ISSUES EMERGING FROM THE DISCUSSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION
ISSUES EMERGING FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The
discussions in chapter one about the direct constitutional provisions that are
concerned with freedom of religion, confirm that the spirit of the constitution
is to uphold the plural structure of the Indian society. It is also concretely
established that freedom of religion is a vital part of the constitution. Even,
there are sufficient possibilities to consider the freedom of religion as a
human rights issue.
In this chapter,
the pertinent issues connected with freedom of religion emerging from the
preceding brief discussions on the constitutional provisions can be further
analyzed to clarify the position of the constitution in connection with freedom
of religion and the attempts of a few parochial interpretations of the
constitution. The first such analysis can be on the inclusion of the expression
secular in the preamble of the constitution. Then there can be discussions on
the expressions secular, secularism, secular state, democracy, freedom of
religion, propagation and conversion.
Having taken into careful
consideration the plural structure of the Indian society in all aspects of
life, the preamble of the Indian constitution envisages justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity to all the citizens of India. P.L. John Panicker has
elaborated these principles and puts as, “the constitution of India in its
preamble has pledged to give to the people of India a sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic, republic, committed to secure to all its citizens social,
economic, and political justice, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith
and worship, equality of status and opportunity and dignity of the individual,
fraternity of the people and integrity of the nation.”[1]
The above definite assertion is
possible because of the meticulous insertion of the word ‘secular’ in the
preamble of the constitution. According to Durga Das Basu “the secular
objective of the State has been specifically expressed by inserting the word
‘secular’ in the Preamble by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act,
1976. Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”[2]
Again he writes “the unity and fraternity of the people of India, professing
numerous Faiths, has been sought to be achieved by enshrining the ideal of a
‘secular State’, which means that the State protects all religions equally and
does not itself uphold any religion as the State religion. The question of Secularism
is not one of sentiments, but one of law.”[3]
The principles of secular, secularism and secular state are essential in the
discussions on freedom of religion.
Those
who are opposed to the secular values of the constitution prudently claim that
the very nature of India is secular “why then this inclusion of the word
‘secular’ in the Preamble of the constitution? Was not Art 30 enough assurance
to the minority religious communities?”[4]
Such a pretentious claim is sugarcoated pill. The notion behind is the denial
of rights and privileges to the minorities.
People with such assertion make a
false distinction between Indian secularism and other. In connection with the
insertion of the word secular in the preamble it is remarked “for whatever was
the cause, its inclusion in the constitution remains as a standing insult to
the traditional secularism that has been the long standing Indian heritage
throughout the centuries.”[5]
The truth is had there been real secularism in India the necessity for the
inclusion of the word secular in the preamble of the Indian constitution could
not have arisen.
In the opinion of anti-secular
proponents “first of all, the very notion of ‘secularism’ as it originated in
the West has no relevance to our country. Centuries ago, in Europe, the kings
revolted and overthrew the theocratic hegemony of Pope over their kingdoms and
established their own rule. Thus came about the ‘secular’ states as opposed to
the ‘theocratic’ ones.”[6]
According to them India never had such a situation. This is, of course, not
glorification of the greatness of Indian ethos but a shield to execute the
whims and fancies of a particular numerically dominant group. And the group is
intolerant towards other religions and hostile to the plain notion of secular state,
as envisaged in the Indian constitution.
Here the remark of Ambedkar is
fitting. He warned the constitution Assembly on November 25, 1949, “however
good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are
called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it
may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good
lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of
the Constitution.”[7] It is
true that the constitution of India is meticulous in guaranteeing freedom of
religion to every citizen of this nation but only those who have communal
agendas attempt to divert the right direction of the constitution by glorifying
intolerance as tolerance and disharmony as harmony.
In
spite of the protests associated with the insertion of the word secular in the
preamble, its placing in the preamble has strengthened the fundamental rights
of all the citizens of India along the line of human rights, besides the
clarion spirit of the constitution. It unambiguously guarantees freedom of
religion to every one subject to the sovereignty of the nation.
2.2 Secular
The insertion of the word secular in
the preamble of the Indian constitution is a boon to India where many religions,
languages and cultures coexist side by side. But the problem associated with
the placing of this word in the constitution is that the word secular is not
defined in the constitution. This has thrown open the possibilities of raising
several questions as to what is meant by secular, secularism and secular state.
Since judiciary plays vital role in resolving
confusions on the basis of constitution, its pronouncement on the use of the
term secular is credible. Although the subsequent section of this chapter is
devoted to discuss ‘secularism’ we have chosen a passage, which explains
secularism and secular to understand the point of view. Here the two terms
secular and secularism are relatively explained. Nevertheless, the explanation
makes things much clear. With regard to the use of secularism and secular, it
is stated “this state of confusion has been set at rest by authoritative
pronouncements made by the Supreme Court, in a nine-Judge decision, as follows:
(a) Secularism, in India, does not
mean that the State should be hostile to religion but that it should be neutral
as between the different religions.
(b) Every
individual has the freedom to profess and practise his own religion, and it
cannot be considered that “if a person is a devout Hindu or a devout Muslim, he
ceases to be secular”.
(c) The use of the vague word
‘secular’ in the Preamble would not override the enacted provisions in
Arts.25-30 or Art. 351, so that the preference of Sanskrit in the academic
syllabus as an elective subject, while not conceding this status to
Arabic or Persian or the like, would not militate against the basic
tenets of secularism (para 20).
(d)The neutrality of the state would
be violated if religion is used for political purposes and advocated by
the political parties for their political ends. An appeal to the electorate on
grounds of religion offends secular democracy (para 128). Politics and religion
cannot be mixed (para 131). If a State Government does this, it will be a fit
case for application of Art. 356 of the Constitution against it (para 365
(10)).
(e) It is in this sense that
secularism is to be regarded as a basic feature of the Constitution [para 365
(10)].”[8]
Although
the word secular and its derivative secularism are used in the judgment it
clarifies the clear denotation of the term secular as implied in the preamble
of the Indian constitution.
The implications are that in a secular
state, the state shall be neutral in matters of religion, every individual has
freedom of religion, religion should not be used for political ends and
politics and religion cannot be mixed. Unfortunately, it is a reality that when
certain political parties occupy power they aggressively propound the interest
of one religious group, mainly the numerically majority. Religion is used for
political propagations and political and religious interests are mixed
together. This new context is alarming and hence needs serious consideration
and this justifies the reason for undertaking this research. The above judgment
affirms the neutrality of the state on religious matters and does not say that
the religion of the numerically dominant should be the religion of the nation.
Nor it says that the numerically dominant religious body will prescribe the
religion that others should follow. A further analysis of the usage secularism
can be an additional help in understanding the subject matter.
2.3 Secularism
The principle of secularism was well
conceived in India much before independence. Neera Chandhoke writes,
“Secularism as a creed that the state should treat all religions equally, was
adopted by the Indian National congress (hereafter the Congress) as one of its
core principles, simply because it was moral, relevant, and appropriate for the
needs of our society.”[9]
Even before the insertion of the word
secular in the preamble of the Indian constitution the secular implications
were implicit. The changing political and communal scenario of India has
necessicitated the insertion of the word secular into the preamble of the
Indian constitution in 1976.[10]
No doubt this was a great step forward in preserving the secular credentials of
the Indian constitution.
