Recollection of Insights for Diligent Christian Witness in India: A Study on the Freedom of Religion based on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
Recollection of Insights for Diligent Christian Witness in India:
Recollection of Insights for Diligent Christian Witness in India:
A Study on the
Freedom of Religion based on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
Introduction
This paper attempts
to recollect insights from the various Supreme Court interpretations of Article
25 of the Indian Constitution and to understand freedom of religion to bear
diligent Christian witness. Detailed study of each case is an interesting research,
but owing to our purpose I restricted myself to the verdict of cases as
interpreted by eminent jurists. Anyone interested in detail may use the foot
notes to trace the cases.
Articles 25-28 of the Indian
Constitution provide for secularism and “freedom of religion” and article 25 is
often read with article 26. I, however, have decided to dwell only on the
Article 25 to make it converse with us in some details, though for the purpose
of clarity there may be references to article 26. The emphasis in Article 25 is
on ‘the practice of religious freedom for individuals’[1]
and “Article 26 deals with the right of a religious denomination or a section
of a religious denomination.”[2]
Article 25 comes under part III of the
Indian Constitution under the heading “fundamental rights”. However, “the
rights conferred by part III of the Constitution are not absolute. They are
relative and subject to certain limitations which were considered necessary for
the safety and security of the State.”[3] In
other words ‘the right to freedom of religion is not an unqualified right’.[4] The freedom of religion is ‘not only for
Indian citizens but for all persons in India and to religious groups’.[5]
As all discussions on
the freedom of religion, particularly based on Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution, begin with a note on secularism, I too have done the same, though
it was not my sole concern. My efforts to describe the salient aspects of
Article 25, can facilitate a clear understanding for diligent witness in India.
I, to derive at this
objective, have discussed the essential aspects of a secular state and the
definition of religion as found in the Supreme Court judgments. Graphic but
useful insights are highlighted to understand freedom of conscience, freedom to
profess, practice and propagate religion. The expression ‘religious practice’
has gone through many lengthy legal considerations to determine the integral,
essential, and non-secular aspect of religion. A recollection of these
distinctions is helpful to us.
‘Propagation’ is
another important word that witnessed huge discussion to decide whether this
expression provides for conversion. Moderate endeavor is taken to understand
the expressions public order, morality and health to which the entire freedom
of religion is subjected to. Freedom of religion can be regulated through
legislations by States in matters of economic, financial, political and secular
activities associated with religious practices is another area touched upon to
help Christians aware of these insights. Another paramount insight helpful for
diligent witness considered is that religious practices should give way to
providing for social welfare and reforms.
In the light of these
considerations suggestions are made for diligent Christian witness in the
Indian context. This study is helpful for ‘diligent witness’ is in a way
prophetic, to help avoid confrontation and waste of resources on indefensible
matters. It is a call for Christians in India to be good law abiding citizens
to bear witness to Christ.
Secularism
The word secular is
not defined in the constitution but the prevailing definitions that are in
vogue are based upon the Supreme Court judgments on various matters related to
freedom of religion. The concept of secularism and freedom of religion is implicit
in the Preamble and other provisions of the Constitution, even before the word
‘secular’ was inserted in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act in
1976. The amendment is intended merely
to spell out clearly the principle of ‘secularism’ in the Constitution’.[6] Also
‘to make sure what India seeks to achieve as a secular State’.[7]
Secularism in India
means respect for all religions and it does not mean irreligion.[8] It
‘is not indifference to religion’ and ‘does not behave hatred on any religion’.
‘Secularism conceptualizes peaceful co-existence of different faiths’ and
considers each individual citizen as a free normal person in his/her own
right’.[9]
The essence of secularism is non-discrimination on the basis of religious
differences.
‘Secularism can be practiced
by adopting a complete neutral approach
towards religions or positively making one section of religious people to
understand and respect religion of another’. The Supreme Court has held that
‘study of religions in school education is not against the secular philosophy
of the Constitution’. It can help avoid ‘mutual distrust and intolerance’. This
approach is called positive secularism’.[10] It is ‘positive in its meaning in as much as
it is an active instrument to prevent followers of different religions from
perpetrating violent acts and atrocities against each other’.[11]
These principles are to be practiced by a secular State (India).
