Author: Rakesh Sinha
Publication: The Hindustan
Times
Date: June 9, 2000
THE UP Religious Places
and Buildings Regulation Bill has been with the President of India awaiting
his consent for the last three months.
It has spurred the Muslim
clergy and politicians to launch an offensive campaign against the BJP
government for "imposing the RSS constitution on the country".
The Bill has been discursively
treated as a plank by the Muslim organisations to consolidate their support
base by projecting it as "an engine of torture and an effort to interfere
with the profession and practice" of Islam. There is a remarkable parallel
between the campaign against the Supreme Court judgment on the Shah Bano
case and the mode of mobilisation used by these organisations now.
Uttar Pradesh is not
the first State to promulgate a law which requires the permission of the
District Magistrate for any construction or use of building for religious
purposes. It is, in fact, a progeny of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings
and Places Act, 1954, and the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Dharmik Bhawan
Tatha Sthan Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1984. The opposition to the UP Bill can,
therefore, be seen as a way to score quick points against the BJP.
Those opposing the Bill
have now made a subtle shift in their approach by including the demand
to repeal the laws which have existed for decades in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan
and West Bengal. Maulana Mahmood Madani, general secretary of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind,
who accused the Sangh parivar for aspiring to "subjugate the Muslim community
through the UP Bill", asked Sonia Gandhi to persuade the Congress-ruled
states to abolish the law. He presumably believes that unless these states
scrap the prevailing law, the campaign against "Sangh Fascism" will not
take off.
At the focus of the campaign
against the UP Religious Bill is the Sangh parivar. A memorandum to the
President signed by JNU professors stated that the Bill is "an excuse to
give unfettered power to the District Magistrates so that they can be used
to serve the purposes of the RSS." Contrary to their claim, the UP government
has tried to make the Bill more liberal than the laws prevalent in Madhya
Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Unlike in Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh, where the collector has unconstrained powers to permit
or deny the construction or use of buildings for religious purposes, his
jurisdiction is to be limited in UP. He can deny permission only if it
is in the interest of public order, morality and health, or if it interferes
with the rights of any other religious denomination to freely profess and
practise its faith.
Such limitations on the
powers of the executive make the Bill more in consonance with the fundamental
rights concerning with religious freedom. Both the provisions keep in mind
"public order, morality and health". Article 25 states that "nothing in
this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent
the state from making any law". In the case of Masud Alam vs Commissioner
of Police (Calcutta), for instance, the court reaffirmed that Article 25
is subject to "public order, morality and health" when it banned loudspeakers
for prayer.
While the Rajasthan Act
and the Madhya Pradesh Act are comprehensive in nature - they cover all
buildings, even those which were in use before the laws were enacted -
the UP Bill does not apply to buildings used for a religious purpose before
the commencement of the act. Also, unlike the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh
versions, the UP Bill does not envisage to be applicable to any temporary
religious activity, ceremonies and processions.
The enactment of the
law in Rajasthan during the Congress regime was made incumbent by "anti-national
activities along the Indo-Pak border through the misuse of mushrooming
places of worship". ISI activities, particularly along the Indo-Nepal border,
became the immediate cause for pushing for a law in UP similar to that
already in place in Rajasthan. This explanation led the anti-Bill campaigners
to dub the move as an attack on mosques and madarsas.
That large-scale ISI
activities do take place in Assam, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu
and Uttar Pradesh is a reality. It would be preposterous to dub it as "saffron
propaganda". The protection of the rights of minorities is prerequisite
for a secular democratic system. However, it is indiscreet to consider
that there is a dichotomy between minority rights and national interests.
The fact is that this
Bill would effect the majority community more than the minorities. Hindu
forms of worship involve use of public places and any dispute would stop
the religious activities in such places. The Bill also includes in its
jurisdiction the three disputed places, Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura, and
the law would be another obstacle for the VHP to construct a permanent
temple in Ayodhya.
The law will help Uttar
Pradesh to tackle the land mafia who are busy grabbing land by creating
"temple trusts". It will also be a deterrent to the "investment" of black
money in the form of donations. In fact, all the states should enact such
laws to empower themselves against the misuse of religion.