In spite of the early congress’
efforts to instill secular ideals in India it is worth remembering that “during
the course of discussion in the Constituent Assembly on the Fundamental Rights
relating to religion, the idea of secularism was extensively pressed into
service by the members as the most handy tool to substantiate various
viewpoints, often diametrically opposed.”[11]
Nonetheless, the relevance of adhering to secular ideals in India is
inevitable. Meera Nanda writes, “the
future of secular societies depends upon the cultivation of secular culture.”[12]
This is to say that secularism is crucial to India and hence it has to be
practiced at all spears of life. Secularism gains unequivocal acceptance as
religious bodies are realizing the phenomenon of living together with other
religious communities rather than hating the other. Even at this point of time
communal forces utilize religious sentiments to persuade one religious
community against the other.
2.3.1 Secularism and Freedom of Religion
The principle of secularism is
uniquely understood and practiced in India. In the words of Neera Chandhoke “it
is not surprising that secularism in the Indian polity, as a response to our
conditions and mode of thought, came to be conceptualized as sarva dharma
sambhava, or equality of all religions.”[13]
The fact that in the Indian constitution the word secular is used to stress the
neutrality of the state in relation to religions is further emphasized as
“ironically, it is often forgotten that secularism in India had been devised
precisely to negotiate interreligious relationships; to grant the freedom of
religious belief; to ensure equality of all the religious groups. And to assure
the minorities that their identities would be safe.”[14]
However, the Hindu right has ignored the basic thrust of the word secular and
attempts to use it according to their own convenience. It is argued that, “the
parties of Hindu Right have appropriated the concept of secularism and through
various spurious yet ingenious discursive moves, made it very much their own.”[15]
Appealing for the supremacy of
Hinduism and ignoring the significant use of the word secular in the
constitution M.S. Golwalkar contends, “if by secularism is meant that the State
should not be tagged to any particular creed and that all faiths should be
equally respected, then this again would be another name for Hindu tradition.”[16]
This allegation is praise worthy as it looks. But the underlying assumption is
that Hinduism should be in the center stage in a multi religious country like
India.
The protection of the rights of
minorities, particularly religious minorities, as desired by the spirit of the
constitution is unacceptable to the fundamental groups. They say “in India the
Bill of Rights for minorities under Art 30 make (sic) mockery of equality of
law and equal protection of law and of secularism itself.”[17]
The so-called numerically majority does not want to consider the rights of
others. Even they do not want the state to protect such rights. Any such
necessary attempts are termed as minority appeasement.
The concealed target of such sections
of the society is emphatically stated as “whereas the liberal leadership under
Nehru designed secularism to assure the minorities of fair play and justice, today
hindutva has been substituted for secularism.”[18]
Real secularism promises freedom of religion to all the citizens of India and
Hindutva attempts Hindu dominance over the other. Since secularism guarantees
freedom of religion to every religious community, the corrupt wisdom aims at
attacking the founders of the principle.
2.3.2 Critiquing Nehru
Rather than appreciating the necessity
of secular principles in India, communally oriented political ideologies
twisted the original connotation of the principle to make false propagations to
achieve political ends. The beginning of
such an attempt is to criticize the original introducers of the principle and
the process of its acceptance. According to them Nehru introduced secularism
for the first time in 1952 General Election de-linking politics from religion.
In 1976 during the Emergency it was incorporated into the preamble of the
Constitution of India to appease the disgruntled Muslims.[19]
The Hindu rights’ unwillingness to
earnestly accept the noble principles and significance of secularism in a
religiously plural context is vivid. For instance “the Jan Sangh hated Jawaharlal Nehru, the
most committed and articulate of secularists.”[20]
He is disliked just because of holding on to the necessity of secularism in
India and also bringing it into practice. The erudite wisdom of Nehru helped
the minorities, particularly the religious minorities to be ensured of
religious freedom.
The opponents of secularism questioned
the secular credentials and foresightedness of Nehru. For them “Nehru broke up
the relationship of Hinduism with
politics.”[21] The
underlying assumption is that Hinduism alone should enjoy the privilege of
state religion and all other faith traditions should be subject to Hinduism.
This is an unscientific claim as India is witnessing ever study growth of all
her religious products and none of them dwindling.
Being closed to the realities of the
world, conservative religious groups are adamantly hesitant to accept and
respect people belonging to other traditions. They glory in what is crudely
accepted as right and complete. That is why they question the inclusion of the
word secular in the preamble of the constitution, the protections given to the
religious minorities and the advocates of secularism.
It is appreciable that Hinduism is so
accommodative and tolerant as expounded by the religious stalwarts of this
land. The problem simmers as the modern politically motivated Hindu leaders
explicitly propagate the principle of intolerance towards other religious
communities in India. It become worse as the other religious communities are
threatened to lose their constitutional rights in India. And hence any one
arguing against the insertion of the word secular and its implications in
various parts of the governance of the nation and its introducers and
proponents has a communal and divisive ideology.
2.3.3 Connecting Secularism with the West
Another attempt to thwart the
principle of secularism and freedom of religion in India is to weaken the roots
and logicality of secularism. One such
endeavor is to malign secularism as purely western product and not relevant to
India. For example, although it is the age of science and rationality, rather
than appreciating the necessity of secularism in a plural society, the very
construct of secularism is irrationally refuted as, “Secularism came to India in the post
Independence era as a variant of western rationality.”[22]
This statement could have been intelligible had there been an Indian
secularism, but not a Hindu religious and intolerant secularism.
The only agenda of such a critique is
that the religion of the numerically majority alone can have absolute sway over
things and all other religions will have a subordinate place. Thus the critics
of secularism argue that “the basic feature of secularism in UK and USA is that
there is no distinction between citizens on ground of religion or form of
worship, and that everybody is equal before law and is entitled to its equal
protection, but that the religion of the majority community functions from the
center of all state activities and presides over other religious sub-cultures.”[23]
The problem with the communal organizations is that they neither desire to
treat other religious communities on par with them nor consider other religions
with due respect.
Those who respect the secular values
oppose the proposal for a Hindu Rashtra because it is against ‘secularism’. But
the Hindu communal organizations maintain that call for Hindu Rashtra is not
against secularism. And they also affirm that the very notion of ‘secularism’
as it originated in the West has no relevance to our country. According to them
in the west the secular state came in opposition to theocratic state and in
India there was never such a situation. Further, the word ‘secular’ is nowhere
to be found in our Constitution. In their understanding people are confusing
‘secularism’ with ‘nationalism’.[24]
To undermine the importance of secular
state in India, the fundamentalists try to make a false distinction between
western and Indian secularism and mix up secularism and nationalism. If it was
untainted nationalism every one would venerate but it is Hindu Nationalism.
This right perception is unable to be accepted by the initiators of
anti-secularism. They say ‘unfortunately
secularism in India has, in practice, meant anti-Hinduism for people at the
helm of affairs’.[25]
They are not content with opposing secular values alone rather accuse the real
proponents and implementers of secularism.
In spite all the advantages, the
numerically dominant religious groups have an inferior feeling. They lament “in
India thus secularism clothes minorities with rights on ground of religion that
are not available to the majority community.”[26]
It is nothing more than the presumable difficulty to accept people of other
religious persuasion and respect them.
