---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Naresh
The disadvantaged Hindus, pampered Minorities
By RK Ohri, IPS (Retd.)
Articles 29 and 30 ostensibly incorporated for protecting the cultural
and educational interests of minorities, fly in the face of the right
to equality enshrined in the Constitution. They have been the source
of promoting divisiveness between the majority and the minority
communities thereby delivering a body blow to the ideal of unity and
integrity of the Indian nation. This invidious constitutional
provision has placed the Hindus at a serious disadvantage, not only
vis a vis the minorities, but even in terms of the secular ideal
professed by the Indian State.
If we compare the theory and practice of democracy and secularism as
practiced in India with the British parliamentary system, considered
to be the role model for our country, we find that the two systems are
poles apart. In the United Kingdom uniform civil and criminal laws are
enacted and enforced for all citizens, irrespective of their religious
beliefs, creed or gender,
Barely 6l years after Independence once again the Indian nation stands
at the crossroads of history. The ideal of evolving a common
nationality by assimilating different religious identities into a
national identity, that is the Indian identity, has remained a
pipedream. The reasons for this abject failure to weld all citizens
into Indians first and Indians last are many and varied. The most
important reason for this monumental failure is that the
post-Independence political leadership of India has remained a
prisoner of the same grievance centric minority politics which had led
to Partition of the country in 1947.
For the last six decades the same divisive ideology, nurtured in the
garb of secularism, has remained the dominant theme of Indian polity.
The situation was further exacerbated by the insertion of secularism
in 1976 as an essential feature of Indian Constitution during the
Emergency which gave a cross-eyed slant to the Indian polity.
History is an eloquent witness to the fact that the Hindu civilization
has always been exceptionally tolerant and peaceful, both by
scriptural tradition and ethical training. But during the last few
decades the belligerence of the largest minority, namely the Muslims,
has begun to bedevil the Indian state much in the same manner as it
did in the pre-Partition era. Unfortunately the old mindset of
minority-appeasement continued to dominate the Indian leadership even
after India attained Independence. It was prominently reflected in the
incorporation of Articles 29 and 30 in the Constitution which
conferred certain extraordinary rights and privileges on minority
communities thereby elevating them the status of some kind of 'super
citizens' because no comparable rights were allowed to members of the
majority community. These two discriminatory Articles, ostensibly
incorporated for protecting the cultural and educational interests of
minorities, fly in the face of the right to equality enshrined in the
Constitution. They have been the source of promoting divisiveness
between the majority and the minority communities thereby delivering a
body blow to the ideal of unity and integrity of the Indian nation.
This invidious constitutional provision has placed the Hindus at a
serious disadvantage, not only vis a vis the minorities, but even in
terms of the secular ideal professed by the Indian State. It is time
that this wanton violation of the right to equality is debated at
public fora in a bold bid to seek resolution of this gross
discrimination embedded in the Constitution.
Presently the Indian political system is choc-a-bloc with unprincipled
busy bodies who consider minority-centric vote-bank politics,
deceptively woven into the fabric of secularism, as passport to power.
In no other country the word secularism is misused in such a devious
manner as it is in our country. Interestingly most politicians wearing
secularism on their sleeves are either casteist leaders or leftover
leftists of yesteryears who have lost their secular moorings. Indian
political theatre has an overwhelming presence of unprincipled
politicians who consider minority-centric vote-bank politics the
easiest passport to power. They have no moral compunction in singing
paeans to secularism while donning skull-caps for attending Iftar
parties, or haranguing in caste-based congregations of Brahmins,
Yadavs or Rajputs in a brazen bid to ride to political power. Surprise
of surprises, most of them defend with great gusto the grant of
religion specific dole called Haj subsidy, but oppose enactment of a
common civil code as envisioned in Article 44 of the Constitution!
