QUEST FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
QUEST FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
It has already been well established
that India India
Unfortunately the Hindutva proponents
have opposed all these necessary and just aspects of the constitution. After
lamenting over the religious freedom guaranteed in the constitution, they have
come up with strange nationalisms to denigrate freedom of religion to religious
minorities. In the process they are against secular nationalism, which is based
on territorial nationalism, which does not discriminate any one. Their own
brands of nationalisms are quite disastrous and aimed at dividing people on
religious basis and gaining political power by accusing the honest citizens of
this land as disloyal to the nation and affirming that the Hindus alone are the
real patriots.
Not satisfied with all these false and
deceptive propagandas, the Hindutva forces are on the look out for many other
ways to perpetuate communal disharmony and hatred among religious groups to the
extent of grabbing political power. These can be analyzed as follows.
5.1 Religious Discrimination
Since India India India
Therefore the time has come that we
change our attitudes towards other religions. We cannot dream of attributing
everything to one religion. One religion alone cannot be the key player in the
center stage. It implies that no longer can we use religions as tools of
cessation. They are to be used for the purpose of unity and total well being of
the universe. This has been stated as “what men of all religious persuasions
need to learn is that it is by working together on the basis of agreed political
programmes and not by emphasizing religious differences that they can best
achieve the ideal of a united Indian nation.”[2]
But unfortunately, among other discriminations, religious discrimination is
drawing serious consideration. For example,
‘one of the worst crimes modern times still faces is discrimination
based on race, sex, religion and belief’.[3] India
The religious discrimination prevalent
in this country cannot be denied. For example from the early part of Christian
era, during the time of the budding of Buddhism and Jainism, there had been
struggle between Shivaites and Vaishnavites on the one hand and also these two
together were trying to annihilate Buddhism and Jainism on the other. But the
communal forces and fundamental forces deny it rather than finding a
solution. There denial is highly
calculative. For example, “the glaring fact inscribed on every page of our
history and testified by even foreign historians and travelers, is that we
never discriminated against any one on the score of religion in any sphere of
our national life.”[4] This is
an absolute denial of an issue that warrants a delicate handling and amicable
solution.
The divisive communal politics of the
Sang Parivar is dangerous as it hides the fact and aims at attaining political
power to execute communal and fundamental agendas. Fooling people and willfully
distorting the people take place in the midst of enormous constitutional
protections people of minority religious community are guaranteed. Thus the
Hindutva agenda is against consciousness and against the constitution of this
land.
For example constitution protects
every citizen without any discrimination whatsoever. Article fourteen
guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all
persons.[5] The constitution also checks the state so as
to avoid any form of discrimination. Article fifteen directs the State not to
discriminate against an individual on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth, etc.[6]
Article sxteen confers equality of opportunity
in matters of public employment. The simple fact is that religious
discrimination of any short is not acceptable to India
It is
again worth noting in the context of communal forces planning for a caste
nationalism that “Article 17 provides for abolition of untouchability. In
pursuance of this article the government has enacted the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 to make the law more stringent in removing untouchability from
society.”[8]
Another crucial aspect is that “Article 19 (1)
guarantees six fundamental freedoms that are applicable throughout the
territory India
Freedom of speech
and expression.
Freedom to assemble
peacefully without arms.
Freedom to form
associations and unions.
Freedom of movement
Freedom to reside
and settle in any part of India
Freedom to practice
any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.[10]
Against
these fundamental rights or freedoms the communal forces of this nation propose
that only the majority will enjoy all the benefits and the minority religious
communities will have to live at the mercy of this numerically dominant group.
The constitution is not giving a blanket freedom, as espoused by the Hindutva
forces. It is crucial to remember “none of the rights are absolute, and are
subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ in the larger interest of the community as
well as of the State.”[11] To this end every citizen of this land is
committed and sincere. No religion or religious community can become traitors.
When such incidents are identified they can be dealt with according to the
constitutional provisions. But it is not prudent that on false assumptions and
perceptions the earnest citizens of this nation are accused of betraying the
interest of the nation. It is more offensive that such allegation is forced on
the adherents of minority religious communities.
In
other words the constitution disallows anyone to divide people on religious
grounds. But, rather than allowing people to have their choice some state
governments, for political mileages, are arbitrarily trying to dictate what the
individual has to do in matters of choosing a religion. It is disallowing the
conscience to have freedom. Some of the state organized such efforts come in
the form of freedom of religion bills, a deceptive nomenclature.
5.2
Freedom of Religion Bills
The freedom to choose a person’s
preferential religion and maintain the required acts of religiosity is
emphatically stated in the constitution. For example Article twenty-five to
twenty-eight of the Constitution guarantee the Right to Freedom of Religion.