Secular State
India under the
Constitution is a Secular State which means, the State observes an attitude of
neutrality and impartiality towards all religions. There shall be no “State
religion”. The State will neither establish a religion of its own nor confer
any special patronage upon any particular religion. ‘Every person is guaranteed
the freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice and propagate
his/her own religion.[12]
However, ’the religion of the individual or denomination has nothing to do in
the matter of socio-economic change’.[13]
Further, under
secular constitution, ‘the State will protect all religions but interfere with
nun, and no person is to be discriminated against on the ground of religion.
And it treats all religion equally’.[14]
It is not an ‘atheistic State’ but it is ‘neutral’ in matters of religion.[15]
In a secular stat “the state does not identify itself with any religion.”[16] It is opposed to intolerance[17]
but it regulates the secular activities connected with religion ‘by enacting
law’[18]
without interfering with ‘things which are essentially religious’. It can
interfere if a particular religious practice offends public order, morality,
health and contravenes any law of social, economic or political regulation’.[19] No doubt, many questions arise in our minds
but let us wait a while for more clarity.
Religion
Like the word
“secular” the term “religion” is also not defined in the constitution,[20]
and therefore one has to rely upon some of the definitions given in the Supreme
Court Judgments. It is also true that the term ‘religion’ is beyond any form of
convincing definition.
The Supreme Court has
held that religion is a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it
is not necessarily theistic. A religion may only lay down a Code of ethical
rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral part of
religion, and those forms and observances might extend even to maters of food
and dress.[21]
Further “religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief; it has its
outward expression in acts as well. Hence, religious practices or performances
of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much part of religion as faith
or belief in particular doctrines.”[22]
The courts have made
distinction that “religion in its doctrinal and ritual aspect is a private
purpose while the administration of property dedicated to the public for
religious purposes is a public purpose.”[23] Also, the court is competent to decide
whether ‘doctrines and practices’ of each religion are essential or
nonessential’.[24]
These wider definitions of religion help understand ‘freedom to practice
religion’ in the context of many religions and even ideologies.
Before entering into detail aspects of
religious freedom in India it is worthwhile to recollect some of the
limitations. They are:(1)it is subject to public order, morality and health,
(2) subject to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution,(3) subject
to any existing law regulating or restricting an economic, financial,
political, or other secular activity which may be associated with religious
practice, (4) subject to law providing for social welfare and reform, and (5)
subject to any law that may be made by the State and regulating or restricting the activities aforesaid or
providing for social welfare and reform.[25]
Freedom
of Conscience
To begin with,
“freedom of religion under the Indian Constitution means freedom to have any
religion, freedom to convert to any religion and freedom to have no religion.”[26]The
first step towards right to freedom of religion is freedom of conscience.
Although Art.25 (1) provides for freedom of conscience[27]
to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen,[28]
the constitution has not defined the expression ‘freedom of conscience’.[29]
Thus here too for definition one has to rely on the judgments of the Supreme
Court.
Accordingly, the term
‘freedom of conscience’ connotes the right of a person to entertain beliefs and
doctrines concerning matters which are regarded by him to be conducive to his
spiritual well-being. The freedom of conscience is the inner freedom of the
citizen to mould his own relation with God in any way he likes’.[30]
Article 25 guarantees “freedom of
conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular
religion. Hence, if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another
person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread
the tenets of his religion that would
impinge on the “freedom of conscience”, guaranteed to all the citizens of the
country alike'.[31]
One can, of course,
voluntarily adopt another religion, but ‘force, fraud, inducement or
allurement’ takes away the free consent (freedom of conscience) from the
individual’.[32]
The constitution gives full freedom to individuals ‘to develop inner life in
their own way and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience’.[33]
Freedom of religion
begins at ‘internal’ or conscience (psychological) level. And hence the
decision to accept or change over to a religion is personal in the first place.
Does India really provide for ‘freedom of conscience’ in the present situation?
