Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 10, 2002
Secularism has become a political
slogan with few of its users being clear about what it means. The 16th
century European definition was a separation between the church and the
state; the non-interference of the clergy in the affairs of government.
The Marxist concept was to try and
abolish religion from the life of the people. On the other hand, tolerance
has been a hallmark of the Hindu ethos since its beginning. The question,
therefore, of introducing secularism into the affairs of India appears
to have been unnecessary. In fact, its practice has distorted the spirit
of tolerance. Hindu-Muslim riots are a symptom of this distortion.
One of the directive principles
of policy contained in Article 14 of the Constitution requires the introduction
of a common civil code; one law common to all citizens. 52 years after
the Constitution was adopted, there is no sign of the country having one
personal law. If the Muslims were to insist on their own distinctive personal
law, why should the state not also ask them to accept the Shariat with
regard to criminal law? Minority educational institutions are allowed to
run freely according to their societies but are heavily subsidised by the
state. Whereas, Hindu institutions are denied such subsidy. So discriminatory
is this law that the much respected Rama Krishna Mission was driven to
claim that it is a minority organisation.
Why was the Minorities Commission
established? Their institutions could certainly have been looked after
by the National Human Rights Commission. Evidently, there was a systematic
intention by the Government of India at some point to keep lit the flame
of minorityism lit. Perhaps, it was felt that if they got integrated into
the mainstream, they might cease to be of electoral benefit.
It is unlikely that the Muslim community
or its leadership ever demanded such favours from the Indian state. Who
would understand the Muslim aspirations better than Qaid-i-Azam Jinnah,
especially in the years around Independence and Partition? It is not widely
known that Jinnah entered into a written agreement with the All India Hindu
Mahasabha, whose general secretary at the time was Raja Maheshwar Dayal
Seth.
According to the agreement, the
country was to be partitioned soon after Independence with the help of
a plebiscite. There was to be no corridor between the Muslim areas of the
Northwest and Northeast of India, although they could form a single sovereign
state. Government machinery was to be provided for facilitating the transfer
of populations. Above all, it said in the event of separation the Muslims
shall not demand any safeguard for the Muslim minority in Hindustan. It
will be open to the two Indias (East Pakistan was not mentioned) to arrange
on a reciprocal basis safeguards for religious minorities in the respective
states. (page 301, Indian Muslims; A Political History by Ram Gogal Asia
Publishing House, New York, 1959).
How the minorities were dealt with
subsequently by Pakistan is well-known. Dr Rafiq Zakaria, in his recent
book, The Man Who Divided India (Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 2001) has described
what happened in that country. "Some Indian Muslims living in India asked
Mr Jinnah on the eve of Partition: 'What is to happen to us who are being
left behind?' He assured them that if any harm came to them, Pakistan would
retaliate against the Hindus under its control. But he could not have been
serious about that for he must have known that after the hate campaign
he had unleashed against the Hindus, few of them would have dared to stay
on in his Pakistan. And they did not; they fled in the most excruciating
circumstances - many died on the way, the rest reached India with nothing."
Although the expression ethnic cleansing was not used, what happened in
the western wing of Pakistan was just that. In the eastern wing, something
similar has been happening but in a chronic or gradual rather tha n an
acute manner.
In fairness to the Muslim League
and the community it represented, it was forthright about its non-secular
credentials ever since it was founded in 1906. One of its essential rules
was that only a Muslim could become a member of the party. The League's
demand for separate electorates was conceded by the Lucknow Pact which
was signed between the Congress and the Muslim League. While writing in
his journal Al Hilal during 1913, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had said that
no Muslim need join any political party. Islam itself is a party whose
name is Hizbullah. The Imam and the Sultan are rolled into one and this
integrated concept was personified by the Caliph or the representative
of the Holy Prophet. But for the Congress party to concede separate electorates
for the two communities was to bury its secular credentials.
Whatever hope might have been left
in the practice of secularism, in India, was finally dashed when the Congress
conceded the League's demand for Partition. Pakistan for Muslims and Hindustan
for the rest was the understanding of the League led by Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah.
The League leaders had made repeated declarations that the exchange of
populations was an integral part of Partition; that all Muslims should
immigrate to Pakistan while all non-Muslims should come across to Hindustan.
In the context of these events, it was appropriate that there was no mention
of the word "secular" in the Indian Constitution, which was ratified in
1950. The word was smuggled into the great document during the Emergency,
1976, when most of the opposition MPs were in jail.