Article 25 guarantees to every person
the basic right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practices,
and propagate religion freely. This is an individual right. However, one cannot
commit acts that endanger public health, morality, and order in the name of
religious freedom. This right is also subject
to any provisions or law that the State might make to regulate or
restrict any activity associated with a religious practice, be in economic,
political, financial or secular in nature. The State also holds the power to
introduce social reform and social welfare in Hindu religious institution like
a temple to all classes of Hindus. Article 26 declares that all religious
denominations have the right to establish and maintain institutions for
religious and charitable purposes, and have the freedom to manage their own
religious affairs. They also have the right to acquire and own moveable and
immoveable property. These activities are subject to the restriction that they
must be carried out in accordance with law. According to article 27, no
individual or organization should pay tax for the promotion or maintenance of
any particular religion. Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in
State-aided educational institutions. However, an educational institution that
is administered by the State but established under a trust or endowment that
requires religious instruction is permitted. Clause (3) of this article states
that such instruction must not be compulsory.”[12]
In admiration to article twenty seven
it is maintained that, “a further right of an important nature which has been
accorded to all persons in this country is that they cannot be compelled to pay
any tax for the promotion of any particular religion.”[13]
In nutshell the constitution is firm against any form of religious
discrimination.
All the above said Articles of the
Indian constitution guarantee to all the citizens of India
5.2.1 Private Bills in the Parliament
According to P.L. John Panikker, “in
1954, 1960, 1970, 1978, 1979 there had been efforts in the parliament to pass
the anti-conversion bill.”[14]
In detailing the concern he finds that there was no serious threat to the
contemptuous issue of propagation, which of course some think authorize a
person to convert a person from one religion to another. In his own words “in
the post-Independence period two private members’ bills sought to regulate
conversion activities. The Indian Converts (Regulation and Registration) Bill
introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1954 by Jethalal Joshi (Congress) and the
Backward Communities (Religious Protection) Bill moved by Prakash Vir Shastri
(Swatantra) in 1960 were expressions of the same old concern over the
mass-scale conversion activities by foreign missionaries conducted on war
footing among the vulnerable section of the society, and aimed at only
regulating the trappings of conversion activities. None ever adversely touched
the fundamental right to propagate religion.”[15]
But the missionary oriented religions are always of the view if conversion is
controlled that tantamount to curbing the freedom of religion, which is against
the constitutional guarantees. From the point of vulnerable section of the
people it is maintained that conversion from their traditional oppressive
religion to another is the way of liberation or salvation.
All the claim of the religious
minorities is to allow the free flow of conversion without any restriction of
whatsoever. Sunita Gangwal states “the
freedom of Religion Bill, 1978, introduced in Parliament by Shri O.P. Tyagi
caused strong resentment in the Christian community. The Minority commission
received several representations alleging that certain provisions of the
Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act and the freedom of Religion Bill
placed before the Parliament by Shri O.P. Tyagi put unwarranted restrictions on
the freedom guaranteed under Article 25.”[16]
The opposition is right, but one thing needs to be remembered is that
constitution does not allow a person to convert another person. Rather
conversion is the matter of the individual choice. Although there is no
evidence of forced conversion this point needs to be maintained intact.
The allegation and request of the
presenter of the bill are stated as “the statement of objects and reasons
appended to Shri Tyagi’s Bill referred to the need for protecting people
particularly those belonging to the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes from
conversion allurement or wrongful inducement.”[17]
There is no evidence that there was allurement and inducement. But often the
humanitarian assistance provided to the underprivileged section of the society
is wrongly interpreted. It is also intolerable to people who have been
perpetually practicing inequality in the society. Such people could not
tolerate the least ones coming up in life with dignity and status.
5.2.2 State Legislations- Orissa,
Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu, Gujarat
& Rajestan
Besides
the efforts taken at the national level to curb freedom of religion in India
The
State of Madhya Pradesh India
(i) The right to ‘propagate’, in Art.
25(1), gives to each member of every religion the right to spread or
disseminate the tenets of his religion (say, by advocacy or preaching), but it
would not include the right to convert another, because each man
has the same freedom of ‘conscience’ guaranteed by that very provision [Art.
25(1)]. On which the Christians relied.
(ii) The equal freedom of conscience,
belonging to each man, under Art. 25(1), means that he has the freedom to
choose and hold any faith of his choice and not to be converted into another
religion by means of force, fraud, inducement or allurement, he can, of course,
voluntarily adopt another religion, but ‘force, fraud, inducement or
allurement’ takes away the free consent from the would-be convert.