The antagonists of secular principles
always look for avenues to establish their position irrespective of its
non-feasibility. They never attempt to respect the sentiments of numerically
disadvantaged groups. This grievous notion is implicit in the allegation
that “election in Mizoram and Nagaland
could be fought by the ruling party at the center on christian card but a Hindu
fighting the same on Hindu card in Maharashtra in 1989 had to vacate his seat
on ground of breach of secularism.” [27]
This shows the vehemence in which anti-secular forces are operative in this
nation.
The brutal claim of the communal
forces is that they will not follow any standards or values rather they will
set controls and limits to every one. Their concealed attempt to promote Hindu
religious, intolerant and communal secularism in the place of universally
accepted principles is overwhelming in their every utterance. One such
expression is that “to justify Art 30 on the ground of apprehension of
minorities about the intention of the majority will be in conformity with the
concept of western secularism, but it will be doing lip service to Indian traditional
secularism based on fellowship of religious faiths.”[28]
They fail to realize that the bizarre happenings in India and all over the
globe constantly affirm the inevitability of practicing religious neutrality in
India. That is why it is stated
“Secularism as a peculiarly modern concept, aligned to the equally
modern concepts of equality and freedom, was an integral part of the project of
modernity that India began her post-independence life with.”[29]
India cannot compromise with secularism as its constitution guarantees freedom
of religion to every one. As all attempts against the commonly accepted secular
principles suffer setbacks, the communal organizations come with a new form of
secularism called ‘positive secularism’.
2.3.4
Positive Secularism
Those who decry the existing
constitutional secularism in India and desirous of promoting Hindu religious
and communal secularism are of the view that, “in the name of perverted
secularism, which has become another name for policy of Muslim appeasement,
India is steadily becoming a perverted Muslim state.”[30]
This is the continuation of their fear psychosis that in spite of their
numerical strengths some others might become more powerful. In other words this
is a direct approval of inequality to the citizens of India on the grounds of
religion. Rather than constructively strengthening the integrity of the nation
here is a conscious attempt to divide the nation on flimsy grounds.
In contrast to the prevailing form of
secularism the anti-secular forces argue, “Gandhiji’s Ram Rajya is based on
that concept of toleration and universality which form the bed-rock of positive
secularism that BJP advocates. In this positive secularism there is no
appeasement of minorities.”[31]
It looks Gandhi is used as a scapegoat but not with good intentions as it was
obvious that a Hindu fundamentalist assassinated Gandhi. The single adverse
thought dominant in the ideology of the communally characterized political
groups is that a Hindu religious and communal secularism should be operative in
India.
Their ugly design is vivid in the
following proposal that “Nehruvian nationalism was based on minority
appeasement to the exclusion of the majority community whereas positive
secularism of the BJP envisages welfare of the minorities on the good will of
the majority community, the Hindus, in much the same way as the minority
welfare has functioned under the majority christian rule in christian countries
or under the majority muslim rule in Islamic countries.”[32]
One thing needs appreciation is that the fundamental way of thinking often
starkly reveals the hidden plans.
The anti-secularists did not stop with
proposing this strange form of secularism but they claim that it was in
practice from the days of yore. It is said “this assimilation and co-existence
in Hindu India could be possible because of the positive secularism practiced
in those times in India.”[33]
The fact that the assimilative and absorbing characteristics of Hinduism which
have become weapons in the hands of the advocates of communalism is a threat to
other religious communities is not yet realistically accepted.
The aims of the Hindu fundamentals are
rightly portrayed, as “at the heart of the Hindu Right’s approach to secularism
is a policy of assimilation. It is a policy that aims at denying, and
ultimately, obliterating cultural and religious minorities.”[34]
This serious threat can be challenged only by the constitutional secularism.
Hence it is said “the effort to defend secularism from the onslaught of the
Hindu Right will thus require a direct confrontation over the issue of minority
rights.”[35] Among
the minority rights most essential one is the freedom of religion as guaranteed
in the constitution of India. The proposed positive secularism keeps afar the
scope of religious freedom to the minorities.
It is un-understandable that in spite
of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion in particular and
minority rights in general we are forced to think that the fundamentalists are
really threatening the mere existence of the minorities as a whole. Having
observed the crafty ways that the fundamental groups use to frustrate the
notion and implications of secularism, now a brief view at the concept ‘secular
state’ is not out of context.
2.4 Secular State
Another concern raised along with the
definition of the term secular is that “nowhere in the Constitution of India
has the term “secular” been used to signify the character of the State.
Nevertheless it embodies the idea of a secular State.”[36]
There is a seeming ambiguity and at the same time confirmation that the idea of
secular state is both implicit and explicit in the constitution, depending upon
the perceptions.
The interconnectedness of freedom of
religion and secular state is important to note while observing the definition
of the expression ‘secular state’. For instance it is maintained, “the state,
we can say, is secular inasmuch as it both banishes religious reasons from
public policy, and maintains an equidistance from all religious groups,
intervening on the side of neither.”[37]
This is in line with the constitutional implications to consider India as a
secular state. E. C. Bhatty has brought out in nutshell the meaning of secular
state as vogue in India as “the State has no official religion, nor can it
establish or endow any.”[38]
In other words the state is neutral to all religions. It shall not discriminate
any person on religious ground.
A clear demarcation point for a nation
to be secular pertains to its attitude to religions. For example “a secular
State is neither religious nor anti-religious.
It is neutral in religious matters.
Not that it is indifferent to the religious welfare of its citizens.”[39]
In other words the state is only neutral to all religions but it regards
ethical values as high. For example P.N. Sapru writes, “a secular state is not
an unethical state. The basic ethical
ideas are much the same in all religions.”[40]
The credibility of India being a secular state
is that our secular State has no religion of its own. Still further ”it cannot
discriminate between individuals on the basis of religion. No particular religion is entitled to any
special patronage from it. It is not
open to it to make laws which compel the acceptance or abandonment of any creed
or belief.”[41]
Insisting that the minority should follow the wishes of the majority often
dilutes such an integral and harmonious nature.
Rather
than accepting the reality people find variance and excuses to Indian
secularism. Fearing that secularism might shake the communal claims of the
Hindu fundamentalists it is adversely portrayed, as “it has no positive quality
like tolerance and universality of Hinduism with which it could enrich human
existence with higher and nobler expressions of life conducive to unity in
diversity.”[42] The
irony is that the majoritarian attitude of the Hindu communalists has
necessitated the introduction and insistence of secularism in Indian polity.
Cunningness and crafty nature are the
fundamental trademarks of the communalists and fundamentalists. They twist
everything so as to create unrest to the peaceful existence of the people. We
always maintained that India is a secular state and it is neutral to all
religions but the venom is injected to the uncritical minds, as “India’s new
secularism does not separate state actions from religion.”[43]
To support such monstrously evil designs flawed arguments are hatched, as
“Secularism in USA or in UK does not mean that they have ceased to be Christian
states.”[44] The
problem of the present era is to see the state as state and religion as religion
but not to mix both.
In
order to avoid the fact new proposals are liberally brought forward. For
example it is demanded, “in this country, the ‘state’ was never tagged on to
any particular faith.”[45]
The simple logical question is if so why do people ask for a higher position to
Hinduism in all affairs of the nation. And why is the demand for Hindu Rastra.