Profess
When freedom of
conscience becomes articulate and expressed in outward form it is ‘to profess,
practice and propagate religion. Art.25 (1) guarantees freedom to profess
religion.[34]
It means ‘to state publicly one’s creed or faith’.[35]
It also means ‘to declare freely and openly one’s faith and belief’.[36] Further it means, ‘to avow publicly and to
make an open declaration of one’s belief. A declaration of one’s belief means,
it would be known to those whom it may interest.[37]
The constitution has
envisaged that the first level of freedom of religion is personal, internal or
at conscience level and the second stage of the freedom of religion is public
declaration of a person’s belief and faith. Every person who has decided in
his/her conscious to follow a particular religion has the freedom to publicly
declare his/her beliefs and faith.
Practice/
Religious Practice
The third stage of
the freedom of religion guaranteed in Indian constitution is ‘to practice’
one’s religion. It is outward expression of one’s inner conviction and public
profession. The expression ‘practice religion’ is complicated and has been
subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny. Here comes the issue of essential and
nonessential of religions; and religious and secular aspects of practices.
Art.25 (1) guarantees
a person freedom to ‘practice’ religion.[38] It means ‘the freedom to perform certain acts
in pursuance of the faith’[39],
‘religion, religious belief,[40]
and ‘practical expression in any manner’. In simple sense, ‘practice religion’
‘is concerned primarily with religious worship, ritual and observations’.[41]
These acts are
prescribed by religious order in which one believes and they are
‘as much a part of
religion as faith or belief in any particular doctrine’.[42]
These practices are subject to ‘State regulation imposed to secure order,
public health and morals of the people’.
The first criterion to consider
whether a religious practice is integral to or essential part of a religion,
that practice ‘must be regarded by the said religion as its essential and
integral part’. Secondly, whether the ‘community following the religion’
accepts such acts.[43]
Thirdly and mainly it has to be decided by the courts.[44]
In conflicting
situations, ‘the Court may have to enquire whether the practice in question is
religious in character and if it is whether it can be regarded as an integral
or essential part of the religion.’[45]
These are not to clearly distinguish between religion and religious practice,
but only to resolve conflicts.
Integral
In a case related to
a temple in UP the Supreme Court said ‘Right to manage temple is not an
integral part of religion. It can be regulated by law’.[46]
In Jammu and Kashmir,
in a case related to a Hindu temple, “the Court made distinction between
‘religious service’ and the person who performs service’. The performance of
the religious service according to the tenets, customs and usages prevalent in
a place of worship is an integral part of the religion’s faith and belief and
it cannot be regulated by the State. But the State has powers to regulate the
appointment of the priest and can fix his emoluments. The Government can also
abolish his customary share in the offerings to the deity.”[47]
Another significant
judgment was ‘a disposition towards making gift for charitable or religious
purpose may be a pious act of a person but the same cannot be said to be an
integral part of any religion’.[48]
‘Khursheed Ahmad Khan filed a petition against
the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to remove him from service as
Irrigation Supervisor for contracting a second marriage when his first marriage
was still in existence. Khan challenged
that it violated his right to freely practice his religion. The Court held that
‘what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice
which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not
integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the
State under Article 25’.[49]
Essential
In a significant case
the Supreme Court held that, ‘State can in exercise of its sovereign power
acquire places of worship like mosques, churches, temples etc’. ‘if it is
necessary for maintenance of law and order’. ‘While offer of prayer or worship
is a religious practice its offering at every location where such prayers can
be offered would not be an essential religious practice’, unless the right to
worship at a particular place is itself an integral part of that right’. A
mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and
Namaz (prayer) by Muslims may be offered anywhere, even in open’.[50]
“After the Babari
Mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 at Ayodhya, the Union Government
acquired the whole property surrounding the mosque. This was challenged by the
petitioners on the ground that it was violative of Arts. 25 and 26 of the
Constitution as they were deprived of their right to worship in the mosque but
Hindus were allowed to worship therein. The Court held the Act valid as it does
not interfere with the essential element of religion.”[51]
The Commissioner of
Police in Calcutta refused permission to the use of a loud-speaker five times a
day for calling the Azan (call for prayer) as several residents of the locality
complained against the practice’.[52]
The Calcutta High Court said, restrictions imposed by the State on the use of
microphones and loudspeakers at the time of Azan is not violative of right
under Art. 25. Azan is certainly an essential and integral part of Islam, but
use of microphone and loudspeakers are not an essential and integral part. Traditionally and according to the religious
order, Azen has to be given by the Imam or the person in charge of the mosques through
their own voice and this is sanctioned under the religious order.[53]
In the Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v.
