might have been the differences of opinion on the interpretation of the word ‘secular’, all, however, agreed that the State should be noncommunal. Even today there is unanimity on this question. The new Hindi edition of the Constitution has translated the word ‘secular’ as ‘Panth-nirpeksha’ and thus tried to make amends for the past mistake. What is needed now is that we all should adopt this correct translation and popularise it.

In the absence of the correct understanding of the secular concept, some elements adopt a negative approach on some emotive issues placing a question mark on the concept itself. Practices like lighting a lamp at the inauguration of State functions or breaking a coconut at the time of launching a new ship are not connected with the rituals of any religion but are a part of Indian culture and tradition. ‘From darkness to light’—‘Tamso Ma Jyotir Gamaya’ is the guiding spirit of man’s progress. Right from ancient times, man has challenged the forces of darkness by lighting a small lamp. Lighting of a lamp at public functions is thus symbolic. Similarly, I would pose a question to those who oppose chanting of Vedic hymns on such occasions. Could there be any objection to any mantra which exhorts to walk hand in hand and to speak and think with a feeling of oneness?

On occasions, unnecessary controversies are created about national festivals. Social festivals like Diwali, Dussehra and Holi should not beassociated with any specific form of worship. These festivals have manifested our cultural wealth and its diversity right from the days of ‘Puranas’. Almost all festivals are associated with the change of the season and the advent of the new crop. Also alongwith these festivals there has been a tradition of folk-songs and folk-dances. Baisakhi in Punjab, Bihu in Assam, Onam in Kerala, Ugadi and Pongal in Tamil Nadu and Andhra are such festivals. The celebrations of Id and Christmas festivals generate goodwill and social intercourse. Now Ganeshotsav and Durga Puja are also being celebrated on a national scale. We have to differentiate between the religious practices and rituals which have got associated with the festivals and their social aspects to facilitate their transformation into national festivals.

The main issue in the present debate on secularism is that of special provisions for the minorities on the basis of religion. Article 30(1) of the Constitution provides special rights to minorities on the basis of religion or language. According to the provisions of this article, all religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. I would like to confine myself here to religion as we are discussing secularism.

The Supreme Court has given judgement in several cases pertaining to the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 30(1).

It is said that the article makes provisions for two rights; 1) to establish educational institutions of one’s choice and 2) to manage them. The right to establish means to bring into existence. Justice Khanna in the case of Saint Xavier’s College v/s Gujarat State has elaborated that the right to manage an institution refers to the right of functional management. There should be no control over the management so that the founders of the institute or those nominated by them are left free to shape the institution in a manner they think fit and according to their perception as to what would be in the common interest of the community and the institution itself. The words ‘educational institution of their choice’ qualify the institution. The provision does not say that the institutions established and managed by minorities should necessarily belong to one group only. Minorities have the freedom and the right to establish and manage educational institution of their choice.

Hence, Article 30(1) provides autonomy to a religious minority to manage educational institutions. At the same time, it has been categorically stated there is no restriction on the State imposing reasonable restrictions on such educational institutions. The right to manage can never include the right to mismanage. The state can exercise some control to ensure maintenance of the standard of the institution. Prescribing standards or objectives of educational institutions does not violate the right of a minority to manage educational institutions. In the case of Kerala State v/s Ati Shraddheya Mother Provincial, the representatives of the minority group, who were petitioners, had agreed that reasonable controls could be exercised in matters relating to the terms and conditions of employment of teachers, students’ health care and their physical education. It was also stated that the standards of education and objectives were not part of the management.

When the President had referred to the Supreme Court the questions arising out of certain sections of the Kerala Education Bill for eliciting its opinion it was stated that the State, before providing any grant to any educational institution could insist on effective measures to protect it from mismanagement and this right of the State did not contravene the right of a minority group to manage its educational institutions.

At the same time, it was stated that a State legislature cannot make indirect use of its legislative powers to deny the fundamental rights. As the legislature does not have any direct power in this regard, it cannot have any indirect power as well. On the question of granting recognition to institutions run by minorities, the Supreme Court has held that the minorities did not enjoy any fundamental rights to get their institutions recognised by the Government. However, denial of recognition on the grounds which may tantamount to forsaking the right to manage will in fact be violative of Article 30(1). It was stated that the right of the minorities to manage their educational institutions is not in conflict with the right of the state to ensure their protection from mismanagement. Thus the Article, as interpreted by the apex court, gives full guarantee to a religious minority to manage educational institutions.

The State can specify reasonable regulations. For instance, it may mean that minimum qualifications can be laid down for the appointment of teachers and principals. This however, does not ensure that only the most deserving would be appointed. An institution may appoint a person who may not be as deserving as some other as it may feel that such a person would be more appropriate. For instance, a college run by Christian religious minority may impose a condition that only a Christian would be appointed principal of the College. I feel it would amount to discrimination on the basis of religion and, therefore, it would be against secularism or the Sarva Dharma Sambhava.

