Feedback

The fury of Congress fundamentalism - I

The fury of Congress fundamentalism- II

‘Madame Secularism` is a beautiful and voluptuous woman with suitors on bended knees from all political parties in India today. The infatuation of the Congress party in India for this woman is greater than that of Louis XIV for `Madame Pompadour` in France in the latter half of the 17th century. The literal meaning of the term `secularism` is `anti-religion`. But as per Chambers English Dictionary, `secularism` means the belief that the State, morals, education, etc should be independent of religion. The most important question that has created all the confusion and agitation in the minds of our people has been the inclusion of the word `secular` in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976.

Though this was done ostensibly in the form of a public legislation, yet the real intent and purport behind this amendment was to advance the political fortunes of the Congress party in India. Despite this amendment in 1976, the myriad millions of India gave a fitting reply to Indira Gandhi in the 1977 general elections. The founding fathers of the Constitution of India were in many ways influenced by the Constitution of America. Before the formation of the United States, it was feared that a powerful federal government with `mischievous leadership might be tempted to favour and establish a particular religion suppressing others`.

To overcome this difficulty, the Constitution of USA by its 1st and 14th amendments provided two restrictions to the States as `non establishment clause` and `free exercise clause`. The framing fathers of the Indian Constitution never incorporated these two restrictive American clauses into our Constitution because they could not ignore the social impact of religion on Indian society.

India has always been secular from times immemorial. It has welcomed the Parsis in Gujarath, the Jews and Arabs in Kerala, Portuguese in Goa and Kerala and the Englishmen and French in south India. There was no fundamentalism in India at all, till the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the scene and his pampering of Muslims during the Khilafat Movement starting from 1919.

Nehru once described himself as the last Englishman to rule India. It is very true. He also became the de facto Mughal ruler of India with effect from December 1946 when the interim government assumed charge. I am using the word Mughal to denote Nehru`s special affection for the Muslims, which made the Congress party follow a policy of discrimination between the minority Muslims and the majority Hindus by invoking the dubious doctrine of pseudo secularism. This doctrine ensures special treatment for the Muslims under the umbrella of `minority rights` and general contempt for the Hindus under the umbrella of `majorityism`.

Secularism means in government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion (ranging from reducing ties between the State and the church, to promoting secularism in society), non-discrimination among religions (providing they don`t deny primacy of civil laws), and guaranteeing human rights to all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights). Neither a State nor the Central government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. Neither can it pass laws, which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In this clear and categorical sense, the Congress party has never believed in upholding this form of secularism in India after 1947.

Another complicating factor in India is that clear and categorical rulings have not been given by the Supreme Court on the subject of `secularism`. I am of the view that the Supreme Court has never exercised its sovereign right without fear or favour to apply the neutrality principle between religions consistently in many matters affecting Indian polity and society after independence.

This is what that has resulted in judges, ruling now this way, now that way, thumbs up or thumbs down, as their personal preferences dictate and not with due deference to the tripod of majesty of law, rule of law and equality before the law. The murky story of Congress-sponsored minority fundamentalism after our independence has resulted in creating a State where Hindus have been treated as second-class citizens.

Government patronage for the adoption of the rule of majority in the field of politics and the rule of minority in the realm of religion for electoral benefits at the cost of national interest has created an atmosphere of fear amongst the Hindus throughout India. Government sponsoring of Hajj pilgrimages for devout Muslims is viewed as `secular`. No such facility is available to the Hindus for their Badrinath or Kedarnath pilgrimage because Hindus are treated as second class citizens.

Subsidised pilgrimage (Haj) to Mecca should be stopped, as it is non-secular and adversely discriminative of 88 per cent of Indians. Minority educational institutions can be allowed for theology, language and religious studies only and not for `secular` subjects like arts, sciences, humanities, engineering, medicine, management and computers, etc.

Uniform Civil Code (not communal Hindu Code or secular Islamic Code) should be introduced and those who do not accept this rule of law may be disenfranchised and made ineligible for State-proffered welfare. Urdu universities should not be allowed more functions or privileges or jurisdiction than those which are admissible to Telugu or Malayalam or Tamil Universities. A Tamil or any other Indian language university should also be allowed to have campuses in other States for teaching engineering, science, medicine, etc like any other Urdu university.

The status of first among equals accorded to Urdu language should be withdrawn forthwith and it should be made join the mainstream of all other languages in India. Political parties based on or for promotion of religious identities like the Muslim League have been allowed to continue unfettered, while several attempts have been made to ban organisations like the RSS and the VHP. To the majority Hindus in India, the `secular` (pseudo) message of the Congress party is: you have to learn to live without certainty, with continued goodwill for militant sections of the minority and at the same time without being paralyzed by fear or doubt or despair.

That will be a true homage to the non-communal God of true `secularism`. The decline of the Congress party, marginalisation of communists except in a few States, and the growing importance of caste, communal, regional, sectarian, and ethnic groups in Indian society as a vote bank have made the political environment so fractious that a national consensus on any issue has now become almost impossible. The founding fathers of the Indian constitution who granted more rights to the people without balancing them with their duties, perhaps did not foresee the emergence of present political environment, wherein the political players of various segments in the country are more interested in fulfilling their individual aspirations than the aspirations of the people.

The pity of Indian politics today is that small men in high places like Arjun Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan and the like would dismiss Annie Besant as `communal` and `non-secular` on account of her declared commitment to uphold the cause of `sanathana dharma`. In the same breath, they would extol Sonia Gandhi as a `secular emancipator of the masses`. Karunanidhi and his partymen would provide the divine musical background of Nadaswaram with able Thavil and Jalra support from Ramadoss, Vaiko, A B Bardan and Karat. The common man in the street in India is in grave doubt as to whether these leaders of global stature (!) barring Sonia, are Hindus or not.

V Sundaram IAS

       Send your views to author

Do you wish to reach our readers? submit your guest column

Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page URL) without the prior permission from us and the author.

The fury of Congress fundamentalism- II July 25, 2005

The fury of Congress fundamentalism - I July 24, 2005

India that is Bharath July 14, 2005

Bharatiya JINNAH Party June 26, 2005

The quintessence of Hindutva May 24, 2005

Autocracy in science education May 24, 2005

Jaya and Ramadoss! April 23, 2005

Admn Reforms Comm: Welcome move April 18, 2005

USA: With good will towards none March 27, 2005

Public Impeachment of Indian Nabobs March 17, 2005

The tragedy of Indian democracy March 03, 2005

The Dancing Dervish of Goa February 08, 2005

Benny Hinn - Symbol of Secular Adharma January 29, 2005

Beware of Nocturnal Raids January 14, 2005

Was Veer Savarkar ever a Freedom Fighter?  December 24, 2004

Our National Degradation December 13, 2004