(iii) Even assuming
that a particular religion had the right to propagate its tenets by any means,
including conversion,- the State has the right and duty to intervene if such
activity of conversion offended against ‘public order, morality or health’,
because the guarantee of freedom religion in Art.25 (1) is subject to the
limitations of ‘public order, morality, or health’ as follows: …
(vi) If any such right to convert be
conceded, such right would belong to every religion, so that there would
inevitably be a breach of the public peace if every religious community
carried on a campaign to convert people belonging to other faiths, by the use
of force, fraud, inducement or allurement. The State was, therefore,
constitutionally authorized, nay, enjoined- to maintain public order by
prohibiting and penalizing conversion (including attempt to convert) if force,
fraud, inducement or allurement was used by the person or persons advocating
conversion in any particular case. This is exactly what had been done by the
M.P. and Orissa Acts.”[21]
The judgment of the Supreme Court is
comprehensive and nonpartisan. Nobody has the right to convert a person from
one religion to another but everyone is free to choose a religion of his or her
choice. Upholding the solemnity of this verdict is helpful to a nation like India
Such bill was passed in Arunachal
Pradesh in (1978). [22] The opinion of the courts on these bills
including Arunachal and O.P.Tyagi was that the bills were not leveled against
the Christians
Similar bill was passed in Tamil Nadu
in 2002.[23] The
Tamil Nadu freedom of religion bill also maintained the preceding arguments. It
adopted the previous bills in reiterating that it prohibits forced conversion.
James Massey writes, “similar position has been taken in the recently enacted
state law by the Tamil Nadu government on 31 October 2002 on the prohibition of forcible
conversions.”[24] It needs
to be remembered that the Tamil Nadu freedom of religion bill was repealed soon
after the massive debacle in the immediate next general election.
Parallel bill was passed in Gujarat in 2003. The BJP government in Gujarath has
circulated a bill to punish conversion through “allurement” by a minimum of
three years of Jail. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill was passed in the Gujarat
State Assembly on Wednesday
26 March 2003 .
The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill is modeled
after anti-conversion legislation adopted in the southern state of Tamil Nadu
in October 2002. The language in the Bill's "Statement of Object and
Reason" is highly provocative. It contains the usual reference to
"force, allurement and fraudulent means", however, terms such as
"anti-social", "subversive", "vested interest
groups" and "exploiting innocent people" also demonstrate the
deep contempt that proponents of Hindutva have for Christian workers and
witness.
The intensity of the legislation is
stated as “throughout the
Bill, Orwellian Newspeak has scaled dizziest of heights and leaves one stunned
at the sheer audacity of language used so criminally. While seeking to oppress
the minorities and keep them in servitude and bondage in perpetuity, the Bill
professes to “protect” them against assumptively “forced conversion”. It
characterizes conversion as an “offence” (obviously to Hindutva), and an
“atrocity” upon the converted! That it is so solicitous about the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes would have been really very touching had it been true. But in
the circumstances prevailing it is the fox’s concern for the chickens.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t been able to conceal its motives, both ugly and
ulterior.”[25] The hidden purpose of the legislation
is further identified as “Converting
“from one religion to another”, assumes this Bill, is induced by force, fraud,
and allurement. Tribals forcibly converted and reconverted to Hindutwa
pigeonhole of iniquity and infamy are not within the ambit of the Bill! It is
aimed at Christian conversion alone.”[26] The
ambiguity of the legislation is that it allows the Sang Parivar to continue any
form of conversion.
About the vehemence of the Gujarat
Freedom of Religion Bill it is stated that “for record, this crude Bill will go
down in history as remarkably imprudent and gratuitously insulting to millions
of tribal, and SC and ST men, women, and children.”[27]
Again it is affirmed “it leaves the impression that the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes are terribly happy with their plight of destitution and
degradation and don’t want to consign it to flames and its perpetrators to
hell. Rather, they seek to wallow in their misery forever, ordained for them by
an unethical and inhuman system of perpetual deprivation and indignity. That
is, the author of the Bill, pretends that the SC and ST would not countenance,
let alone make a bid for, riddance and redemption from this bestially
deterministic dispensation called caste system or more grandiosely, ‘Varna
Vyavastha’, which is singularly violative of human rights besides being
abysmally anachronistic and humanistically abhorrent.”[28]
Likewise, the Bill's suggestion that banning
conversions will "enable people to practice their own religion
freely" is totally misleading. The reality is that this "Freedom of
Religion Bill" will actually rob the people of their religious freedom.
This is a direct violation of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom
of religion.
The Rajasthan Assembly on Friday the 17th April 2006
passed an Anti-conversion Bill, even as the entire Opposition stayed away. The
“Rajasthan Dharma Swatantraya Bill 2006” (Religious Freedom Bill) has a
provision for re-conversion to Hinduism.”[29]
It is evident that the purpose of this bill is to encourage conversion to
Hinduism and to denounce conversion to any other religion. This also supports
that all attempts to nip freedom of religion to the minorities are the direct
outcome of a well-conceived communal agenda in India
5.2.2.1 Some Observations on these
Bills
On the basis of the Orissa, MP and
Arunachal freedom of religion legislations the Christians made the following
remarks. According to Mathai Zachariah “the crux of the issue is that the
constitutional guarantees given to us to “profess, practice and propagate” the
religion of one’s choice has been abrogated indirectly by these Acts.”[30]
This is the perception about the direct and immediate implication of such a
bill/ Act. The feeling that Christians are losing the fundamental freedom
because article twenty-five envisages freedom to convert a person from one
religion to another is not well accepted. No one has the right to convert a
person from one religion to another and of course it is the choice of the
individual.