K.K.R.M.C. Welfare Association, in KKR Nagar, Madhavaram ‘the Supreme Court has
held that in the exercise of the right to religious freedom under Arts. 25 and
26, no person can be allowed to create noise pollution or disturb the peace of
the others’. The custom of religious
prayer through the use of loudspeaker is not an essential element of any religion.[54]
It was also said, “no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by
disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through
voice-amplifiers or beating of drums.[55]
“One of the prescriptions of religious rites
introduced from the year 1966 for daily performance by an Ananda Margi is
Tandava dance of Lord Siva. This dance is to be performed with a human skull, a
small symbolic knife, a Trishul, a Lathi and a Damroo.”[56]
The commissioner of police prohibited such practice in public. The Court, after
going into the religious books and practices of the Ananda Margis, held that
tandava dance in public is not an essential part of Ananda Marga’.[57]
In a case related to
Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the sacrifice of cow on the Bakrid day was not an essential part of
Mohammedan religion and hence could be prohibited by State under clause (2) (a)
of Article 25’ though the practice was enjoined by the Koran. Art. 25 exempts
only the essential religious practices from State regulation.”[58]
Secular/Non-Secular
In the case of
national leaders, when calamity or tragedy overtakes them the State is
obligated to arrange for their funeral in a manner befitting their status and
in accordance with the pursuits of the particular religion to which the
departed personality belonged. The performance of such duty by the State can,
by no stretch of imagination, be characterized as non-secular activity.[59]
In judgment of far
reaching importance in the National
Anthem case, where three Jehova’s Witnesses children were expelled from a
school for refusing to sing the National Anthom, ‘the Supreme Court has held
that no person can be compelled to sing the National Anthem “if he has genuine,
conscientious religious objection.”[60] The court upheld the prohibition of the
religious order that prevented the children to sing the National Anthem.[61] Having delved deep into ‘religious practice’
let us move to another interesting aspect of freedom of religion.
Propagate
The third level of
religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution under Article 25 is to
propagate a religion. The original expression used by Ambedkar was ‘right to
preach and to convert’.[62]
Propagation is transmitting one’s religious conviction and practices (tenets)
to others[63]
for edification. It only means persuasion and exposition of one’s religion
without an element of coercion. The propaganda may be done by a person in his
individual capacity or on behalf of some church or institution’.[64]
The right to
propagate religion does not include the right to ‘insult the religion of other persons’.
Anyone who propagates the benefits of his religion is likely to extol his own
and, to some extent, dispute the truth and efficiency of another religion. Propagation of religion cannot otherwise be
carried on and within limits, regard being had to the law of blasphemy,
profanity, etc.[65] Only ‘the aggravated form of insult to
religion is penalized’ under IPC but ‘insult to religion offered unwittingly or
carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the
religious feeling of that class are covered under the freedom of expression’.[66]
Propagation does not
include ‘a right to forcible conversion’.[67]
Plainly, there is no fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own
religion. Hence legislation prohibiting conversion by force, inducement and
fraud to one’s own religion is not violative of Article 25 (1). In Rev.
Stainislaus v. state of M.P., the Court laid down that Article 25 (1) grants
only the right to convert another person to one’s own religion by an exposition
of its tenets.[68]
The appellant argued that right to ‘propagate’ one’s religion meant the right
to convert person to one’s own religion and was a fundamental right under Art.
25 (1) of the Constitution. Secondly, he argued Parliament alone had the power
to make the law and not the State Legislature. Rejecting
the contentions of the appellant the Supreme Court held that impugned Acts were
meant to avoid disturbances to the public order by prohibiting conversion from
one’s religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the
community.[69]
Public
Order, Morality and Health
These expressions
have wide connotation as they are not exactly defined in the article. Our
freedom of conscience, freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion can
no way disturb public order, morality and health. ‘Our history is witness to this’.[70] For
example, slaughter of cattle or indecent exposure one’s person in a public
place cannot be justified on plea of practice of religious rites. Of course,
“Morality in this context, has reference to that morality which the law has
concerned itself to maintain.”[71]
Likewise, in the name of religious practice, ‘untouchability or traffic in
human beings’ e.g., system of Devadasis (as prevalent in South India)
cannot be tolerated. The freedom to practice religion cannot affect the
exercise of the other freedoms under this part.[72]
Conversion by
prohibited means can lead to breach of public order.[73]
Prohibition of Tandava dance is done with the same spirit. On the one hand ‘the
right to take out religious processions through the public streets subject to
such directions as a magistrate may lawfully give is guaranteed by Art. 25, on
the other, the right to take a profession along the highway is not a
fundamental right and the Magistrate can impose restrictions if he apprehends a
breach of the peace.[74]
This is done to protect public order, morality and health.