One thing is sure that the secular
nature of the constitution cannot be diluted at any cost. It needs to be
preserved without any modification. It is suggested, “the struggles for the
rights of exploited sections are the ‘core’ around which struggles for secular
society (anti- Fascist –anti fundamentalist) can be built up.”[46]
Secularism as understood in the Indian polity alone can help the just claims of
the religious minority in India.
The conception that India is a secular
state is not accidental but well cognized. That is why “the dominant theme of
secularism- freedom of religious belief and conscience, equality of all
religions, and equidistance of the state from all religion-were backed up by
special provision for minority rights.”[47]
The wisdom and good will of the framers of the constitution cannot be taken
lightly and should not be misused at any count. Or, more clearly the
constitutional provisions related to the freedom of religion cannot be altered
at all. This fact is well stated, as “no
sanctum sanatorium can be more sacred, at least in a Secular state, than the
national interest and security. Anything that undermines the secular concept
must be considered irreligious and deserves condemnation.”[48]
It is repeatedly reminded that the freedom of religion enjoined under the
provisions of the secular state can never be utilized for anti national
activities. Hence, the call is for freedom of religion subject to the interests
of the nation.
2.4.1 Essentials of Secular State
One of the basic aspects in a secular
state is the separation of religion and state or religion and politics. Mixing
these two results into communal flare-ups. The essential basis of a modern
secular State is the institutional separation of State and religion. State
limits itself to the promotion of the secular welfare of the people. Religious
life is considered as intimately personal. It is also expected that the State
will not regulate religious matters so long as it does not express itself
against public morality and welfare.[49]
The fact that needs special attention is that according to the constitution if
religion embarks on nonreligious undertakings the state will intervene.
According to E.C. Bhatty the following
are some aspects of a secular state:
“1. The basis of citizenship in a
secular State is the bond of territorial unity. As long as a citizen is loyal
to the State in which he lives, he enjoys the same rights as other citizens,
whatever be his religion. Loyalty to the
Constitution is the basic bond between the citizens; they must abide by and act
within its ambit.
2. The secular State is not involved
in religious propaganda and promotion of religious activities. Its Constitution
however safeguards as a fundamental right the freedom of every citizen to
choose any religion and to practice it according to his belief; this freedom
involves also the right of a citizen to reject any religion or all religions.
3. The secular State is concerned with
the promotion of the widest and best possible education among the people; but
it is education of a general and liberal type, aimed at the promotion of
science, morality and culture as distinct from religious dogmas of one or other
or all religions.
4. The secular State has social
justice as its objective; it aims at the establishment of equality of
opportunity for individual growth and the equitable distribution of resources
of wealth. In this it is concerned with individuals as well as social and
economic groups and classes irrespective of their religious persuasion.
5. The secular State will have a
National Army recruited on the basis of national patriotism from the people
without consideration of their religious communal affiliations.
6. A secular State develops a sound
impartial incorruptible contented and efficient system of public service,
inspired by patriotic traditions and lofty ideals; it will be recruited on the
basis of merit and character without consideration of religious affiliations.
7. The Rule of Law is the very essence
of a secular State. Citizens are equal
before the law irrespective of whether they belong to one religion or another
or none.”[50]
Whether
all the above seven aspects are found in India is a difficult question. The
core theme running through these seven aspects is no one will be discriminated
or nothing will be deprived of on the basis of religion in a secular state. A
cursory knowledge of incidents in India reveals that steady efforts are on to
use religion as a dividing force in all matters. It is ruthlessly sought that
“in secular countries the majority norms therefore form the national stream.”[51]
What some of the communal agencies asks is nothing but the majority rule over
the minority not on the basis of law but on the basis of majority religious
sentiments at the cost of minority religious sentiments.
Politicization of religion is the
major challenge a secular state has to face. It is very painful to notice
“intolerance has manifested itself in the activities of communal political
parties which are clearly antagonistic to the entire spirit of the secular
State.”[52]
The constitution envisages a secular
state to that effect the word secular has been inserted in the preamble of the
Indian constitution. Further the Supreme Court of India identified the basic
features of secularism as solutions to certain confusions. Nevertheless,
communally oriented organizations disrupt the free flow of secularism in India.
M.P. Raju states “the dreams for a secular India soon started to vanish with
the growth of a kind of neo-fanaticism as part of Hindu revivalism and cultural
nationalism.”[53]
Another significant and very real
challenge to the fabric of secular state is politico, religious communalism. In
the words of E. C. Bhatty, “we have to guard against political religious
communalism gaining strength and stifling religious freedom and destroying the
secular State.”[54] This is
a dangerous trend because religious elements influence politics and politics
use religious elements.
Another challenge is to safeguard
secularism from the erroneous interpretations like, western secularism or
secular state is different from Indian; and hence not applicable to us. This is
often done in order to evade secularism in the name of Hindu nationalism.[55]
One untainted fact is that India cannot be visualized without secularism. And
enormous efforts are necessary to protect this great ideal as communal
political parties and communal organizations make persistent attempt to
dislocate it. The democratic framework of Indian constitution provides concrete
platform to work with like-minded people to preserve secularism in India.
Preservation of secularism spontaneously paves the way for the enjoyment of
religious freedom.
2.
5 Democracy
The role of democracy in strengthening
a secular state is significant. This is amply testified in the Indian
constitution. The connection between secularism and democracy in relation to
freedom of religion in India is more momentous. About it James Massey writes
“the right to religious freedom is universally recognized as one of the basic
human rights, which also includes freedom to change religion or belief. It has
also been recognized as an important factor in the foundation of a successful
democracy. And India, since its Independence in 1947, has not only recognized
the key role of religious freedom in nation building; it has also incorporated
these rights in the constitution, which was adopted on 26 January 1950 as the
main document for the governance of the country.”[56]
From the point of freedom of religion democracy and secularism are essential
pillars.
Secularism and democracy are very relevant as
the world is shrinking on account of technological and communicational
adventures. The role and importance of secularism and democracy are portrayed
as “secularism and democracy: these were the two gods of the newly independent
countries of the ‘third world’.”[57]
Although the statement seems to be exaggeration of the fact, it cannot be
denied that secularism and democracy are integral to the present global
momentum.
Democracy assumes pertinent position
as it envisages equality. It is stated “democracy can be justified because it
allots a status to each individual, and more importantly, allots it equally.
Therefore, democracy can be validated but reference to the antecedent moral
principle of equality.”[58]
The democratic principle of equality goes well with the demands for freedom of
religion in India.
It is remarkable to find that there is
relationship between freedom of religion and democracy. In the words of James Massey, “the fact that
religious freedom strengthens democracy and that there is a definite
relationship between the two is generally accepted. It has even been said that
‘religious freedom is the condition and guardian of all other freedoms’. Even
individuals without any religious convictions, but who have faith in democracy,
acknowledge this relationship.”[59]
The point that freedom of religion is
crucial for the several interests of the nation like India is concisely stated
as “since India is a democratic polity and recognizes religious pluralism, a
clear guarantee of religious freedom is the surest way, not only for the
peaceful coexistence of different religious groups, but also their active
participation for the common good and unity of the country. Most often it is
not the ‘diversity of opinion’, which leads to religious conflicts among
communities but the absence of tolerance and understanding.”[60]
Unfortunately, along with freedom of religion,
even the very concept of democracy is under threat by fundamentalist groups.