Despite tall claims often made by politicians and orchestrated by the
mainstream media, the fact remains that today India is anything but a
secular democracy. The Indian political system fails to fulfil the two
most important prerequisites of a secular democratic nation. First,
the Indian Constitution falls short of the basic postulate of uniform
application of all laws to its citizens, irrespective of their caste
creed, religion or gender. Absence of a common civil code is a glaring
example of non-application of uniform laws in the matter of marriage
and inheritance. It is well known that the Muslim women, constituting
nearly 7.5 per cent of the country's population, continue to be denied
the right to equality because of strident opposition by the
community's clerics and community leaders. The second pre-condition
for a country's claim to be a democracy is the principle of equality
before law. As mentioned above, Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian
Constitution are a flagrant violation of the principle of equality
before law. Even Article 370 conferring a special status on the state
of Jammu & Kashmir is an aberration because it does not gel with the
right to equality enshrined in the Constitution. For instance, under
Article 370, no law enacted by the Indian Parliament is applicable to
the state of Jammu & Kashmir, unless it is duly approved by the state
legislature. Even the Governor of J&K state takes oath of his office
under the separatist constitution of that state, while Governors of
all other states take oath under the Indian Constitution. By allowing
a federating state, and only one single state, to have a separate
Constitution is a wanton violation of the principle of one nation, one
country. It is antitheatical to the very idea of national unity.
As highlighted by K. Subrahmanyam in a very perceptive article, "No
country can call itself democratic or secular unless it has a common
civil law."1 Democracy implies that all citizens have equal rights and
are to be treated equally under the rule of law. Allowing different
personal laws is a negation of both secularism and democracy because
it means that a person's religion determines the laws by which he or
she is to be governed. For that reason India cannot be termed either
as a secular state or a democracy.2 Commitment to secularism entails
that all social and political relationships will be governed by laws
enacted democratically. It is unacceptable that "the laws will be
beyond the competence of democratic governance for some sections on
account of their having God's sanction".3 He further pointed out that
because of the first-past-the-post electoral system a person often
gets elected even when he or she polls 30 per cent, or even less, of
the total votes cast. The result is that Parliament seldom represents
the true will of the majority of the electorate. This faulty system
has robbed the majority of its due legal and constitutional rights and
has perpetually enabled a minority, or a coalition of caste and
communal vote-banks, to dominate the majority. Those who come to power
on the strength of divisive politics and deviously cultivated
vote-banks have therefore no interest in national unity. In the
struggle for political power secularism and democracy are often used
as slogans for seizing power.3
These are some of the glaring examples of the Indian state functioning
in an anti-secular and communally partisan manner. Thus in 'our India'
all essential attributes of secularism are more honoured in breach
than in observance.
If we compare the theory and practice of democracy and secularism as
practiced in India with the British parliamentary system, considered
to be the role model for our country, we find that the two systems are
poles apart. In the United Kingdom uniform civil and criminal laws are
enacted and enforced for all citizens, irrespective of their religious
beliefs, creed or gender, without making any exception. But not so in
India. Unfortunately that ideal of uniform application of all laws to
every citizens, the quintessential hallmark of secularism, is totally
missing in the Indian system.
The recent decision of Government of India to send a 15-member
delegation led by its Labour Minister, Oscar Fernandes, to Vatican to
participate in the canonization of Sister Alphonsa by Pope Benedict
XVI, exposes the ugly face of Indian secularism. Not to be left behind
in the race for vote-banks, the CPM-supported Kerala government also
sent a delegation headed by a minister to Vatican. Interestingly the
same politicians had no qualms in filing a derogatory affidavit in the
Supreme Court denying the existence of Sri Ram in a bid to destroy the
Ram Sethu.
Interestingly the British commitment to secular ideal has not deterred
the UK government from declaring itself a Christian nation. Upon
ascending the throne, the monarch invariably assumes the title
"defender of the faith", and all important state functions, including
the coronation and inauguration of the Parliament session are
accompanied by a Christian prayer, often led by the Archbishop of
Canterbury himself.
In sharp contrast, in India's putrid political dispensation,
sham-secularist politicians take sadistic pleasure in heaping scorn
and calumny on the religious icons of the majority community, namely
the Hindus. No wonder, the ideal of forging a common nationality has
eluded the Indian nation. We have remained a nation divided against
itself entirely due to serious flaws in our Constitution and weird
machinations of self-serving politicians.
References:
1. K. Subrahmanyam, Forces of Fragmentation, Behind the Fig Leaf
of Secularism, The Times of India, New Delhi, April 18, 2002.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
(The author can be contacted at rkohri@airtelmail.in)
No comments:
Post a Comment