In Bombay, under
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the Municipal Corporation had
ordered the demolition of some parts of the two mosques situated in main road
of Surat district of the State of Gujarat to widen the road. The Court held
that the acquisition of a religious place or a part thereof is not prohibited
by the Constitution and therefore can be acquired in the public interest for
widening the road. However, the court categorically suggested that before such
acquisition or demolition all other options are to be thoroughly examined.[75]
Graves in
unauthorized and illegal places can be shifted.[76] In U.P. Varanasi, two graves belonging to
Sunnis were in the vicinity of Shias.
The Supreme Court upheld that the shifting of two Sunni graves to avoid
clashes between two religious communities or sects does not affect religious
rights being in the interest of public order, though the Shariat Law is against
shifting of graves. Again “the ecclesiastical edict or right not to disturb an
interred corpse is not absolute as will be clear from Sec. 176 (3) of the
criminal Procedure Code which permits its exhumation for the purpose of crime detection.[77]
Having elaborately
analyzed the aspects of freedom of conscience, freedom to profess, practice and
propagate religion subject to public order, health, morality and the other
provisions of this part, let me take you through the areas in which States can
legislate laws and regulate religious practices.
Economic,
Financial, Political and Secular Activities Associated with Religious Practices
– Clause (2) (a)
Freedom to ‘practice
religion’ extends only to those activities which are essential to religion. It
does not cover secular activities connected with religion. ’The legislation
contemplated under Article 25 (2) (a) can modify even the personal law’.[78]
Article 25, clause 2 (a) saves the power of
the State to regulate or restrict secular activities associated with religious
practice. What is the dividing line between religious and secular activities is
difficult to decide and it is for the court to determine. But subject to that,
the religious denomination is entitled to lay down its rites and ceremonies’.[79]
In the case of determining whether a matter is religious or secular, ‘each case
must be judged by its own facts and circumstances’.[80]
For example, “Service of a priest is a secular activity and can be regulated by
the State under article 25 (2).”[81]
The religious
missions have freedom to spend their money as they deem necessary. The
Government is concerned, (i) to inquire how much foreign money has come in aid
to a foreign mission.; (ii) to see whether money is being used in a way which
may promote breach of public order, morality and health; (iii) to see whether
there has been any attempt forcibly or fraudulently to convert a person from
his own belief to another.
The Government also may initiate,
(i) an enquiry into the political activity associated with religion; (ii)
inquiry into the attitude of foreign missions towards Indians; (iii) inquiry
into social relations between Christians and non-Christians, (iv) inquiry into
the operations of foreign missions, particularly
to see whether such operations extend to areas largely populated by scheduled
Castes and the aborigines; and (v) inquiry into whether the pracharakas of any mission adopt methods
offending public order, health or morality.[82]
Providing
for Social Welfare and Reform
Under
clause (2) (b) of Art 25 the State is empowered to make laws for social welfare
and social reform. The State can also eradicate social practices and dogmas
which stand in the path of the country’s onward progress. Where there is
conflict between the need of social welfare and reform on the one hand and
religious practice on the other, religion must yield.[83] Therefore, a law enacted for introducing
social reform cannot be challenged as violating the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion.[84]
For example ‘polygamy
is not an essential part of the Hindu religion, therefore, it can be regulated
by law’.[85] A prohibition of the same by law does not
contravene the freedom of religion because providing for compulsory monogamy
and prohibiting bigamy is valid as a measure of social reform.[86]Further,
‘marriage is a social institution’.[87]
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 disqualifies
persons having more than two children from contesting election for the post of
Sarpanch and Panch in panchyat does not violate Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court held ‘the Muslim law permits marrying four women but does not
anywhere mandates it as a duty to perform four marriages. Such practices which
encourage bigamy or polygamy can be regulated by making law.’[88]
Under this sub-clause
the State is empowered to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of a
public character, to all classes and sections of Hindus’. But the State cannot
regulate the manner in which the worship of the deity is performed by the
authorized pujaris of the temple or
the hours and days on which the temple is to be kept open for darshan or puja for devotees. Similarly ‘the right of Sikhs to carry Kirpans is recognized as a religious
practice in Explanation 1 of article 25. ‘This does not mean that he can keep any
number of Kirpans’.[89] Therefore, legislation in the area of
personal laws cannot be challenged on the ground that it interferes with
religious freedom.[90]
Recollection of insights from Article
25 through an almost thorough discussion has helped obtain broader, but not
complete, understanding of freedom of religion in India within the frame work
of Indian constitution. Now it is possible to consider ‘diligent Christian
witness’.