The deceptive nature of the bill is
also highlighted, as “the purpose is to regulate and curtail freedom of
religion and not to guarantee or enhance it.”[31]
This is a very serious concern. In the name of protecting the freedom of
religion trying to place impasse on the individual’s freedom to choose a
religion is wrong. It is true that the bills claim to protect the religion of
all. But in fact these bills are preventing the freedom of others.
Mathai Zachariah questions the very
false and fabricated allegation behind the maneuvering of the bills, as “the
Acts prohibit conversion by the use of “force, fraud or inducement.”[32]
Who can accept it? There has never been any case reported on these grounds. It
is also true that no one can be forced to follow any religion. If a person
changes his or her religion for monitory or material benefit or for social
status that cannot be stopped. The
simple fear of the so-called religious majority groups is that if the freedom
to choose a religion is unchecked they might lose the number or they might lose
the votes.
Mathai Zachariah also expresses the
fear that “the Acts have given unlimited power to officials of allsorts and it
may be misused resulting in the harassment of people who genuinely want to
change their faith.”[33]
This aspect is quite stark in revealing the inherent agendas of these bills.
Once the process is complicated and cumbersome, it become unaffordable to the
least in the society.
In connection with the main focus of
the research in considering the freedom of religion issue as a human right
issue, Mathai Zachariah highlights another remarkably worrisome effect that
“these Acts and their implementation also contravene the Charter of Human
Rights to which the Government of India is a signatory.”[34]
The connection of freedom of religion and human rights can be elaborately
discussed at a later stage. But here it is enough to underline that freedom of
religion is a human rights issue as well. The UNS’ human rights declaration
absolutely condemns any form of discrimination on religious grounds.
Mathai Zachariah raises another
pertinent spiritual concern, as “in conversion, human being choose their
ultimate ends. So freedom for conversion is the most important of freedoms.”[35]
Rather than assuming mystical spiritual ground to argue in favour of freedom of
religion, it will be appropriate if it is established that freedom to choose a
religious persuasion of an individual’s choice for spiritual, material, social,
etc. advantage should be allowed without any hurdles. At the same time all need
to remember that the interest of the State and the nation prevail over the
individual interests. That is no one can use religious freedom or religious
resources against the sovereignty of the nation.
Freedom to choose a religion or to
convert to a religion according to one’s conscience is the spirit that has to
be constitutionally maintained. Christians cannot claim that they have the
right to convert other people to Christianity. If such a claim is made, that
amounts to unconstitutional nature.
Mathai Zachariah has also found
reasons for the emergence of such freedom of religion bills. For example “the
Hindu view is that all religions lead to the Ultimate Reality and conversion is
unnecessary.”[36] Of
course this is the predominant Indian viewpoint from the perspective of many
religions. But this argument makes things stagnated and the process of dynamism
is lost. Since all religions claim finality one need to have the freedom to
follow any faith tradition, which seem to be promising or convenient.
On the basis of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh
and Arunachal Pradesh freedom of religion acts James Massey asks the following
significant questions, “for example, does the ‘conversion’ in these laws
include only one or two particular religions (Christianity and Islam) or does
it also include Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and others. Is Hindu or Arya
Samajists Suddhi Karan (reconversion) also covered by these laws?”[37]
This is an earnest concern because those who oppose conversion practice it with
different nomenclatures. What the communal forces are saying is against the
truth. They claim their method of conversion is really not religious
conversion, but purifying a person or welcoming a person to his or her original
religion. This cannot be accepted. Freedom to choose religion is universal. One
can swing between religions under any nomenclature but any change from one
religion to another is conversion.
Any legislation to stop forced
conversion is a welcome act in a civilized society. On the contrary if in the
name of freedom of religion bills people are made to suffer so many procedural
difficulties when they wanted to change from one religion to another for
religious convenience or otherwise is against individual convictions.
From the entire discussions it is clear that the
freedom of religion bills are not for the benefit of the mass. They are politically
motivated and communally targeted. It is only to gain political points through
religious sentiments. In other words it is the unveiling of the parochial
interests of the majority complexed people to control and hinder the
development and freedom of the minorities.
But the painful truth is that in spite
of the failure in curtailing the freedom of religions to the religious
minorities in India through the freedom of religion bills, the inconveniences
caused to the ordinary citizens are numerous and they affect the individual
freedom of many people.
5.
3 Religious Institutions
Having
found legislating freedom of religions as one way of denying freedom of
religion to the minorities in India, another exploitative trend is to try
fraudulently against the special privileges given to the minority institutions
in view of protecting them and helping them to grow.
For
example, “religious denominations have a right under clause (d) of Article 26
to administer their property in accordance with law.”[38]
The Article reads “Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right –(a) to
establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b)
to manage it own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable
and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with
law.”[39]
The crux of this Article is stated as “Article 26 makes religious denominations
including their sections the beneficiaries of the right to manage all religious
affairs.”[40] P.N.