They are closed to any change and innovation. For them “the spirit of democracy
at its best, which confers the right of freedom of speech, thought and action
on the individual, is nowhere more fully recognized and practiced than in the
age-old Hindu tradition.”[61]
This is the most dangerous form of hoodwinking people. People are discouraged
to be in tune with the ever-present realities and made to feel nothing new is
emerging in the world.
But it is an inevitable fact that “all
the ways are to be thought for working towards this platform from Secular
democracy.”[62] Only in
a secular democracy freedom of religion can be enjoyed. To create such a
congenial atmosphere the people of this nation need to be vigilant. Sunita
Gangwal writes “our democracy can only
survive if those who aspire to become peoples’ representatives and leaders
understand the spirit of secular democracy…Candidates at elections have to try
to persuade electors by showing them the light of reason and not by inflaming
their blind and descriptive passions.”[63]
Another significant dimension is that
democracy and minorities go hand in hand. It is said, “human history has ample evidence to
illustrate that not only have minorities and democracy co-existed, but they
have also been part of one another.”[64]
Those who respect the democratic principles and freedom shall be able to
appreciate the merits of freedom of religion. E.D. Devadasan remarks “the
tendency to place restriction on change of religion is nothing short of a
fascist tendency and therefore has to be fought against by those who believe in
democracy and freedom.”[65]
As secularism in India is committed to freedom of religion, democracy helps
maintaining the constitutional provisions for freedom of religion through
various representations.
In granting and protecting freedom of
religion to all the citizens of this nation, the secular and democratic values
play crucial role. For example “if India is to be a truly secular and
democratic State, the government of the land should extend an even-handed
treatment to people of all religions and of no religion.”[66]
In spite of the interconnectedness of signs of civilization like, secularism,
democracy and freedom of religion the outstanding witness for the civilization
of a nation is its approach to freedom of religion.
2.
6 Freedom of Religion
At the outset it needs to be
underlined that India never interfered in the freedom of religion of her
citizens. India has also taken adequate measures to ensure that the citizens
enjoy this freedom constitutionally. It is valuable to remember that right to
religious freedom is universally recognized as one of the basic human rights.
It has also been recognized as an important factor in the foundation of a
successful democracy. And freedom of religion is constitutional in India.[67]
Any violation of this provision can be challenged in the court of law. These
cardinal tenets are candidly stated, as “religious freedom is a fundamental
right of Indian citizens, an entitlement that is available to members of all
religious groups. The Indian Constitution describes it as a basic human right,
which can be enforced by the Judiciary”[68]
The inclusion of the provisions to
enjoy freedom of religion in the Indian constitution is not accidental nor a
chance, but well conceived along the lines of the developments over the globe.
This fact has been identified as, “the universal nature of this right
(Religious), which forms the very basis of successful democracies the world
over, was repeatedly emphasized in the constituent Assembly debates.”[69]
Still further, the necessity for
freedom of religion in India is spontaneous and inbuilt in the structure of the
Indian society. Hence from very early the committed Indian leaders had no
possibility of thinking otherwise than protecting and strengthening freedom of
religion in India. For instance “in the Nehru Report of 1928 the right to
freedom of conscience, profession and practice of religion was included
explicitly to prevent one community domineering over another. Such rights were
called Minority Rights in the early days of the Assembly, and they appear in
the constitution as Rights relating to Religion, Cultural and Educational
Rights and also in part XVII on Language.”[70]
This natural and spontaneous urge to preserve and fortify freedom of religion
in India continued in all the successive efforts towards independence and
republic. The Indian National Congress held its session at Karachi from29 to 31
March 1931 and adopted a resolution. Its focal point was asking for
swaraj. Other salient features of this
resolution to be noted here are pressing for ‘freedom of conscience and the
free profession and practice of religion, subject to public order and morality;
protection of the culture, language and scripts of the minorities; no
disability to attach to any citizen by reason of his or her religion, caste or
creed or sex in regard to public employment, office or power or honour, and in
the exercise of any trade or calling; and Religious neutrality on the part of
the state’.[71]
The commitment to safeguard and
concretize freedom of religion in India was explicitly obvious in the meetings
of the India’s Constituent Assembly. The Assembly, which had started meeting on
9 December 1946 to frame the constitution for independent India unanimously
adopted a resolution on 22 January 1947. One significant aspect of the
resolution with regard to the constitutional safeguards to facilitate freedom
of religion in India was “WHEREIN shall be guaranteed and secured to all the
people of India justice, social, economic, and political; equality of status,
of opportunity, and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief,
faith, worship, vocation, association, subject to law and public morality;”[72]
The precedence to such a resolution
was “the “Objective Resolution” of January 22, 1947, moved by Nehru on December
13, 1946. It provided that the people of
India would be guaranteed for freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith,
worship, association and vocation.”[73]
As a result of these initial maneuvering “in the Constitution, specific
provisions are given in Articles 25 to 28 and 29 and 30.”[74]
These provisions are mainly to protect the minorities, particularly religious
minorities, so that their rights are not invaded.
In
spite of all these privileges the freedom of religion guaranteed in article
twenty-five [75] is not
absolute but subject to the sovereignty of the nation and social interest. It
is astonishing that the state will have all the rights to intervene even in
religious matters when it thinks it necessary. This unique provision and
solemnity are clearly acknowledged, as “religious freedom should not be an
absolute and unconditional one. The freedom to profess, practice and propagate
should be as Indian Constitution puts it, subject to the condition of ‘public
order, morality and health’. Practices and norms, which violate human
dignity and public morality, should not be allowed in the name of religious
freedom and secularism.”[76]
But in the constitution there is no trace what so ever of giving in to the
religious sentiments of the majority at the cost of religious minorities.
This precious concern and commitment
of all the law-abiding citizens of this land beyond cultural, linguistic and
religious differences has further been reiterated as “the Constitution-framers
have thus treated all religions alike. It follows that we are free in our
country not only to practise our religions in our own way, but also to preach
and propagate them, provided of course, we do not in so doing, go beyond the
limits of public order, morality and decency which we as good citizens are
bound to observe.”[77]
This salient principle deserves due recognition and application as we dwell
deep on the issue of propagation.
Granting freedom of religion to all
the citizens of this nation was not cynical from the point of the constitution.
It was an earnest commitment to make every one really experience freedom of
religion in its fullest possible sense. This is vivid in the approval of the
framers of the Indian constitution to include the expression ‘propagate’ along
with profess and practice religion of one’s choice. P.N. Sapru underlines this
special aspect as “the freedom, which Art. 25 of our Constitution assigns, in
the matter of religion, concedes to every person what might be called not only
freedom of conscience but also the right to make manifest his belief by freely
propagating or disseminating his ideas for the education of others.”[78]
Sadly, this privilege is capitalized by the Hindutva proponents to cast their
anger on the religious minorities and the same issue is carelessly handled by
propagation oriented religions.
The critics of this exceptional
provision in article twenty-five of the Indian constitution suspect that the
word propagate amounts to converting people from one religion to another.