Diligent
Christian Witness
The word ‘diligent’
broadly means industrious, meticulous, conscientious, attentive, careful, etc.
It has been deliberately chosen to convey that there is a need in India for the
Christians (Church) to labor hard with much prudence in the light of the
freedom of religion guaranteed under fundamental rights.
It is so because we
are faced with the challenge of our secular principles of non-discrimination on
religious grounds and religious neutrality of the State are under constant
threat and pressure from communal ideologies that are lurking behind political
organizations. There is a possible and legitimate apprehension that efforts are
on to replace non discrimination and neutrality of the State with religious
discrimination and partiality. Noted writer Nayantara Sahgal said ‘people were
being killed for not agreeing with the ruling ideology’ and ‘in this rising
tide of hatred, India is being unmade, being destroyed’.[91]
Our witness can become part of rebuilding and remaking India.
The secular State of
ours cannot fail providing same constitutional protection to all the religions
in India. She is expected to fight
‘religious intolerance’ among different religions. She is beautiful and
fascinating as long as not wedded to ‘identify with one religion’. However, the
concern for our witness is that the government might consciously protect one
religion, identify with one religion and become intolerant to other religions.
That is why ‘Nayantara Sahgal has returned the prestigious Sahitya Akasemi
Award in protest against what she called “vanishing space” for diversity’.[92]
Can Christian witness ignore these concerns?
It is too early but
often we are overwhelmed, because of the new developments around us, to
question the sincerity of the government to maintain the credibility of the
principles of secularism. President Pranab Mukherjee said ‘India’s core
civilisational values of diversity, tolerance, and plurality have kept it
united for centuries and that cannot be wasted’.[93]
These principles are bedrock to our witness at all times and at all situations.
To continue this blessed privilege we should be vigilantly diligent and our
witness too should be relevant. It is said, “rarely do foundational threats to
Constitutions come as sudden events, they often build up as liberties and
freedoms are incrementally compromised.”[94] We
have to raise contextual voice that can synchronies with other similar voices.
The identification of
‘positive secularism’ within the frame work of Indian Constitution is
encouraging. It implies conscious attempt to coexist with each other
(religions). It is hard to find any such
effort from the power centers. Rather, what we see is a clear effort to exclude
the other irrespective of their potentials and contributions towards nation
building and transformation. These naïve signs call for continuous struggle and
prudent witnessing. Our sustained engagement in dialogue is a fruitful
consideration.
Although the Supreme
Court has time and again attempted a broader and inclusive definition of
religion we are to be conscious of the jurisdiction of courts in deciding
essential, integral and non-secular aspects of religion. Only worrying concern
is whether the same yard stick and speed is applied for all the religious
practices in India. Referring to the many recent killings (rationalists, etc.)
it is said “in all these cases, justice drags its feet. The Prime Minister
remains silent on this reign of terror.”[95]
What is law to one religion should become law to all the religions, including
Christian.
Freedom of conscience is expected to
be free from influence. The reality is that psychological threats are created.
It prevents from freely deciding for oneself without coercion. Often
terrorizing and fake circumstances are engineered to influence people’s
conscience. There is a tendency to dictate what an Indian should say, respect,
and practice. Failure to do so is threatened with dare consequence of
exclusion. Ensuring our careful attention to such developments can be part of
our witness.