Sapru writes, “the point to emphasize is that freedom to establish and maintain
institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs
in matters of religion and to own, acquire movable and immovable property and
administer such property in accordance with law has been clearly guaranteed by
Article 26.”[41]
It is significant again like the
previous considerations, even in matters of maintaining the internal affairs of
the minority establishments the interest of the state prevails. This is
emphatically stated as, “the state cannot interfere with the right of a
religious denomination to manage its domestic affairs provided those affairs
are connected only with religion and the right is exercised as not to interfere
with public order, morality or health.”[42]
A very important point that should not
miss the attention of any thinking person is that the minority establishments
need to take utmost care to protect the rights and privileges of the individuals.
This is negatively stated as, “of course, this protection cannot extend to
cases where a religious denomination seeks, in the name managing its religious
affairs, to deprive a member of his legal rights and privileges.”[43]
This is a crucial remark. How well Indian minority organizations support human
rights and fundamental rights of the individuals in relation to employees and
their settlement is an appropriate introspective interrogative.
Regarding
freedom as to attend at religious instruction or religious worship in certain
educational institutions Article twenty eight
confers that “1.No religious instruction shall be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.
2.Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to
an educational institution which is administered by the State but has
established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious
instruction shall be imparted in such institution.
3.No person attending any educational
institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall
be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in
such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in
such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if
such person is a minor, his guardian has given consent thereto.”[44]
The article is clear and affirmative
still its substance can be clearly grasped from the following analysis as:
“Clause (i) of this Article prohibits the imparting of religious instruction
in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.”[45]
Again “Clause (ii) and (iii) of this Article make it clear,
however, that religious denominations can run their schools and receive aid
from the State, provided, however, that the religious instruction given in such
institutions is not made compulsory for children whose parents or guardians
have an objection to their so receiving it. Where, of course, the guardian
assents to such education being imparted or where the person, being a major, is
willing to receive such education, this prohibition does not apply.”[46]
In this connection it needs to be kept
in mind that these provisions do not apply for institutions that do not receive
State fund. Another point to remember in this connection is that moral
education stands on a different footing. Moral education cannot be equated with
religious education. Unfortunately, today there is a trend to imbibe moral
education by selecting provocative, intimidating and incriminating religious accounts.
This cannot be the case at all because it is dangerous to the harmony and unity
of the nation.
Having unaccepted the efforts to
improve the status of the religious minorities in India
The purpose of such special
arrangement is to bring the entire religious communities on par with others. By
ascribing a faulty nationalism the earnest cause is diluted. For example it is
maintained, “national integration becomes the casualty of such education.”[48]
It looks the communal forces will be happy if one section of the society is
always under undeveloped situation and do not rise against the oppressive
structures.
Second part of article twenty-nine
reads “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”[49]
It is another indication of the egalitarian vision of the constitution.
In spite of all the provisions and
good will there is also a legitimate fear that
“the overall effect of the judicial reconstruction of the educational
and cultural rights provisions of the Constitution has been, in our respectful
submission, the elevation of constitutionally defined autonomy of the minority
educational institutions into quasi autocracy of their management bodies.”[50]
Here the minority institutions are cautioned as to the maintenance of the
institutions. The management and the maintenance of the institutions should be
in commensurate with the constitutional law of the land and in keeping with the
human rights of the individuals. In the name of religious institutions no crime
or injustice shall be rendered to any individual. Any violation of the above
concerns is against the constitutional provisions.
Article 30 is about
the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
The article goes as follow: “(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice. (1A) In making any law providing for the
compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution
established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the
State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for
the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the
right guaranteed under that clause. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to
educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on
the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on
religion or language.”[51]
It
is clear that the article thirty expects the state to protect the educational
interests of the minorities and expects the states not to discriminate any
educational institution on religious ground. Of course the constitution has
recognized only two minorities namely, religious and linguistic. The benevolent
spirit and the goodness of the constitution is often twisted to match the
interest of the communal forces and the so-called numerically majority
communities. For example it is maintained, “Article 30 of the Indian
Constitution has conferred on them (Muslims) and other minority groups rights
and privileges which are denied to the Hindus the national group of country.”[52]
This is in fact an attempt to communalize the constitutional safeguards
guaranteed to the minorities in India
The
above observation contravenes the letter and spirit of article thirty.[53]
What is done for the promotion of an underprivileged and numerically minority
community is interpreted on par with the status of the socially well-placed and
numerically majority communities. It is surprising that the same privileges
given to the minorities keeping their backward condition in consideration, are
forcefully asked by the socially well-placed and advantageous groups as well.
This is an indirect attempt to deny freedom of religion to others.
Rather than accepting and helping the
minority groups the majority always deny their rights in many clever ways. One
such way is, the majority communities find a discrimination against them in the
matter of compensation accorded to the property in the event of government
acquisition of the same. It is
claimed, “in the matter of state
acquisition of educational property there is discrimination. . The
discrimination lies because after the deletion of Art 31 by the Constitution
Amendment Act 1978, no Hindu or Hindu institution has any fundamental right of
compensation in the event of state acquisition of its property.”[54]
This is exaggerating the issue beyond proportion.