Similarly, many religious communities take this word for granted and reiterate
that the constitution empowers them to convert a person from one religion to
another. For example “it is amazing that some Christian leaders assert that the
word ‘propagate’ in Art.25(1) gives them a fundamental right to convert people
of other Faiths into Christianity, by any means.”[79]
The fact is that it does not mention
that it empowers people to convert others, although the notion was originally
implicit. Even the Supreme Court in its verdict on Article 25 said that it does
not include the freedom to convert.[80]
Some Christians insist that it means
freedom to convert. And hence the judgment is also evaluated as “the supreme
Court of India, in coming to the conclusion that the right to propagate does
not imply the right to convert, has overlooked one of the most precious
features of our Constitution; namely, its harmonious blend of individual and
group rights.”[81]
Christians who are motivated by proselytizing approach wished to have the
constitution confer them the privilege to convert the others. Therefore,
“whenever the word ‘propagate’ was taken up for discussion in the Constituent
Assembly the means and methods employed by Christian missionaries dominated the
scene and in that light the right to propagate acquired the colour of a right
to convert exclusively.”[82]
No one can deny, “for Christians, propagation of their faith is an
indispensable part of the practice of their religion.”[83]
Nevertheless, accepting the broader vision of the constitution is good for the
health of the nation. This is endorsed as “it is good therefore that the
Constitution has explicitly mentioned the freedom to propagate one’s faith and
has left us in no doubt about it. It is
no little credit to the framers of the Constitution, most of whom were Hindus,
that they unmistakably provided for the full religious freedom of minorities like
Muslims and Christians.”[84]
What is required and necessary in the
time of cultural post-modernity is one must have the freedom to choose the
religion of his or her choice without obstructions. It is unconstitutional and
unethical to claim the right to convert a person. The point is that any individual
should have the freedom to convert himself or herself to the religion of his or
her conviction subject to the fulfillment of constitutional requirements.
Burdening this provision with further legislations on faulty premises
counterfeits the original provision of the constitution.
The real purpose of this aspect can be
deduced from the statement that “the ambit of the freedom of religion
guaranteed by Arts. 25-26 has been widened by the judicial interpretation that
what is guaranteed by Arts. 25 and 26 is the right of the individual to
practise and propagate not only matters of faith or belief but also all those
rituals and observances which are regarded as integral parts of a religion by
the followers of its doctrines.”[85]
It simply means freedom of religion in its fullest sense and does not guarantee
a specific compulsive force or privilege to any one.
The constitution is committed to guard
equality to all the citizens on religious grounds. It does not support or
favour any particular community. According to Soli J. Sorabjee, “the debates in
the Constituent Assembly clearly indicate that our founding fathers did
recognize that conversion was implicit in propagation of religion and that the
expression “propagate” was deliberately incorporated because Islam and
Christianity are proselytizing religions.”[86]
The goodwill of the constitution of India is
very clear and encompasses all citizens. It is contented that “the invidious
labeling of the religious rights by some as merely minority rights must be
discarded, it being incorrect historically and constitutionally.”[87]
It is unfortunate that a few communally charged fundamentalists want to curb
this freedom of religion in all possible ways and reduce it as only a minority
right.
Freedom of religion is a universally
accepted right. That is why “the right to profess and practice one’s faith was
adopted by an overwhelming vote in the UN Assembly as all the countries voted
in favour.”[88] Its
connection with human rights further confirms its universal necessity and applicability.
For example “it saw the right to religion as a human right and confirmed the
principles that human rights are means and ends to the preservation and
protection of minority rights. It went
further and gave centrality to religious rights as a means to realize other
rights of the minority groups.”[89]
Equal
freedom of religion to the numerically disadvantaged sections of the society is
the sign of a nation’s direction. Thus it is said, “the minority’s right to
propagate its religious or other views is essential for the religious and
cultural development of any country.”[90]
Two
negative remarks concerning the insertion of the word propagation in the Indian
constitution is not out of place as both can further illuminate about the
intricacies associated with this expression. The first one is that “however,
the freedom to propagate ones religion was reluctantly conceded as a compromise
with the minorities, for relinquishing their right to reserved seats in the
legislature.”[91] The
second remark resulted from the unhealthy manipulative interpretation of the
term propagation. And hence it is sought “freedom of propagation of religion
does not fit in the secularism we profess. It has been misused. It should be
removed from Art. 25 of the constitution.”[92]
This is not true because the constitution did not envisage such a meaning. It
guarantees equal status to all citizens.
In
spite these few negative remarks it is crystal clear the vision of the
constitution is broader and it unambiguously guarantees equal freedom of
religion to all. It is a mistake to construe it as a special privilege bestowed
to the minorities.
2.6.2
Conversion
Together with the word ‘propagate’
another word that is widely capturing attention in all debates particularly
political is conversion. Here the word conversion is used in the sense of
converting one or many persons from one religion to another. It is used to
connote the change of religion. The word generally used for this act is
proselytization. The author, however,
prefers the word conversion.
At the out set it needs to be clear
that “conversion is a matter of free choice based on personal conviction.”[93]
Alas, this has been diluted and corrupted and posed as a grave threat to
nationalism and culture. For example “conversion of Hindus into other religions
is nothing but making them succumb to divided loyalty in place of having
undivided and absolute loyalty to the nation. It is dangerous to the security
of the nation and the country. It is therefore necessary to put a stop to it.
Conversion of an individual does not take place after a serious and comparative
study of philosophies by him. It is by exploitation of poverty, illiteracy and
ignorance, offering of inducements and by deceptive tactics that people are
converted. There is no question of a true change of heart involved.”[94]
The contention is acceptable if there is any proof to this extent. On the other
hand any service rendered to a person or a community in terms of liberation
that leads to development cannot be misinterpreted as proselytizing efforts.
The argument that conversion results in divided loyalty to the nation is
nullified on the ground that Indian converts never ceased to be Indians on
account of a change of their faith.[95]
Although conversion is exclusively a
matter concerned with the individual persons, it has impacts on the social
realms as well. Julian Saldanha opines
“conversion is basically an interior event which, however, separates the
convert from his family and community.”[96]
Conversion not only changes a person’s religious behavior, but also his or her
social orientation. This phenomenon is
stated as “conversion results in a switching over from one personal law to
another, and implies a passage from one social group to another.”[97]
Still further the convert is seen as joining the community of another religion,
governed by another personal law. This change over in religion and social
sphere is anathema to the Hindus; “hence missionary activity is viewed by
Hindus as a mode of communal aggression, a threat to the very existence of the
Hindu community.”[98]
There are many related reasons for such opposition. For example “this shift of
social allegiance takes place by force of law, and is brought home to the
convert by various provisions of the Hindu law affecting such personal matters
as succession, marriage, maintenance, guardianship and adoption. Hence
conversion breaks up the cohesion of the Hindu family and community.”[99]
Still further, “conversion involves changes in group identification with
accompanying changes in attitudes and actions. When the convert leaves behind
his past life and enters into a new life, he departs from one social group and
joins another. His group loyalties change; old customs and beliefs are denied;
and a new set of norms accepted.”[100]
These concerns are true. But the freedom to decide the change over belongs to
the individual or group concerned. Rather than focusing on conversion as such,
it will be relevant if the attention is shifted to the socio, religious and
economic factors that necessitate conversion. It is also necessary to maintain
that mere change of religion does not affect the constitutional privileges one
is entitled to.