Subjects that are
considered non essential, non-integral and secular aspects of religion have to
be carefully handled to eliminate artificial doubts about our commitment and
contributions to the constitution and Nation.
It is healthy that courts can
interfere in ‘freedom of religion’ and regulate matters when abuse is
apprehended. If partisan consideration is perceived, we have a responsibility,
as a part of our witness, to make available such data to the public.
States’ power to legitimately
acquire or alter religious structures for the purpose of public order and
social welfare has to be complied with. The advice that such acts should be the
final consideration is appreciable. Doubt is whether property, structures and
practices of numerically powerful experience similar situation. Why could not
an idol illegally place in a mosque removed and the situation is allowed to
spiral up leading to constant tension while even Muslim and Christian tombs can
be exhumed or shifted. We may need to
show our solidarity, as a part of our witnessing, towards acceptable solutions.
It is true that “the exercise of our
rights should not infringe the rights of others.”[96]
But a seeming
presumption is that Muslim’s Azan (five times a day) and Christian prayers with
loud music are restricted while the noise pollution and public nuisance caused
all through the year are not regulated by the States. The increasing number of
bans on certain practices and the newer presentation of Hinduism in contrast to
British, Nehru and Indian intellectuals are worrying. It is unheard in the
recent past that communal programs and social evils of numerically powerful are
banned in India. Our plans of witness can include some lawful awareness
programs.
Leave alone the apprehensions and make clear
that fixing a grave or religious structure in disputed places is not the
alternative to law abiding. Being law abiding citizens and avoiding
unreasonable conflicts can be a form of witness. Hence it is said “if we seek
justice from the State and the law, we have a moral obligation to act with
justice within our churches, communities and families.”[97]
The State honor accorded to public
personalities in accordance with their particular religious rites cannot
uncharitably accused as non-secular. Even the court had respected the religious
sentiments of people who did not participate in the singing of national anthem.
It is to be respected that although force, fraud and allurement or inducement
is not accepted in the process of propagation (religious mobility), exposition
of one’s religious tenets and disputing one’s faith with others without causing
insult is accepted. In spite of freedom of religion Acts being legislated, we
may work out our diligent witness keeping these opportunities in mind.
Even
when our personal laws are intervened, our witness can be focused and
supportive to the health of the society (social welfare) at large with the
responsibility that state can regulate our financial, political and secular
activities.
Conclusions
To conclude, “hatred
begets hatred. In the modern world, there is no place for chauvinism. How could
anyone forget the noble contribution of the Christian Missionaries as pioneers
in the field of education and Medicare extending to the remote interiors of
tribal areas? The role of the Christian in presenting the image of a united and
integrated India cannot be lost of.”[98]
No religion seems to be
non-missionary. Love your enemy has no parallel nor ‘do unto others what you
would expect them to do for you’ found any alternative. Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s, for diligent
witness.
Religion and Dialogue
[14]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
7th ed. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1991), 274.
[1]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
6th ed. (Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co., 2005), 64.
[2]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 4th ed. (Delhi: Delhi Law House, 2002), 800.
[3]
D.C. Ahir, Dr. Ambedkar and Indian
Constitution, 2nd ed. (Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1997), 90.
[4]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
2nd ed. ( Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 1992), 225.
[5] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. (Bombay: N.M.
Tripathi Private LTD, 1983), 526.
[6]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 47th ed. (Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2010), 323.
[7]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 11th ed. 9 (New Delhi: Orient Publishing company, 2014), 494.
[8]
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,
526.
[9]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj, ed., Rights
& Responsibilities of the Minorities (Bangalore:
Theological Book Trust,
1999), 55-58.
[10]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 323-24. [AIR 1994 SC 1918]
[11]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj, 55.
[12]
Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution
of India, 19th ed. (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company, 2003),114-15.
[13]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 481.
[15]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 323.
[16]
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,
526.
[17]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj, 57.
[18]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 323. [AIR 1994 SC 1918]
[19]
Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the
Constitution of India, 116.
[20]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.
[21]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India,) 325.
[22]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The Constitution
of India (Madras: The Madras Law Journal Office, 1970),
259.
[23]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 260.
[24]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
63.