Not satisfied with the above crafty
denial of freedom of religion, the majority communities try to gain mileage in
sympathetic grounds. For example it is asked “is education more important to
the children of minority communities and is of less importance to Hindu
children?”[55] This is
again a willful and determined effort to conceal the main agenda and to subvert
the interests of the socially, economically, politically and educationally
disadvantaged communities. For centuries together these groups were kept under
ignorance. Their right to education and knowledge were suppressed by several
means including religious. Now when the opportunities are blooming for the
underprivileged the erstwhile masters are alarmed.
5.4 Religious Tolerance
The communal forces are uncomfortable
with all the constitutional provisions to improve the status of the religious
minorities in India
While accusing Christianity as an intolerant
faith tradition, the Hindu tradition is projected as the national tradition and
tolerant one. For example it is maintained, “as far as the national tradition
of this land is concerned, it never considers that with a change in the method
of worship, an individual ceases to be the son of the soil and should be
treated as an alien. Here, in this land, there can be no objection to God being
called by any name whatever. Ingrained in this soil is love and respect for all
faiths and religious beliefs. He cannot be a son of this soil at all who is
intolerant of other faiths.”[57]
If this is true what about the Hindu fundamental forces that ask all other
religious communities to leave this country.
How do we account for all the hate
ideologies? Are they practicing an alien tradition here or are they willfully
violating and damaging the plurality of Indian society.
In spite of such possible questions
the fundamentals maintain that their tolerance is the best one. It is said, “in
fact, Hindu tradition goes far beyond the Western concept of mere tolerance; it
respects all faiths as equally sacred.”[58] This
is more dangerous way of religious assimilation and denying possibilities to
the growth of other religions. This is also the plot to overturn the religious
tolerance worked out in the Indian constitution.
Religious
tolerance in India India
The
risk of overemphasizing the merit of one religious value is also
perceived. For example each religion
defines religious freedom in the light of its own religious needs and dogmas.
The difficulty is “ but when Hindu philosophers and religious leaders interpret
the idea of religious liberty in terms of the Hindu concept of religious tolerance,
and seek to make it the official interpretation of the State, it seriously
limits the conception of the fundamental right to religious liberty.”[60]
The Hindu Right’s intention is exposed clearly as “their message that only
Hindus are truly tolerant-since they alone do not proselytize- is not a message
based on respect for people who belong to other religions. On the contrary the
sub-text is that these other religions (read Islam and Christianity) are simply
inferior to Hinduism, and therefore, not equally deserving of respect.”[61]
The false claim for a superficial
tolerance is loaded with attributed meaning and substances towards denying
freedom of religion to other minority religious communities. Besides projecting
the communal brand of tolerance as the best, the forces have embarked on
Hindutva brand of freedom in the place of freedom of religion.
5.5 Hindutva Freedom in the Place of
Freedom of Religion
In this context of discussion on
freedom of religion in India
We all accept the fact that “in every
religious faith, life is considered sacred.”[62]
Particularly “in Hinduism there is a clear understanding that life should not
be desecrated or destroyed.”[63]
In line with respect for nonviolence in India
Yet the fact remains that those higher
ideals are not tangible. Rather they are falsified or perverted for some other
purposes. It is said “the mark of all
civilizations is the respect they accord to human dignity and freedom. All religions and cultural traditions
celebrate these ideals. Yet throughout history they have been violated.” [65]
This is in reality the way the Hindu fundamentalists are presenting themselves.
The Hindu conception of freedom of
religion is quite philosophical and of course appealing. It often conceals the
practical reality in the context of many religions. It looks as if freedom of
religion is flatly denied through the offer of spiritual freedom. It is an
attempt to nurture what is in vogue in spite of its inapplicability. For
example “freedom is the goal of all life, at least human life; this has been
the earliest conception of Hindu religion.”[66]
The denial of religious freedom to people adhering to other faiths is very
obvious in all the formulations of Sang Parivar.
Placing the burden on the internal
self averts the need for human freedom to practice any religion of his or her
choice. This notion is concealed as “the conception of freedom as an end in
itself involves the subordination, the sublimation or transvaluation of all
other values and ends. The ancient thinkers in India
In reality some at least of the Hindu
thinkers are bent on refuting real religious freedom to the religious
minorities in India
The real issue is each religion
defines spiritual freedom in the light of its own religious needs and dogmas.