Converting a person from one religion to
another need not be the main agenda of Christian mission. The main agenda is to
holistically liberate people from all oppressive structures. If conversion
takes place in the process of liberation that cannot be accused or blamed. That
is why “Gandhi wanted Christian social engagement without calling people to
repentance and faith in Jesus, but some contemporary radical Hindu nationalists
want to prevent Christians from empowering the poor as well.”[101]
This Hindu viewpoint is again expressed as “they could bear witness to their
faith in life and speech but they should not indulge in any unfair and
unspiritual modes of conversion”[102]
Rather than analyzing the religious,
social, economic, political, cultural, etc, rationales behind a person’s
conversion, associating it with unlawful activities is a malevolent attitude.
Such a negative approach of the Sangh Parivar is exposed as “all shades of the
Sang Parivar- from the expediently mellowed ministers in Delhi to their gun
wielding terrorists in the field say one thing in unison- they are all opposed
to “conversion by force or fraud”. However to this day they fail to
bring out a single case of conversion by force or fraud convicted by a court
even though anti conversion (Freedom of Religion) Acts are in force for the
last 30 years in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Arunachal and though all other states
have enough provisions under existing laws to convict any criminal acts.”[103]
The
Sangh Parivar is reluctant to analyze the various reasons for conversion rather
see it as a threat to their number and influence in the political arena. Valson
Thampu writes “the Sang mouthpieces caricature conversions as a calculated
strategy on the part of Muslims and Christians to wipe out Hinduism from the
land of its birth. They allege, further, that large scale mass conversions are
taking place and that every conversion is effected by ‘force, fraud or
inducement’.”[104] But it
needs to be remembered, “the numbers game has no room in the pluralistic
approach.”[105] Rather
than liberating a society, maintaining the people in a backward condition is
good for vote-bank politics and not for the development of a nation.
While objecting conversion from Hinduism to
another religion the Hindutva forces continue conversion using different
premises and nomenclatures. It is stated that “Hindutva, which is Brahmanical
Hinduism based Nationalism has used the conversions to strengthen Hinduisms’
flanks by co-opting the low castes and Adivasis earlier through shuddhi and now
through Gharvapasi.”[106]
The inherent motive is that “the shuddhi was more to attract those low
castes that had adopted Islam or Sikhism as their religion. The current Gharvapasi
campaign of VHP draws it legitimacy from the assertion that Adivasis are
Hindus.”[107]
Another
effort to curtail freedom to choose a religion of one’s own choice is
discarding the new converts from the government privileges otherwise applicable
to them. This anti-constitutional stand
is appraised as “conversion to Christianity still disqualifies poor and
underprivileged converts from Dalit benefits. Religion should not become a
disqualification. It is the social and economic conditions that should
determine the granting of privileges. The Dalit Christians have for long
demanded reservation benefits from successive governments in power at New
Delhi, but in vain. The demand is called controversial and fears are expressed
that if Dalit Christians are given reservation benefits then non-Christian
Dalits will leave the caste hierarchy of Hinduism and convert to Christianity.”[108]
It is also an indication that opposition to freedom of religion is waged from
the point of losing majority status and refusing liberation to the
underprivileged section of the society.
In the Indian context “freedom of
conscience and religion for the untouchables and tribals is opposed only by
their masters, whose prosperity depends on their continued slavery. The tribals
and untouchables never oppose their own freedom of faith.”[109] The reality is that in India conversion is
seen mainly as a social emancipation or quest for equality. For example
Ambedkar defended his decision to convert from Hinduism on these grounds.[110]
Quest for emancipation and equality
are inseparable from the issue of conversion. That is why “Weber’s study
undoubtedly proves that religion is one of the agents of social change.”[111]
This is evident in the case of conversion to Christianity because “conversion
to Christianity influences the converts from different angles and touches the
different areas of their lives and takes them, or better, helps them, directs
them to social status mobility and thus functions as an agent for social
change.”[112]
Studies conducted in this area confirm this fact. One of the studies
affirmatively states, “it is proved from this study that conversion has brought
about a certain metamorphosis in the lives of the converts.”[113]
Some argue that the change can be internal and not necessarily external. Hence it is said, “in the past, the emphasis
has been on external separation as a sign of transformation rather than on
internal transformation and the fullness with love.”[114]
It is essential that any change over whether internal or external should have
the direction of liberation and empowerment.
This aspect of transformation is found
in Hinduism as well. Plamthodathil S. Jacob maintains “if we examine Hindu
religious thought, we also find its focus on transformation, basically known as
Self-realization, culminating in perfection of godliness.”[115]
This self-realization ultimately helps the liberation of others. But this
liberation cannot be confined only to religious but also to other dimensions.
Thus, “in practice we find that conversion is not only a religious experience
but also a social and cultural adjustment.”[116]
Even there are proposals to avoid the use of the word conversion, as “it should
be replaced by concepts like transformation.”[117]
But transformation is not for conversion. Conversion cannot be hindered if
takes place in the process of transformation.
All spiritual exercises, irrespective
of religious affiliations, are for the transformation of individuals and
society. And therefore “the crucial question for missiologists today is whether
Christianity can offer a quality of transformation which is not being offered
by other religions.”[118] The Christian service is not just for adding
members to church organizations.
The main concern her is that even this
honest effort to transform the individual and society is unacceptable to the
minds that work against freedom of religion. The reason for doing so is
explained as “it is a fear complex of the majority community that in the
Christian Gospel there is a message of uplifting a downtrodden humanity, and
they are afraid of losing their own hold upon these people who are not even
Hindus but on the fringe of Hindu society. It is this fear in their
subconscious mind that is coming out with all sorts of attacks against people
who are doing missionary work.”[119]
There is diversity of motives in
conversion.[120]
Conversion is also a part of Indian reality from ages but the Sangh Parivar
makes an issue out of it.[121]
Conversion is the crux of religious freedom within the parameters of liberation,
transformation and empowerment. Not the least is the religious conviction of an
individual and society. Therefore “the tendency to place restriction on change
of religion is nothing short of a fascist tendency and therefore has to be
fought against by those who believe in democracy and freedom.”[122]
Refusal of freedom of religion is a serious matter of concern.
Those who voice against freedom of religion,
particularly the Hindu communalists, need to answer several questions. If
freedom of religion is a threat to the majority community what about the
conversions, re-conversion and the home coming of the Hindu movements? What is
behind such activities? Do they meet the legal requirements set in the freedom
of religion acts? Are these legislations not contrary to the fundamental rights
of the individuals and to the rights and privileges granted to the minority
communities? Why lengthy procedures and complicating simple matters? Why
restrictions only to the minorities?
[1] P.L. John Panicker,
“Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play of
Religion, Politics and Communalism, edited by Samson Prabhakar (Bangalore:
BTESSC/SATHRI, 2004), 61.
[2] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 19th ed. Reprint (Nagpur:
Wadhwa and Company, Law Publishers, 2003), 27.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism
(Calcutta: Punthi- Pustak, 1993), 63.
The author of the book purposely used small ‘m’ for Muslims.
[5] Ibid.,
63-64.
[6] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
3rd ed., Reprint (Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu
Prakashan, 2000), 162.
[7] A.G. Noorani, “Fractured
Democracies,” frontline (December 1, 2006):84.
[8] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 116-117.
[9] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities (New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 41.
[10] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism,100.
[11] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual Rights
( Jaipur: Arihant Publishing House, 1995), 98-99.
[12] Meera Nanda, The
Wrongs of the religious Right: Reflections on Science, Secularism and Hindutva
( Haryana: Three Essays, 2005), p. 61.