[25]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 259.
[26]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 493.
[27]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 325.
[28]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 259.
[29]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.
[30]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
274- 75. [AIR 1954 SC 388: 1954 SCR 1055]
[31]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 323-26.
[32]
Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the
Constitution of India, 117.
[33]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj, 55.
[34]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 325.
[35]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.
[36]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 325.
[37]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 260.
[38]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 325.
[39]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.
[40]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 260.
[41]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
64.
[42]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
275.
[43]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 261.
[44]
V. N. Shukla, The Constitution of India, 8th ed. (Lucknow: Eastern
Book Company, 1990), 162.
[45]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 261.
[46]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
65.
[47]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 330. [Bhuri v. State of
J.& K., AIR 1997 SC 1711]
[48]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
62. [John Vallamattom v. Union of India,
AIR 2003 SC2902: (2003) 6 SCC 611: (2003) 3
KLT 66.]
[49]
“Right to Religion not Above Public Morality: SC,” The Hindu (Vijayawada) 10 February 2015, 10.
[50]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 328.[ (1994) 6 SCC 360.]
[51]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 328.[( 1994) 6 SCC 360.]
[52]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 261.
[53]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 329. [AIR 1999 Cal 15.]
[54]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 329-30.
[55]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
64.[ Church of God (Full Gospel) in India
v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773: (2000) 7 SCC 282:
2000 SCC (cri) 1350.]
[56]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
276.
[57]
V. N. Shukla, The Constitution of India, 162. [(1984) 4 SCC 522.]
[58]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 335- 36. [ AIR 1958 SC 731.]
[59]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 787.
[60]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 326.[ Bajoe Emmanual v. State of Kerala, (1984)JSCC
615.], [three children]
[61]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj,59.
[62]
D.C. Ahir, Dr. Ambedkar and Indian
Constitution, 83.
[63]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.
[64]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
275.
[65]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 262.
[66]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 482.
[67]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
64.
[68]
T.K. Tope, Constitutional Law of India,
225.[Stainislaus v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908: (1977) 1 SCC 677:1977 Cri LJ
551.]
[69]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India,
333. [ AIR 1977 SC 908.]
[70]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 479.
[71]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 791.
[72]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 333.
[73]
V.D. Mahajan, Constitutional Law of India,
276.
[74]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 261.
[75]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 329. [AIR 1998 Guj. 234.]
[76]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 799.
[77]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 334-35.
[78]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 795.
[79]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
62-63.
[80]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 335.
[81]
P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India,
62. (Bhuri Nath v. Stae of jammu &
Kashmir, AIR 1997 SC 1711: (1997 2 SCC 745.)
[82]
Chaudhari & Chaturvedi, Law of
Fundamental Rights, 792.
[83]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 337.[ AIR 1953 Bom 84.]
[84]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 262.
[85]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 337.[ AIR 1953 Bom 84.]
[86]
The Madras Law Journal Office, The
Constitution of India, 260-63.
[87]
P.K. Majumdar & R. P. Kataria, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 474.
[88]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 335. [ AIR 2003 SC 3057.]
[89]
J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of
India, 337-38. [Venkataramanu Devaru
v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255., Vaguapurushcdji v. Muldas, AIR 1966 SC
1119.]
[91]
Smriti Kak Ramachandran & Anuradha Raman, “Nayantara Sahgal Protests Dadri
Lynching, Returns Akademi Award,” The Hindu (Vijayawada) 7 October 2015,
1.
[92]
Smriti Kak Ramachandran & Anuradha Raman, 1.
[93]Smita
Gupta, Pranab Warns against Letting Go of India’s core Values,” The Hindu (Vijayawada), 8 October 2015, 1.
[94]
Anup Surendranath, Beefed-up Curbs, Feeble
Resistance,” The Hindu (Vijayawada)
10 October 2015, 10.
[95]
Smriti Kak Ramachandran & Anuradha Raman, 1.
[96]VK
Kuriakose, “Religious Pollution,” Indian
Currents XXVII/38 (21-27 September, 2015): 39.
[97]
Sarasu Esther Thomas, Law for Christians
in contemporary India (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2014), 150.
[98]
Charles Prabakar and Paul Mohan Raj, 61.
Comments
Post a Comment