The risk is when Hindu philosophers and religious leaders interpret the idea of
religious liberty in terms of the Hindu concepts of religious tolerance, and
seek to make it the official interpretation of the State. At such times it
seriously limits the conception of the fundamental right to religious liberty.[70]
The implicit connotation of over emphasizing otherworldly freedom in the place
of real religious freedom in Hinduism is that
‘the State should be based on Hindu religion’.[71]
Another subservient design of such thinking about freedom of life in the place
of freedom of religion is to continue with the oppressive social system, which
is source of all forms of discrimination in India
5.6
Quest for Religious Discrimination through Scholarship
It
is awful that even the intellect of the learned scholars is also used to impede
freedom of religion. Some of the advocates of Hindu fundamentalism and communalism
like Pannalal Dhar interpret Nehru’s secularism as minority appeasement and
BJP’s as positive secularism. The fact is that the appeal for the minorities to
live under the good will of the majority, supporting sati and proposing for a
Hindu nation are more dangerous. He is opposed to the inclusion of the word
secular in the constitution of India
The arguments of Golwalkar are flimsy
as amply exposed in the previous pages. It is asking others to respect the
religion and culture of the Hindus and unwilling to respect other faiths. Is it
not a defeated psyche over acting beyond proportions? Is it not betraying their
tendency to dominate and humiliate others?
5.7
Religious Discrimination through Politics
Although
religion is only an instrument in the hands of the political
organizations, “religion,
needless to say, plays a very prominent role in exacerbating communal
relationship.”[72] The
hypersensitivity of religious matters is often cleverly applied to mobilize
people for political purposes. This powerful dimension of religion is
identified as “religion on account of its powerful emotional appeal has often
sought to be dragged into political and social arenas by various interest
groups.”[73] The specific use of religious sentiments for
political goals is clearly indicated as “in political arena religion was no
longer oriented towards faith, rational or irrational, but towards evolving a
religious identity, a primordial consciousness, for its political unity.”[74]
That is why politicization of religion is one of the greatest challenges to a
secular state.
One of the highly calculative
religious interpretations of the historical event is that “the conflict between
Muslim and Hindu rulers is usually projected as the fight between Hinduism and
Islam. The Hindus, it is sought to be proved, were supplanted by the fanatic
Muslim rulers and the latter fought back in defense.”[75]
It is painful even the minority religious communities also exploit such
electrifying religious sentiments. For example “the Muslim elite now could
manipulate to their advantage the social insecurity of the less privileged
without giving up their exclusiveness.”[76]
It is a warning to the minority communities as well not to be carried away with
communal designs.
Whether it is Hindus or Muslims or
anyone who uses religion for political purposes is contravening the
constitutional provisions of secularism in India India
5.7.1
Communal Politics
The fact that the religious identities
are grossly misused cannot be denied. It is established that “the
potentialities of “Hindu” identity and “Muslim” identity have been exploited by
the educated elite of both the communities.”[77]
In the context of the Hindu Right- BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena “the central
ideology of political movement is Hindutva – literally translated as
‘Hinduness’ –which seeks to establish the political, cultural and religious
supremacy of Hinduism, and the Hindu nation.”[78]
Often the overarching communal vision to disintegrate people on the basis of
religious sentiments is not properly identified.
This aspect has escaped the attention
of the judiciary as well. Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur argues against one of
the judgments of the Supreme court that, “by concluding that the term
‘Hindutva’ was not in and of itself an appeal to religion, nor an expression of
enmity or hatred towards other religious groups, but simply the way of life of
Indian people, the Supreme Court has obscured the historical background as well
as the contemporary political context within which the term has acquired
meaning.”[79]
Communalizing politics amounts to
constant tension and threat to peaceful and harmonious living. A form of
provocative declaration of the Hindutva in connection with reclaiming the
places where other religious structures are erected after destroying the
original Hindu ones is that “the mosques standing at these sites are an insult
to national honour. They should have been removed from there in the same way as
statuses of British rulers were removed after freedom. Restoration of these places
to the national society is mainly and(sic) political question and not a legal
or religious question.”[80]
The simple objective of the Hindu communal organizations is that only Hinduism
among the religions deserves honour and all other religions are subject to
ridicule and lawless and unconstitutional measures.
Another inciting appeal is that “by
treating the invader Baber as a hero and denigrating Shri Rama, the God
incarnate, the Muslim leadership has totally exposed the Muslim psyche.”[81]
In other words the communal political Hindu organization is committed to grab
political power through instigating the majority community against the minority
religious communities in India
The former prime minister of India
The view of the prime minister is
again strengthened through other confrontational agendas of the Hindu communal
groups. For example “the same is the story of other Hindu shrines and movements
expropriated by the Muslim invaders and rulers. For instance it is accepted at
all hands that the so called Qutub Minar is a pre-Islamic victory tower built
by king Vishal Dev. The so called Taj Mahal is a temple palace built long
before Shah Jahan came to power. But instead of accepting the historical,
architectural and scientific evidences Muslims have been persisting in calling
them, Muslims monuments with the concurrence of a government which is afraid of
accepting the truth for fear of losing Muslim votes.”[83]
It is a telling fact that the Sang Parivar have in their store communal program
calculated for a long range of time.