In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by Justice Khanna in the case of Saint Xavier’s College v/s Gujarat State. Referring to the Constitution of the United States and the Canadian Bill of Rights, he said that the constitutional provision of religious freedom simply abolishes religious descrimination, it does not provide any new privilege. It provides for equality of religious but does not mean that the citizens have no obligations. Justice Khanna further says that the contention cannot be objected to. It is a practical guide and several examples can be cited in its support but difficulties arise when we talk of precedents which are not so clear.

There is no doubt that any provision for removing disabilities does not create any positive privileges. Sometimes the two aspects get so mixed up that it is apprehended that non-observance of what appears to be a privilege disturbs the arrangement made for removing some disability and thus ends the Constitutional guarantee about it.

Justice Khanna has made an important observation. He says, ‘In spite of this position and irrespective of the position in the United States and Canada, we in our Constitution have some Articles which not only provide for removing disabilities of the minorities but also are applicable for the generation of their positive rights. Article 30(1) falls in this category.’

I feel that we need to have a second look at provisions like Article 30(1). All citizens should be given equal rights in educational matters. There should not be discrimination between minorities and the majority in their right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice.

Way back in 1929, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, in his Presidential address at the Lahore Session of the Congress, had stressed that no religion should get any specific privileges nor should any community be denied its reasonable rights.

Justice Khanna has also referred to the first amendment in the Constitution of the United States which lays down that the US Congress would not make any law which would put any religion on a higher pedestal or prohibit the following of any religion of their choice by thecitizens. The US Supreme Court in the case of ‘Renalds v/s the United States’ had commented upon this amendment and said that the amendment did not affect the power of the State to punish anyone for acts which were against the social order or tended to destroy it.

In that case, the petitioner had claimed that polygamy was a part of his religious faith and the ban by the Congress on it amounted to negation of his right to freely follow his religion.

Speaking on behalf of the US Supreme Court Justice Roberts in ‘Cantwell v/s Connecticut’ had this to say on the first amendment:

‘This amendment has two aspects—freedom of faith and freedom of action. The first freedom is absolute whereas the second cannot be so.’

In my speech, I have given the comparative analysis of the Western and Indian concepts of secularism. This analysis leads us to the conclusion that ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ finds the correct expression of the Indian concept of secularism. The concept of Sarva Dharma Sambhava has inspired us from the Vedic period to the modern time. The ‘Atharva/Veda’ is said to be 5000 years old. The Prithvi Sukta of the Atharva/Veda speaks of the different faiths prevalent in the world and wishes their co-existence. The Prithvi Sukta says:

‘Let this earth, where people of different faiths live peacefully like a family, give happiness to all of us.’

Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma while assuming office of the President spoke at length of the Indian tradition of Sarva Dharma in his speech. In his words ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava has been a part of the Indian thought.’ He referred to Jain, Buddhism and Sikh religions, and said Sarva Dharma Sambhava teaches us the way of life. He quoted from a verse of Guru Govind Singh and exhorted all Indians to remember those lines. They are:

‘There is no difference between a mandir and a mosque, between puja and Namaaz, and between the Puranas and Quran. All human beings are equal and are the creation of one God.’

It is gratifying to note that Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma lends grace to the office of the President when the country celebrates the 108th birthday of Dr Rajendra Prasad, the first President of Independent India. We find that unflinching faith in Dharma is common to both. We find the same commitment to Sarva Dharma Sambhava in both the Presidents which is manifested through their words and deeds.

Several dramatic changes have taken place in the world. No one could have ever even imagined of such changes a few years ago. Some changes augur well, but there are also changes which spell uncertainty. The end of the cold war gives rise to the hope that the world community would move fast towards achieving the goal of disarmament and some part of the heavy expenditure on defence equipment would now be made available to the third world countries for their economic development. However, the emergence of religious fundamentalism and its alliance with terrorism in some parts of the world have caused serious apprehensions. It is a serious situation. While keeping a watchful eye on the developments in neighbouring and other countries, we have to remain firm in maintaining our traditions and culture. We have to give a concrete shape to our resolve to build an India where there is no discrimination on the basis of the community or the way of worship. Our Republic rests on the foundation of the guarantee that all citizens have equal rights, equal opportunities and equal status. By strengthening this foundation only can we face successfully the serious challenges, from within and without, to our national unity and integrity.

1 Atal Behari Vajpayee, ‘The Bane of Secularism’, in S.S. Bhandari, ed., Jana Sangh Souvenir (Delhi: BJP, 1969), pp. 55–8.

2 Atal Behari Vajpayee, ‘Rajendra Prasad Lecture’, 1992, All India Radio, copy of broadcast.