I have always wondered how such a seemingly
innocuous word has turned into such a politically loaded noun in India.
By definition, the word essentially means separating
religion from matters of state.
'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved
to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and
to secure to all its citizens,' goes the first line of the Preamble to our Constitution.
But hold on a second.
The original framers of our constitution did
not put the word Secular there.
It was added by the Indira Gandhi government
during the Emergency, through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, along
with 58 other changes. The word 'Socialist' too was added, while 'Unity of the
nation' was changed to 'unity and integrity of the nation.'
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was well intentioned.
But the road to Hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.
After having inserted the word, however, the
'secular' Congress Party blocked all subsequent attempts to officially define
it. And that has been the bane of our polity - and our nation - since then.
Because without a clear definition, secularism
means nothing. Or rather, it means different things to different people.
For politicians, it means liberty to play vote
bank games based on religion. In the same way that VP Singh, the 10th Prime
Minister of India, brutally and callously divided the nation along caste lines
for political mileage in 1990.
For religious leaders, it means liberty to exploit
politicians for their own petty gains, in return for assuring them the vote
of 'their people.'
For the common man, it means confusion, chaos
and often violence spawned by the viciously divisive 'Us and Them' philosophy
promoted by our religious and political leaders.
Attempts were even made recently - on the basis
of something called the High Level Committee for Preparation of Report on Social,
Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, better known
as Rajinder Sachar Commission Report -- to introduce this division among the
most secular institutions in the country, the Indian Army. Thankfully, the Army
would have none of it.
But we haven't heard the last of that yet; because
reservation for minorities is seen as a sure way to get their vote.
This divide and rule policy that our politicians
practice ensures that We the People of India, as the framers of our constitution
so grandly described us, cannot agree even on things that are obviously good
for us all. Like secularism as the dictionary defines it.
Instead, even as we proudly tout our so-called
secular credentials, successive governments have clearly used religion for political
gain.
But how can we be a secular state when we have
separate laws based on religion?
How can we be a secular state when the government
selectively funds pilgrimages and religious institutions?
How can we be a secular state when the government
allows schools and colleges to have quotas based on religion, and actually tries
to extend that to the corporate sector and even to the armed forces?
How can we be a secular state when politicians
campaign on purely religious platforms, and win?
And most importantly, how can we be a secular
state without clearly defining what it means?
Yes, we are certainly better off than some of
our neighbours, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and perhaps even Nepal, till recently
known as the only Hindu kingdom.
Pakistan and Bangladesh (and a host of nations
in the Persian Gulf and Africa) proudly declare Islam as their state religion,
and make no pretence about being secular.
Pakistan was born because Indian Muslims --
egged on by the devious departing British -- demanded a separate state for themselves.
And despite separating from Pakistan in 1971, Islam is the state religion of
Bangladesh too. Which explains why the non-Muslim population in both these nations
is rapidly dwindling.
Our politicians, however, in order to prove
that we are secular, and of course, in order to garner our votes, have gone
to the other extreme, taking steps which can easily -- and in most cases correctly
-- be construed as "minority appeasement."
Things have reached such a pass that whoever
uses that last phrase is immediately branded as 'anti-secular' and a right wing
bigot.
Things have reached such a pass that some years
ago, some Muslim men prevented firemen from rescuing a woman from a burning
Kolkata tenement, saying it would be against their religion to let an unknown
male touch her. The woman burned to death.
Instead of booking the men for murder, as any
'secular' state would have, however, the West Bengal government grandly declared
that they would induct women fire fighters to assist in such cases.
This peculiar brand of secularism trumped free
speech, also enshrined in our Constitution, when it came to Taslima Nasreen,
a rather insipid but feisty writer who invoked the wrath of the mighty Maulanas
of our Islamic neighbour, Bangladesh.
Her crime? To attest that "If any religion
allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps
women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept
that religion."
Taslima fled, and finally landed on Secular
India's shores. But not to be outdone, our very own Maulanas too started baying
for her head. And we all know what happened since: Goodbye free speech. Hello
secularism.
Many many moons ago, I came across an old school
friend of mine whose family owns a large, upmarket tailoring shop in Kolkata.
He was going to get married, he told me; for the third time.
"My Maulana has told us that being a democracy,
we can turn India into a Muslim country purely on the basis of votes. And we
will. Perhaps not today. But someday, our children will rule, for sure. Nothing
can stop us," he said matter of factly, before going on to explain how
that would be a wonderful thing, where the rule of God and the rule of the land
would be synchronised. A land where everyone could live without fear, and so
on.
At that time, I had laughed out loud, saying
that he obviously had not paid attention during our classes on "civics",
where we had learnt all about "unity in diversity" and the unflinchingly
Secular ethos of our nation.
Today, I flinch when the word is mentioned.
Secularism should be made of sterner stuff.
The author is the Chief Editor of Sify.com.
The views expressed in the article are of the
author's and not of Sify.com.