Due to such communal political
orientations the minority religious communities, particularly the Muslims, are
irritated and frustrated. This situation will have adverse effect in the polity
of India
Preserving the religious communities
irrespective of their numerical advantages or disadvantages and promoting
religious unity is a crucial task of the nation or state. It is said “the
absolute religious neutrality of the state can be preserved if in state
institutions, what is good and great in every religion is presented, and what
is more essential, the unity of all religions.”[86]
The importance of guaranteeing cultural and religious freedom to the minorities
is again emphatically presented as “if we are committed to a society where all
human beings realize the fullness of their being, we have to see that
vulnerable groups are not denied of their religion and culture. We have to
further see that the current phase of majoritarianism is countered
systematically, as I have sought to do in this work.”[87]
Implementing and preserving the constitutional provisions in connection with
freedom of religion shall put to rest many of the contemptuous issues in India
No doubt, communal politics under the guise of majority culture and
religion cannot be accepted and it is unfit for the health and prosperity of
the nation which is the house of many religious traditions. The amount of
religious freedom prevailing in a nation is the yardstick to measure its
civilization.
[1] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India Nagpur
[2]
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.
[3] B.S. Bisht, “Human Rights: An
Overview,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube and Neeta Bora (New Delhi
(P) LTD., 2000), 46.
[4] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
3rd ed., Reprint (Bangalore
[5] South Asia
Human Rights Documentation Centre, Introducing Human Rights: An Overview Including Issues
of Gender Justice, Environmental, and Consumer Law ( New Delhi Oxford University
[6] Ibid., 70.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.,
[10] Ibid., 71.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 79.
[13]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
5-6.
[14]
P.L. John Panicker, “Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play
of Religion, Politics and Communalism,
edited by Samson Prabhakar (Bangalore
[15] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India
( Jaipur: Arihant Publishing House, 1995), 132-133.
[16] Ibid., 140.
[17] Ibid.
[18] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy (New
Delhi
Publishers& Distributors, 2003) 90.
[19] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India
[20] Ibid.
[21] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India
[22]
P.L. John Panicker, “Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play
of Religion, Politics and Communalism, 60-61.
[24] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy, 82.
[25] I.K. Shukla, “Demolishing Religious
Freedom,” Indian Currents XI/48
(13-19 December, 1999): 43.
[27] Ibid.
[29] “Rajasthan Passes
Anti-conversion Bill,”The Hindu (Vijayawada 18 April 2006 ,
12.
[30]
Mathai Zachariah, “Introduction,” in. Freedom of Religion in India
(Nagpur:
NCCI, 1979), 5.
[31] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid. 6.
[37] James Massey, “Human Rights and
Minorities,” in Free to Choose: Issues in Conversion, Freedom of Religion and Social
Engagement, edited by
Howell, Richard (New Delhi: Evangelical Fellowship of India, 2002), 128.
[38] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights,150.
[39] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of
India with Selective Comments (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing CO.
PVT. LTD., 1998), 49.
[40] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual Rights,
147.
[41]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
6.
[44] 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),140-141.
[45]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
7.
[47] Pannalal Dhar, India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion State and Secularism
(Calcutta: Punthi- Pustak, 1993),
84-85.
[48] Ibid., 85.
[49] Arjun Dev, Indira Arjun Dev and Supta
Das, compiled and edited, Human Rights: A Source Book, 141.
[50] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights , 182.
[51] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India
[52] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 189.
[53] Arjun Dev, Indira Arjun Dev and Supta
Das, compiled and edited, Human Rights: A Source Book,141 142.
[54] Pannalal Dhar , India Religion
State
[55] Ibid., 71.
[56] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
3rd ed., Reprint (Bangalore: Sahitya Sindhu
Prakashan, 2000), 159.
[57] Ibid., 158.
[58] Ibid., 337.
[59]
Soli J. Sorabjee, “So Long as Religion is religion,” The New Indian Express
(Vijayawada 17 February 2006 , 8.
[60] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State
[61] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule of Law
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999) 133-134.
[62] K.C.Abraham, “Human Rights: Some
Theological Reflections,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, edited by I. John Mohan Razu ( Nagpur India
[63] K.C.Abraham, “Human Rights: Some Theological
Reflections,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, edited by I. John Mohan Razu ( Nagpur India
[64] Ibid.
[65] No Author, “Human Rights and Human
Development-For Freedom and Solidarity,” “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 India
[66]
K.C. Varadachari, “The Hindu Conception of Religious Freedom,” in Religious
Freedom,
edited by J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore:
The Committee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1956), 26.
[67] Ibid., 28.
[68] Ibid., 29.
[70] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State
[71] Ibid., 79.
[72] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights , 187.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid., 201.
[76] Ibid., 188.
[77] Ibid., 201.
[78] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule of Law, 6-7.
[79] Ibid., 34.
[80] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 199.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Rasheed Kidwai, “BJP Aborted Ayodhya
Solution,Hints Rao,”The Telegraph (Calcutta), 2 November 2005, 11.
[83] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India: A Study in Communal Process and Individual
Rights, 199-200.
[84] Ibid., 207.
[85] Ibid., 227.
[86] Ibid., 233.
[87] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond Secularism,
the rights of Religious Minorities (New Delhi:
Comments
Post a Comment