[13] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities (New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 42.
[14] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 47.
[15] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule of Law (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1999) 63.
[16] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
337.
[17] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 79.
[18] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 74.
[19] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism,80.
[20] A.G. Noorani, “Fractured
Democracies,” frontline (December 1, 2006):84.
[21] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 80.
[22] Ibid.,
79.
[23] Ibid.,
81.
[24] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
162.
[25] Ibid.,
163.
[26] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 82.
[27] Ibid.,
91.
[28] Ibid.,
66.
[29] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 50.
[30] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 200.
[31] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her Domestic Problems: Religion
State and Secularism, 56.
[32] Ibid.,
120.
[33] Ibid.,
159.
[34] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule
of Law ,138.
[35] Ibid.
[36]E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, edited
by J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas,
(Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1956), 74.
[37] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 87.
[38] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, 74.
[39] Ibid.
[40] P.N. Sapru,
“Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom, edited by
J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on
Social Concerns, 1956),5.
[42] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 77.
[43] Ibid.,
69.
[44] Ibid.,
77.
[45] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
163.
[46] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar (Delhi: Media House, 2000), 112.
[47] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 56.
[48] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 228.
[49] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, 74.
[50] Ibid.,
75-76.
[51] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism, 120.
[52] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, 77.
[53] M.P. Raju, Religious
Conversion: Legal Implications (Delhi: Media House,1999), 34 .
[54] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, 86.
[55] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
162.
[56] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy (New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers& Distributors, 2003) 96.
[57] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 53-54.
[58] Ibid.,
140.
[59]James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy, 9.
[60] Ibid.,
10.
[61] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
337.
[62] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 112.
[63] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights , 229.
[64] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy, 17.
[65] E.D. Devadason, “The Supreme Court
Judgment on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
1967,” NCC Review XCVII/9 (September, 1977): 439.
[66] Eddy Asirvatham, “
Religions and the Unity of India,” in Religious Freedom, edited by J.R.
Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on Social
Concerns, 1956),22.
[67] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy, 96.
[69] Ibid.,
10.
[70] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 108.
[71] Arjun Dev, Indira
Arjun Dev and Supta Das, compiled and edited, Human Rights:
A Source Book (New Delhi: National
Council Of Educational Research And
Training, 1996),16-17.
[72] Ibid.,
19-20.
[73] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century ( New Delhi: Diamond
Pocket Books, 2002), 4.
[74] P.L. John Panicker,
“Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play of
Religion Politics and Communalism, 62.
[75] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal
Law Publishing CO. PVT. LTD., 1998), 47.
[76] P.L. John Panicker,
“Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play of
Religion, Politics and Communalism, 65.
[77] P.N. Sapru,
“Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom, 4.
[79] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 117.
[80] Ebe Sunder Raj, National Debate on
Conversion (Chennai: Bharat Jyoti, 2001), 4.
[81] Valson Thampu, “Tamil Nadu Ordinance
and Freedom of Religion,” Christian Mind Series Valson. 8/10 (October, 2002): 15.
[82] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 131.
[83] C.P.Mathew, “Religious Freedom from the Christian Point
of View,” in Religious
Freedom,
edited by J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for
Literature on Social Concerns, 1956),5.
[84] Ibid.,
45.
[85] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India, 116.
[86] Soli J. Sorabjee,
“So Long as Religion is religion,” The New Indian Express
(Vijayawada), 17 February 2006, 8.
[87] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 109.
[88] I. John Mohan Razu and D. Samuel
Jesupatham, “Religious Rights as Part of Human
Rights when the Lives of the Minorities are at Stake,” in
Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, edited by I. John
Mohan Razu ( Nagpur: National Council of Churches in India, 2001),160.
[89] Ibid.
[90] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State,”
in Religious Freedom, 81.
[91] Julian Saldanha, “The Indian
Constitution and Conversion,” in Conversion in a Pluralistic
Context: Perspectives and Perceptions, edited by Krickwin C. Marak, & Plamthodathil
S. Jacob (Delhi: ISPCK/CMS, 2000) 81.
[92] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 229.
[93] P.L. John Panicker,
“Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play of
Religion, Politics and Communalism, 64.
[94] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
170.
[95] Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, Centenary
Edition (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 62.
[96] Julian Saldanha, Conversion and
Indian civil Law (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1981) 89.
[97] Ibid., 11.
[98] Ibid.,
13.
[99] Ibid.,
115.
[100] Y. Antony Raj, Social Impact of
Conversion: A Comparative Sociological Study on the
Christians of
scheduled Caste Origin and Scheduled Caste Hindus (Delhi: ISPCK, 2001), 24.
[101] Richard Howell, “Issues in
Conversion: as Argued by Bishop Azariah, Mahatma Gandhi
and Mr Shourie,” in Free to Choose: Issues in
Conversion, Freedom of Religion and Social Engagement, edited by Howell,
Richard (New Delhi: Evangelical Fellowship of India, 2002), 26.
[102] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts. 3rd ed., Reprint (Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan, 2000), xv.
[103] Ebe Sunder Raj, National Debate on
Conversion, 3.
[104] Valson Thampu, “Tamil Nadu Ordinance
and Freedom of Religion,” Christian Mind Series 8/10 (October, 2002): 5.
[105] Plamthodathil S. Jacob, “Hindu and
Christian: Conversions and Transformations,” in
Conversion in a Pluralistic Context: Perspectives and
Perceptions, edited by Krickwin
C. Marak, & Plamthodathil S. Jacob (Delhi: ISPCK/CMS, 2000) 109.
[106] P.R. Ram, “A Campaign Without
Content,” Indian Currents XI/50
(13-19 December, 1999): 47.
[107] P.R. Ram, “A Campaign Without
Content,” Indian Currents, 46.
[108]Richard Howell, “Issues in
Conversion: as Argued by Bishop Azariah, Mahatma Gandhi
and Mr Shourie,” in Free to Choose: Issues in
Conversion, Freedom of Religion and Social Engagement, 16-17.
[109] Ebe Sunder Raj, National
Debate on Conversion, 161.
[110] B.R. Ambedkar “Why go for conversion.”
NCCI Review CXXV/10
(November 2005):11-21.
[111] Y.Antony Raj, Social Impact of Conversion: A Comparative
Sociological Study on the Christians of scheduled Caste Origin and Scheduled
Caste Hindus, 7.
[113] Ibid.,152.
[114] Plamthodathil S. Jacob, “Hindu and
Christian: Conversions and Transformations,” in
Conversion in a Pluralistic Context: Perspectives and
Perceptions, 97.
[115] Ibid.,97-98.
[116] Ibid.,
107.
[117] Ibid.,108.
[118] Ibid.
[119]Paul Sudhakar, “Conversion: What
Conversion is not and What Conversion is,” in Free to Choose: Issues in Conversion, Freedom of Religion and
Social Engagement, edited
by Howell, Richard (New Delhi: Evangelical Fellowship of India, 2002), 29.
[120] Walter Fernandes, Caste and
Conversion Movements in India: Religion and Human
Rights (New
Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 1998), 29.
[121] P.R. Ram, “A Campaign Without
Content,” Indian Currents, 47.
[122] E.D. Devadason, “The Supreme Court
Judgment on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967,” NCC Review, 439.
Comments
Post a Comment